Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1912-10-17
To the Taxpayers of Jefferson County.

November the question as TO whether
bonds to the amount of fifty thousand
dollars be issued for the purpose OF build
ing a bridge across the Shenandoah river
at a point known as "The Bloomery,"
we believe it would be well TO issue a
statement showing the financial situation
OF the county.
In the first place, We wish to state that
the project of building bridge as above
stated was not primarily suggested by
the court, but is due to the fact of numer-
GUS petitions having been presented to us
for that purpose.
The Indebtedness ofthe county at pres
emf amounts TO one hundred and seventy
two thousand six hundred dollars, evil
denced by bonds, as follows, viz :-24,-
10000 bearing per cent interest, and
$l4S, 10000 bearing 4per cent; the inter-
est thereon consequently amounting to
$4,000 annually. The 5per cent bonds
will be due in 1921, andiprovision for pay
ment must be made at or before the time.
The highest levy that we can at present
make for county purposes, including the
road levy, is As 2-5 cents on each $4,000
worth of property, and our present levy
being as cents, it will be seen that we
have practically reached the limit. On
account of the levy for roads and schools
varyingsomewhat in the different districts,
the whole rate OF taxation is not exactly
uniform for the county for instance, the
total for all purposes, except municipal
tax in the towns, is as follows:
Charles Town District, So l-2 cts. on 500
Kabletown L" 68 l-2 cts. on 500
Middleway 1928 cts. on 500
Shepherdstown 1923 cts. on 500
Harper's Ferry " 9S ID cts. on 500
An average OF about 81 cents for the coun-
ty. With our present levy for county
purposes, we have heretofore been able
to meet all the expenses of county gov
eminent, and occasionally pay off some
of our bonded Indebtedness but should
this expense continue to increase in the
same ratio in the future as it has for the
last two years, we will soon have no sur
plus, unless there should be material
increase in the assessed valuation OF the
property in the county, which hardly
seems likely, as most persons, as far as
we know, think their property is assessed
at a sufficiently high figure now, and the
valuation of the property OF corporations
is being gradually reduced, the reduction
for this year amounting TO $l47, 10000.
1t is evident that should the proposition
TO increase the Indebtedness OF the coun-
ty be endorsed by the voters thereof. our
income must be increased by an amount
sufficient to pay interest thereon, and
create sinking fund for its payment at
maturity, as the law requires. Just how
this can be done is not altogether appar-
emf under existing conditions. AS far as
we can see, we have but little, if any,
prospect OF any material increase in our
income from taxation in the near future,
from the fact that our levy for county
purposes is about as high as we dare
make it, and we have no grounds for ex-
pecting any constable increase in the
valuation of the property of the county
for the purpose OF taxation hence IT
would appear to be we'll nigh impossible
to meet any considerable increase in our
expense account. except by retrenchment
in some direction.
Now, as matter OF fact, alarge portion
of the expense incident 10 county govern
ment is fixed by statute, and consequent
ly beyond our control, so it would seem
to be impossible TO lessen our expense
otherwise than by ceasing TO pay any OF
our present Indebtedness, or make less
appropriation for road purposes. Wheth-
er the building Of the proposed bridge is
of sufficient importance to justify aresort
to either expedient, is for the voters to
determine.
We make the above statement for the
sole purpose of showing the exact imam
cial status of the county, to the end that
al who are sufficiently interested to pc
ruse il may understand the situation that
confronts us. We are not opposed TO
public improvement essential to the pub
lie welfare, and when we have, or are
likely to have, the means at our disposal
to make them. We have no doubt that
one or more bridges across the Shenan-
doah river would be matter OF some
convenience to persons living, or owning
property, on the east side of the river,
but whether or not as result there would
be any material increase in the valuation
of the property of the county, iSa question
about which there will likely be different
opinions.
The question that more particularly
confronts the taxpayers OF the county, it
seems to us, is whether the building OF
the proposed bridge is of sufficient i'm
portance to justify so large an addition to
the debt we already owe; and bear in
mind that this debt, contracted more than
forty yeas agc, has cost the taxpayers OF
the county nearly, or quite, half million
dollars in interest charges alone, with
more than two-thirds of the original
amount still unpaid.
THE COUNTY COURT
of Jefferson County,
By Iohn G. Burns, President.