Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1912-10-08
To the Taxpayers
Of Jefferson County.

OF JEFFERSON AOunty'
In-as-much as there will be submit
ted to the voters of the County at the
election in November the question as
to whether bonds to the amount OF
Fifty Thousand dollars be issued for
the purpose of building 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 situa-
| ton ofthe 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 numerous
petitions having been presented to us
| for that purpose. The indebtedne $
of the county at present amounts to
One Hundred and Seventy Two
Thousand, Six Hundred dollars, evil
denced by bonds, as follows, viz -
| $24,60000 bearing per cent inter
est, and $148,000.00 bearing 4 pei
cent, the interest thereon consequent.
ly amounting to H,150.00 annually
The per cent bonds will be due in
1921, and provision for payment must
be made at or before that time. The
highest levy that we can at present
make for County purposes, including
the road levy, is IS Is cents on each
$4,000 worth of property, and ouI
present levy being IS cents, it will be
seen that we have practically reached
the limit. On account of the levy fol
roads and schools varying somewhat
in the different districts, the whole
rate of taxation is not exactly uni
form for the County, for instance, the
total for all purposes, except munich.
pal tax in the towns, is as follows
| Charles Town Dist, IS IL cts. on $10t
Kabletown District 68 IL cts. on $10(
Middleway District " 2-3 cts. on $10(
Shepherdstown 30 2-3 cts. on $10(
Harpers Ferry 98 IL cts. on SLOT
an average of about 81 cents for the
County. With our present levy FOL
county purposes, we have heretofore
been able to meet all the expenses o.
County Government, and occasional
ly pay off some of our bonded in.
ldebtedness, but should this expense
continue to increase in the same ratio
| in the future as it has forthe last two
years we will soon have no surpIu:
unless there should be material in
crease in the assessed valuation O.
the property in the County, which
hardly seems likely, as most person
as far as we know, think their prop
erty is assessed at sufficiently higl
figure now, and the valuation of thu
property of corporations is bein,
gradually reduced, the reduction TO
this year amounting to $147 100000. !
is evident that should the proposition
to increase the indebtedness of thu
County be endorsed by the voter
thereof, our income must be increas
ed by an amount sufficient to pay in
lterest thereon, and create SINKING
fund for its payment at maturity, a
the law requires. Just how this cal
be done is not altogether apparen
under existing conditions. AS far a
we can see we have but little, if any
prospect of any material increase il
our income from taxation in the nea
future, from the fact that our levy TO
County purposes is about as high a
we dare make it, and we have NJ
grounds for expecting any consider
liable increase in the valuation of tn
property of the County for the pur
pose of taxation, hence it would ap
pear to be well nigh impossible t
meet any considerable increase in GU
expense account, except by retrench
ment in some direction. Now, as
matter of fact, large portion of tn
expense incident to County Govern
ment is fixed by Statute, and conse
quently beyond our control so
would seem to be impossible to Jesse
our expense, otherwise than by ceas
| ing to pay any of our present indebt
edness, or make less appropriation fo
road purposes. Whether the buildin
of the proposed bridge is of suffi
Icient importance to justify a resort
either expedient, is for the voters
determine. We make the aboy
statement for the sole purpose {
showing the exact financial status c
the County, to the end that all VIII
are sufficiently interested to perus
| il may understand the situation thu
confronts us. We are not oppose
to public improvements, essential
! the public welfare, and when we hav
/ or are likely to have, the means Z
our disposal to make them. We hay
no doubt that one or more bridge
across the Shenandoah River woul
be a matter of some convenience
persons living, or owning property G
the East side of the river, but whetl
er or not as a result there would |
any material increase in the valuatie
of the property of the County, is
question about which there will Xix
Iy be different opinions. The que
e ton that more particularly confroa
. the tax payers of the County. it seen
TO us, is whether the building of Il
proposed bridge is of sufficient il
portance to justify so large an add
ton to the debt we already owe, al
bear in mind that this debt, contrae
ed more than forty years ago, b
cost the taxpayers fthe county nes
.. ", or quite, half million dollars
interest charges alone, with more tn
!, two-thirds of the original amount ST
- TIE COUNTY COTJRT