The Delta independent. [volume] (Delta, Colo.) 1886-19??, 1916-03-31
To the Taxpayers League and the

u tHt dS payers League anu eAS
Taxpayers in District No. L:
We, the undersigned committee ap-
pointed by your league to make reply
to the article published in the Delta
Independent of March "a, 1916, under
the head of School Tax Facts Con-
cerning School District No. u beg to
report as follows:
First: That we are treating the ar
ticle for what it purports to be. name
ly: facts compiled by the board of
directors of this district for the care
full study of every one interested in
our schools, and we cannot but con-
Glide that the article is misleading
and intended to mislead the taxpay
ers of our district with reference to
the first line of figures, to-wit: 1913
special levy 9 mills. s40,01S.96." Re
garding this, we will state that the
levy for the year 1913 was not nine
mills, but was 7.95 mills, and that this
same error was made in a publication
in your paper a short time ago, and
the attention of the board was called
to this fact at their meeting at the
school building, where the full board
was present. and just why they should
again publish this error, We cannot
explain.
Second: With reference to their
article under Decrease in three years
s6633.96'', we will state that, from the
levy of 1913. an amount of about
100000 more was collected than was
ever collected in any other year in the
history of the district and that all of
the amount collected was not used for
operation and maintenance of schools,
but 100000 in bonds were paid and
taken up. and s19SS.25 was expended
in permanent improvements in the
building. We are also advised that
the outstanding warrant Indebtedness
was decreased materially during that
year. Therefore, We find that at least
100000 of the s40.O00.00 collected
other purposes than maintenance and
operation: and we cannot understand
why their statement is based upon
the amount of 100000 when not
more than s34. 100000 was used in the
operation of schools.
Third: Under the head of Total
Enrolment of Grades, Years 1913,
1914, 1896 pupils; years 1s14-1915,
1858 pupils; years 1915-1916, 1894
pupils; decrease in total enrolment
1873 per cent. Decrease in taxes 16.5
per cent" In answer to this, we will
state that their figures are incorrect
and that the percentage of decrease in
total enrolment is practically II per
cent; and that II they had based their
percentage of decrease upon the
amount they spent in the operation of
schools. the chances are that. instead
of decrease, they would have shown
a material increase.
Fourth: Under their statement,
Some comparisons, School levy for
1915" they cite Delta, Hotchkiss, Pa
onia, Cedaredge, Crawford and
Eckert. This. too. is unfair to com
pare the Delta levy with other
districts which are all smaller than
ours, and under Comparison of Sal
aries" to compare Delta with cities
the size of Loveland. Ouray. Grand
Junction. Sterling. Telluride. Mont
rose. Salida and Monte Vista. With
two exceptions. all are larger than the
city of Delta Census of 1870, the two
exceptions being Ouray and Telluride.
which are strictly mountain and min
ing cities. where salaries are always
higher. why not reverse the above
and compare the salaries with Eckert
and Cedaredge and the levies with
larger cities. 1t is poor rule that
only works one way.
Now. Mr.. Taxpayer (and when we
say this. we refer to the farmer or
stockgrower who is in District No. 1,
but outside of the corporate limits of
the city of Delta) we beg to compare
the figures a little farther and to i'm
press upon you that this year 53 per
cent OF your total taxes are school
taxes. We will also state to you that
IL your school board had gone back
several years farther. for instance. to
the year 1909. in which year the rec
ords show that there we're only thirty
eight less pupils attending school than
there are in the year 1916. or at the
present time. and that during the year
1909 the revenues collected were
s19,22S.o5. or $14,15695 less than in
1915. Does this show decrease? In
other words. why did not the school