The Raymer enterprise., 1920-04-08
FIGURES JUSTIFY
COUNTY DIVISION

This week we present seme tables
showing the cost OF county govern
ment for all the sS plains counties
OF the state, at least in the eastern
part Of the state.
II you have examined table No. /.
published last week. you noticed that
only few CT the counties support a
county high school. and that where
they do the tax for that purpose is a
good part of the total county tax.
We have 10 county high school in
Weld county. and would have no use
for one in the new county. so we may
eliminate that item in making. COM
PARSONS. We Of this section get no
support oct Of taxation for our lit
tie fairs, and sgoh taxes can be elm
mated in making comparisons.
The two funds that We all have In
common and that go to make up the
bulk OF the taxes Of all ccuntiese and
the only two funds that we would
need to maintain, are the Road and
Bridge Fund, and the County Fund,
including the Poor and Contingent
Fund.
Table Nc. . shows the tax levy and
the total tax for each of these coun-
ties fof the last five years for the
Road and Bridge Fund Of all Of the
% eastern counties Of the state 1t
is not few selected conuties to es-
tablish case. but takes all of the
counties east OF the mountains in
the entire state.
You will notice by some amounts
a star ~. In these cases the Road
Fund and the County Fund have not
been separated. but both expenses
have been met out Ct the same fund.
In these cases the same amount will
appear for the same year In those
counties In both table 3 and 4.
Table Q, shows the County Fund.
Table 4 shows the two tables ad-
ded together.
Tables 2 and are taken from the
Colorado Tax Commission reports,
table Is cohpied by adding those
two tables.
II the time were not 80 short, we
would hold these tables aother week
to give us more time to go over the
figures and compare SO as to be more
certain that there were no mistakes.
We have spent lot Of time on them
as it Is, and we feel quite confident
that no bad errors have escaped us,
especially In tables 2 and 8. As No.
4 is only matter Of computation in
combining the other two, our readers
can verify the correctness Of this ta-
BILE 4 for themselves
A glance at the Road Fund table
is sufficient to show that the Weld
county road levy is one OF the high
est. Logan, Morgan and Otero are
the only counties that average higher
than Weld county, and they all have
expensive bridges to maintain II
We take counties where they have no
rivers and but few bridges. the levy
runs from less than a mill to two
mills. We have shown in previous
articles that we are not receiving
more. than q mill expenditure on our
roads, without taking into account
our share Of the auto tax and what
we might reasonably expect from
the State Highway Fund. We have
stated that the bridge situation was
such that we faced the probability
Of either a tremendous tax or a bond
issue OF possibly as high as a million
dollars for the purpose Of building
bridges. We have not seen the arti
cles. but we are told that two papers
in the southern part Of the county
are advocating two million dollar
bond issue. =
II the bond was 5 per cent bond.
the annual interest charge would be
500, 10000, or nearly one-third Of
our present road tax for interest.
1t would mean that our road levy
with the interest on the bonds would