Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1921-02-18

81 ,.oted rs had 1t Deen IN operation
1919 in Whitman county, the
,olo county being operated as a
single taxing unit.
We have lao one-room rural
.toois with a total valuation of
,gs12O,372. These rural districts
soid s153,94S.43 special school tax.
Cost Cast of operating these schools was
u276S.51. Total amount paid out
/, these 140 schools was $751;
AK 46. Valuation of the whole
sounty $45,67O,7O9. Total special
tov for whole county $433,974.46.
rate of 1902 mills on the dollar
Of valuation
4 Now. taking a 9.502 mill rate on
H612O.372 (the rural districts val
nation), we have $25O,195.77 We
will consider this tax alone. Then our
tlO rural districts would pay almost
100000 more into the common
+ hnd than it cost us to operate our
L ,4O schools. In other words, in
/ 1919 each rural district on the aver
L age would have paid $500 more into
L This one fund (the special school
tax fund.-, than it cost to run its
\ school These lao rural districts
f lyaluation $26,120,372), also paid
l into the county school fund $751;
1 1885 (2.2119 mill rate on S26,
I 12O.372), and into the state school
1fund $59,259.26 (2.2687 mill Fate on
L s26,120,372). So, in 1919, had the
county unit system been in opera
/ ton, with no increased state fund,
L these lao rural districts would have
paid in taxes: Special school tax
L s25O,19577 plus county school fund
tax $57,775.65 plus state school fund
tax $59,259.26; making total Of
s367,230.68. Our total cost thai
year in these lao rural school dis
tricts was 1851, 945.46. So, had we
merely had the county unit system
then, with no increased revenue, our
14O rural districts would have paid
Z s215,2S5.22 more than it cost us to
operate our 40 schools.
But the proposed code calls for a
$50 state fund per census child in
stead of $40 state fund per census
child as we had in 1919. 1t might
seem that this would increase our
state fund tax by only three times.
E but part of the $40 state fund raised
L in 1919 was derived from the income
of our permanent school fund and
other sources. So in order to raise
u $50 per census child for the state
fund it will require at least four
times the amount we raised by tax
alton in 1919.
Il Educators admit frankly that we
y in the county school district can not
A expect to get off with less than a
lV-mill levy if the proposed code
goes through, because they expect to
absorb in increased salaries over
1919 all the state increased revenue
over 1919. Indeed, we farmers ex-
pect to be tapped for the full Is
NILS every year. Besides, our val
uatlon has been raised, the assessor
'ells US, 20 to 40 per cent. So our
i4V rural school districts will, for
taxation purposes, have a valuation
NOT OF S26,120,372, but of more than
sSS'OOO,O00. It matters little when
F." comes to taxes that our land is
assessed for far more than we can
sell 1t for at the present time.
Let us now analyze what we farm
siS are up against for next year and
succeeding years, if this code goes
through as it now is.
a IO-mill tax means one per cent
u our valuation of over SIS, 900, 900
VI S5oO,OOO. To this add the county
sVnool fund tax $57,775.65, then add
.Our times what we paid in 1919 for
Oai state school fund tax CA X $751;
D''=e) $237037.04. We have a to-
"a Oh $644,812.69! Let me repeat
~. Ia' the cost of operating these 14O
,uoois Tor the year ending June 80,
10 as shown by the county audi
report, was $143,76S.51. Over
naii million dollar steal under the
suise OF education,
| II passed, each year this new
Hool code will on the average soak
,n Oh our one-room rural dis
'''S more than $500 after deduct
-. rs the cost of operating each of
aese schools at the same rate as for
4e year ending June 80, 1919. This
.ne result of careful calculations
% thoughtful conclusions.
we farmers are having a hard
e Oh 1t now. Nearly every one