The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1923-03-27
HIGH LEVY To
SURELY FOLLOW
|F BONDS FAIL
Henry Beck Cites Idaho
Statutes to Show that
s1.OO Assessment on
slOO Is Certain.

I'D issue Of 100000 simply means
49,, the county levy will be increased
.sim for each 500 assessed valuation
Ill county warrant Indebtedness Is
..;oed ont. according to Henry Beck.
.h,;,man Of the board OF county conf
u;ss;oners. Attracted by an editorial
: the Friday issue of The Tribune,
Mr. Beck pointed out that Idaho stat
r,es would not permit spreading a
warrant redemption over number of
years that the maximum levy of Sl.00
oer 500 OF assessed property valua-
,on must be made il the total warrant
indebtedness of the county is large
enough that this levy is required. Mr..
Beck in stating the position OF the
county commissioners. cited Chapter
32l7 of the compiled civil code OF the
state which reads as follows:
Upon the same property and
for the same year that the said
board must levy a tax for the re-
demption of outstanding county
warrants issued prior to the sec
ond Monday OF April OF each year,
10 be collected and paid into the
county treasury and apportioned
10 the county warrant redemption
fund. which levy must be sufficient
for the redemption of all out
af,f
the second Monday OF April in the
succeeding year unless the
amount OF such outstanding war
rants exceeds the amount that
would be raised by levy of lOO
cents on each 500 of such as
sessed valuation, in which case the
board must annually levy tax of
100 cents on each Sl00 on such
assessed valuation for the re-
demption of such outstanding war
rants.
II this assessment were to be made
and all taxes were paid. the entire
county warrant indebtedness could be
retired in two years, Mr.. Beck has
found. In fact. the second year would
find the debt so reduced that only a
20 cent levy would be necessary II all
taxes were paid. That there would
be little possibility of such a reduc-
ton is the opinion of Mr.. Beck, be-
cause OF the large number of delin-
quencies.
Mr. Beck and the board of commits /
sioners hold the opinion that a penalty I
clause was added by the recent legis-
lature to the statute quoted above
which will make it doubly necessary /
for the board to levy the Sl.0O re-
demption tax unless the proposed
bonds carry. However, efforts to OBJ
tain the new law proved unavailing
as yet.
The question as to whether or not |
county current expense warrants, aside
from bridge and road warrants, can be
refunded with a bond issue, is occu-
pying the commissioners at present
Persons who have investigated the
matter believe that Idaho laws make |
no provision for such a refunding |
program. There is no question OF the
legality OF road and bridge bonds to
'upplant outstanding warrants in those
departments but the current expense
und seems to be a different matter
At present the commissioners are OBJ
aiming opinions from eminent bond
attorneys in the east on this question.
With a view of hcadig off any pos
'Oility of mistake on this matter, the
bond issue has been divided into two
'ecuons for submission to the public
It the election April 20. One proposal
elates to refunding the road and
'ndge warrants, the other relates 10
he current expense Indebtedness