| Show i Statement of Utah Taxpayer Misleading Iron County readers of the Utah I Tax Payer became very much alarmed alarm alarm- ed when it was discovered that the the per capita school cots costs in this District forthe for the year 29 1928 were compared com corn pared to the State average of while these figures as issued in in the Tax Payer are accurate they are misleading mis mis- leading unless understood by the readers reader It is the purpose of this article article ar ar- tide to give out such Information aswill as aswill will help the tax payers In this District to Interpret these figures In 24 1923 the total per capita cost coat of schools In Iron County was as against the State Average of In 25 1924 Iron County spent per capita as against In the State IU In T. T Tn I Iron y TrAn I f.- f. oun span n nf t WM Vr w-v w W v. v VM v q B v. v u per capita as against In Inthe inthe the State In 27 1926 Iron County spent as against in the State In 28 1927 Iron County spent per capita copita as against in inthe Inthe inthe the State In 1928 29 while the cost as represented In the books was In Iron County as against the State i average average of this cost in In Iron Iron I County represents the total amount of money that went through the books boob I of the Iron County School Board for new buildings at Cedar City Parowan and New Castle In other words whenever any District does a large amount of building in one year ear the per capita cost COlt will show extremely I high blah Ordinarily In figuring school 1 pasts costs capital outlay is omitted from froan I the cost because it is in a sen sense tense e a cupI dup dup- I with debt service which is an item showing the actual payment of I capital outlay over a period of years ean If the capital outlay costs costa were subtracted sub sub- aul from the total amount ex expended expended ex ex- I in 29 1928 the per capita costI cost costIn costin I in Iron County would be compared compared com com- i I pared with the State average of which includes In n Iron Iran C r of the the- building program al already already al al- ready listed In the capital outlay item which went to make up the total of per pee capita outlay Over a period of six years jears Iron County averaged 35 above the I State average for total per capita I posts oats Treating the capital outlay of 9 29 1928 as an expenditure to be beL L Continued on Page Pale 8 S STA STATEMENT TE OF UT UTAH All TAXPAYER MISLEADING l Continued From Page 1 charged against seven years as provided provid- provid ed In the building program it is obvious obvious obvious ob ob- that the per capita costs of the unusual past year were In no sense These figures are Interesting when It is understood that Iron County's ability to pay judging from the as assessed as- as 1 Is essed valuation per school child just slightly above the average of the State This means that If Iron County's County'S County's Coun Coun- tys ty's per capita cost is slightly above the average In the State which 1 Is true over a period of six years there need be no serious worry on the par part of the tax payers of Iron County |
