A financial survey of Yavapai County

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Hickerson, Carl Wendell, 1900-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 25/04/2021 17:46:38

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/551727

A FINANCIAL SURVEY OF YAVAPAI COUNTY

byCarl Hickerson

A Thesissubmitted to the faculty of the

Department of Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Graduate College University of Arizona

1 9 3 8

Approvec

, ii

3/

TABLE OF CONTENTSChapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION................................ 1Early Schools Of Yavapai County,.Topography Of Yavapai County....Climate.........................Industries......................Federal Interests...............Population And Population CentersGenesis Of This Study.................... 15Object Of This Study..................... 17Sources Of Data.......................... 17Limitations Of The Field................. 18Related Studies.......................... 19

II. EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF YAVAPAI COUNTY. .. 23Legal Basis Of The State School System.... 23 Relationship Of County and State Systems.. 26Financial Administration................. 30School Population......................... 32Districts And I’e-aohers * . .................. 35Transportation Of High School Students.... 37 Men And Aomen Teachers In The County...... 38

III. PROPERTY IN Y -V-.PAI COUNTY AND ITS EDUCA­TIONAL LOAD.............................. 42Exemptions..................... 43Valuations Per School Child in CertainDistricts............ 46

Variations In Health Among Districts OfThe County............................. 51

IV. ASSESSMENTS AND ASSESSMENT TREND IN YAVAPAICOUNTY................................... 53The Assessment Of Property............... 53True And Assessed Valuations............. 53Weaknesses Of The System................. 57Assessed Valuations Of Yavapai County

1912-1937.............................. 59Assessments For Different Classes of

Property............................... 62The Work of the First Tax Commission...... 64Fluctuating Assessment Of The Mines....... 66Methods Used In Assessing The Mines....... 68

1 &

H tO ̂ lO tO O)

ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)Chapter Page

V. SCHOOL REVENUE................................ 75Sources..................................... 75State Levy................ 75County Levy................................ 76School District Levy............... 79Operation Of The State Tax For Schools...... 80The Sales Tax And Its Collection........... 86District Levies--Their Source And Sum...... 88Differentiation Needed Between Levies AndExpenditures.............. 95

VI. THE SITUATION IN YAVAPAI COUNTY AS CONCERNSTHE RELATIVE ABILITY AND INCLINATION OF THE COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THEREOF TO SUPPORT EDUCATION.......................... 98Relative Wealth Of County.................. 98Tax Delinquency In The State And Yavapai

County.................................... 100Political Factors Affecting Tax Delinquency. 104 Position Of The County With Reference ToValuation Per Pupil................... ....105

Yavapai County's Expenditures Per Pupil.... 107School District Expenditure Per Pupil....... 109Purposes For Which Taxes Are Levied.........114

VII. CONCLUSIONS AMD RECOMMENDATIONS................ 120Conclusions........................ 120Recommendations........ 125

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................... 127

iv

TABLESNumber Page

I. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND IN YAVAPAI COUNTY.... 7II. POPULATION OF YAVAPAI COUNTY :iND SCHOOL

POPULATION OF SAME SHOY;INC INCREASES AND. PERCENTAGES OF INCREASES BY DECADES...... 11

III. SCHOOL POPULATION OF YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA AS INDICATED BY AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE IN THE ELEMENTARY GRADES AND HIGH SCHOOL FOR TEE YEARS 1912 TO 1937............... 53

IV.. FLENF,NTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE TEACHERS EMPLOYED THEREIN FOR TIP YEARS1915 to 1937....... ....................... 35

V. PERCENTAGE OF MALE TEACHERS III THE SCHOOLS OF YAVAPAI COUNTY, 'ARIZONA AND TIP UNITED STATES............................ 39

VI. ASSESSED VALUATION, TOTAL EXEMPTIONS(ESTIMATED), PERCENT OF EXEMPTIONS, AND AMOUNT TAX RATE WOULD HAVE BEFIT LOWERED HAD NO EXEMPTIONS BEEN GRANTED IN YAVAPAI COUNTY 1915-1958......................... 45

VII. ASSESSED VALUATION PER STUDENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZ­ONA AND IN EIGHT REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR THE YEARS 1914 TO 1936..... 47

VIII. AVERAGE ACTUAL CASH VALUE OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF PROPERTY IN ARIZONA AS FIXED BY THE STATE TAX COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1936.... 54

IX. FINAL NET ASSESSED VALUATIONS FOR YAVAPAICOUNTY 1912-1937......................... 60

X. FINAL NET ASSESSED VALUATION FOR TIP STATEOF ARIZONA 1912-1957..................... 61

XI. TOTAL VALUATION OF FIVE CLASSES OF PROPERTY IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA FOR TIP YEARS 1912 TO 1956 TNCT-USIVE................... 65

V

TABIJ3S (Continued)Number PageXII. PERCENTAGES OF STATE TAXES PAID BY VARIOUS

CLASSES OF PROPERTY DURING TUB YEARS INDICATED...... ............................ 65

XIII. AMOUNT EACH COUNTY PAID INTO STATE SCHOOL FUND FROM PROPERTY TAX FOR EACH DOLLAR RECEIVED FOR YEARS 1922 TO 1935. ..................... 84

XIV. SALES TAX COLLECTIONS'AND PER CAPITA SALES TAX PAID BY COUNTIES DURING FISCAL YEARS OF 1934 AND 1936.............. ;............... 87

XV. RELATION OF DISTRICT LEVIES FOR CURRENT EX­PENSE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO THE TOTAL CURRENT’EXPENSE OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STUDIED BY COUNTIES . FOR THE YEAR.. 1934-35___90

XVI. RELATION OF DISTRICT LEVIES FOR CURRENT EX­PENSE 'IN HIGH SCHOOLS TO THE TOTAL CURRENT EXPENSE OF THE HIGH SCHOOLS, STUDIED BY COUNTIES FOR THE YEAR 1954-35.............. 91

XVII. RELATION OF DISTRICT LEVIES FOR CURRENT EX­PENSE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO THE TOTAL 'CURRENT EXPENSE OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, STUDIED BY COUNTIES FOR THE YEAR 1935-36___92

XVIII. RELATION OF DISTRICT LEVIES FOR CURRENT EX­PENSE IN THE HIGH- SCHOOLS' TO THE TOTAL CURRENT EXPENSE OF THE HIGH SCHOOLS, STUDIED BY COUNTIES FOR THE YEAR 1935-36.. ........ 93

XIX. PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOL MAINTENANCE FROM STATE- AND COUNTY FUNDS............................ 95

XX. ASSESSED VALUATION OF YAVAPAI COUNTY AND HER RANK AMONG THE COUNTIES OP THE STATE V.TTH REFERENCE TO THIS UNIT OF MEASURE.... ......99

XXI. TAX DELINQUENCIES IN THE VARIOUS COUNTIES OF ARIZONA 1921 TO 1935. (YEAR REFERS TO DATE OF LEVY. COLLECTION IS. DURING CURRENT FISCAL YEAR) ................... .............101

XXII. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF TAXES DELINQUENT IN THE COUNTIES OF ARIZONA FOR ELEVEN SELECTED YEARS BET’TEEN 1921 AND 1936................ 103

vi

NumberXXIII.

XXIV.

XXV.

XXVI.

1.2.

3.

4.

5.

TABLES (Continued)Page

ASSESSED VALUATION PER PUPIL IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA AS COMPARED '.7ITII THE COUNTIES HAVING THE LOWEST AND THE HIGHEST VALUATIONS AND WITH THE AVERAGE VALUATION FOR THE STATE....... 106

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR ELEMENTARYEDUCATION IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA AND IN THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST RANKING COUNTIES OF THE STATE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1923 TO 1936 INCLUSIVE..................... ...... 108

AVERAGE-DAILY ATTENDANCE AND PER CAPITA COSTS IN REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF YAVAPAI COUNTY FOR THE YEARS 1924, 1931 AND 1936.................................. 110

ANALYSIS OF THE TAX LEVIES FOR THE YEAR 1936 SHOWING THE PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL TAX LEVIED IN EACH OF THE SEVERAL COUNTIES OF THE STATE FOR ALL STATE, COUNTY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT PURPOSES........................ 115

ChartsLand Ownership— Yavapai County— 1931........ 8School Population of Yavapai County, Arizona

as Indicated by Average Daily Attendance in the Elementary Grades and High School for the Years 1913 to 1957............ . 34

Percentage of Male Teachers.in the Schoolsof Yavapai County, Arizona............... 41

Assessed Valuation per Student in Average Daily Attendance in Yavapai County, Ariz­ona in Eight Representative Districts Thereof for the years 1914 to 1956.... ... 52

Total Valuation of Five Classes of Property in Yavaoai County, Arizona for the Years 1914 to‘ 1956............ ................. 67

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION '

Early Schools Of Yavapai CountyA financial survey of the school system of Yavapai

County v/ould scarcely be understandable without a glance into the history that has produced our county and its school system and left.therein the seed of current bless­ings and woes.

Farish^* is authority for the statement that the first school in Yavapai County was opened at Prescott in the fall of 1864 by one Alex Malron who was succeeded the next year by Mrs. L. A. Stevens. Miss Sharlot Hall, Prescott pioneer and custodian of the museum at the Old Governor’s Mansion disagrees rather sharply with this statement and says that the first school was built at the corner of Carleton and Granite streets in Prescott in 1864 and that the first teacher was a Mr. C. S. Rogers, known to his friends as "Charming Dale", that being the name of his homestead on

Walnut Creek. . . . .From that start in 1864 the schools of Yavapai County

have waxed and waned in unison with the fortunes of the

1. Parish, T. E. History of Arizona, Vol. 3, p. 197.

2 .

mining industry. As the various mining camps became es­tablished the need for education was not forgotten and soon provision was made for schools. When the camps faded into ghost towns, inhabited only by memories, the schools like­wise disappeared. The names of districts long since lapsed and long since forgotten linger still, monuments to the ideals of a pioneer people. Weaver district with one teacher and an enrollment of eleven pupils served the children of that placer mining community. Walker started from nothing; grew to an over-crowded two-teacher school; and receded to its present status' of one teacher and approximately ten children. The history of Big Bug school tells the story of boom days when the Big Bug meant gold. Stoddard came and went and Azatlan disappeared.with the closing of the Silver Flake. Peck Mine school lived and died with the diggings whose name it took. Octave district school came into being along with the Octave mine, faded from the scene and is again flourishing with the recent operations of the American Smelting and Refining Company. Education and the law moved into Jerome with the commercial opening of the United Verde and bids fair to remain as long as the mine is worked. The Tiger mine had its school which lasted but two years. Sen­ator, Harrington, Gillette, Huron, Turkey Creek, and McCabe were other school districts that passed with the ebb of their mines and today are only names in the undisturbed records of the county.

3

The agricultural and ranching districts have fared bet­ter. Prescott was district number one. Williamson Valley established in 1879 was district number two and continues with an unbroken record up to date. Clear Creek, organized under,the name of Lower Verde and supported by agricultural interests, was district number three. It is still in ex­istence and still serves some twenty children. District number six organized as Upper Verde but with the name later, changed to Cottonwood has had continuous existence. Walnut Grove as district number seven has served the sons and daughters of her ranchmen arid farmers since the seventies. There are many others but those mentioned will serve to indicate that the schools at the camps have led a more glam­orous life but the agricultural and stock-raising communities have compensated for their prosaic existence by being with us still.

TopographyYavapai County has some high level terrain but its

chief distinguishing characteristic is its numerous mountain ranges. The Bradshaws, southeast of Prescott are the most extensive, covering most of that portion of the county be­tween Prescott and the Maricopa line. Mt. Union and Crown King are the outstanding peaks. The entire range is covered with vegetation of some kind ranging from scrub cedar and manzanita on the lower portions to pine, oak, fir, and aspen as one goes higher. The mountain ranges of the county are

somewhat like.the suburbs of Los Angeles in that it is most difficult to tell where one ends and the other commences.The western section of the county has rather indefinite areas designated as the Mohan, McCloud, and Date Creek Moun­tains. They are generally untimbered stretches of granite and malapai formation that supports some cattle and more goats. North and east of Prescott is the Black Hill range with Mingus, Y/oodchute, and Squaw as the outstanding eleva­tions. Lying immediately west of Prescott and running in a Southeast-Northwest direction are the Sierra Prietas forming the eastern rim of Skull Valley.

The north and eastern sections of Yavapai County are drained' by the Verde River and its tributaries, Fossil, Clear, Oak, and Sycamore creeks. The Agua Fria drains the Black Canyon country and the Hassayampa and Santa Maria are the water courses of the western section.

Altitude in the lowest sections of the county is ap­proximately 2000 feet. Mt. Union 7978 and Mt. Mingus 7720 are highest points in the county. The greater portion of the land in the county lies above 5000 feet altitude.

Climate ■ -Oranges at Castle Hot Springs and skiing at Prescott

represent the wide differences in climate due to altitude in Yavapai. Cool invigorating mountain climate during the summer months and rather temperate winters are the rule.The average precipitation of 17.6 inches per year comes

5

principally-in July and August and in January and February. The mean relative humidity from 1919 to 1929 was 53 percent which means that the county has a dry climate with the characteristics usually found in mountainous areas.

IndustriesBroad valleys, wide mesas and brush covered foothills

provide attractions for the herdsman. Cattle, sheep, and goats all find range conducive to their profitable propaga­

tion.Mining is by far the most important industry when

judged from the standpoint of labor employed, taxes paid, and value of products. The United Verde mine of the Phelps- Dodge Corporation and the United Verde Extension are the two great copper producers of the Verde district. Values in precious metals are sufficient in the ores from these mines to defray most of the costs of production. The UVX is rap­idly passing out of the picture due to the depletion of its ore body. Unless additional ores are developed it is but a matter of time until it will be forced to cease production. The Hillside mine on the old Lawler property in Boulder canyon thirty-five miles north of Hillside has been in pro­duction for two years. A modern Deisel operated mill con­centrates the gold ores mined by some seventy-five miners. At the foot of Rich hill on Weaver creek is located the Octave mine now operated by the American Smelting and Re­fining Company. Its values are in the precious metals

6

(gold and silver) and its operations furnish employment for approximately ninety men. The Golden Belt and the Golden Turkey located on the same formation in the Turkey Creek mining district have been making good showings in gold pro­duction over.a period of some two years but recently the Golden Belt has been running into difficulties. Some hundred small producers that employ only one or two men together with an untold number of prospectors that are ever being pushed in search of the elusive yellow metal complete the picture of the mining industry in Yavapai County as it stands today. But tomorrow is another day and today's prospects may be in the pay dirt and the producers of today may have pinched out. Such is the story of mining.

Federal InterestsThe Federal government has extensive interests in

Yavapai: County. In addition to owning approximately 60 per­cent of the land of the county it maintains forty post of­fices, a Veterans Administration hospital at Fort Whipple, Forest Service headquarters at Prescott, numerous ranger stations scattered over the county"and two lighted inter­mediate landing fields of the Bureau of Air Commerce. All of the Prescott"and parts of the Tonto, Coconino, and Tusayan National Forests lie within the county. In addition to the regular branches of the federal service there have been maintained within the county during the last two or three years several C.C.C. camps, a transient camp and two

7

soil conservation camps. . .The small Indian Reservation at - Camp Verde and the few acres recently obtained for the Yavapais on the outskirts of Prescott are unimportant. The vast extent of federally owned, tax exempt land does make itself felt in the matter of county income. The following table indicates areas federally controlled and those in private ownership.

TABLE"I .............PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND IN YAVAPAI COUNTY2

Land Under Federal Control . Acres Per Cent of Total

Military Reservation 1,960 .0375Indian Reservation 396 .0075-National Monuments 11,060 .2120Public Domain 1,160,000 22.2392Prescott National Forest 1,208,029 23.1600

; Coconino National Forest (part) 427,830 8.2022Tonto National Forest (part) 184,206 3.5315Tusayan" National" Forest (part) -'168,215 .3.2249Total-------- ----------- - 3,161,694 60.61

Land Under Private Control

Grazing land 306,721 5.8800Dry farming land 12,714 .0024Irrigated land • 9,875 .0018

... Miscellaneous private land.. ... ....1,724,996 33.0712Total— ■----- ----------- - 2,054,306 38.9554GRAND TOTAL------------- - 5,216,000 100.

(99.5702)

2. Arizona Yearbook, 1931, p. 296 and Records of CountyAssessor.

8

PRIVATE LANDS 39^

NATIONAL FORESTS 38%

PUBLIC DOMAIN 23%

Chart 1. Land Ownership— -Yavapai County-— 1931

9

Population and Population CentersThe territory that is now Yavapai County has been in­

habited since prehistoric times but the record left in ruin and picture writing does not always disclose just who the inhabitants were or whether their stay was long or short.The ruins excavated at King’s ranch in Big Chino, Tuzigoot ruins at Clarkdale, and the well preserved Montezuma’s - Castle just above Camp Verde all tell a story of prosperous communities that for some unknown reason faded from the scene of action leaving as monuments to their industry, buried pueblos, deserted fortresses, and abandoned irriga­tion ditches aboutWhich, one would like to think, the husbandman and warrior of the spirit world occasionally wander on moonlit nights to recall in shadowy reminiscence the scenes of tribal strife, domestic happiness, seed time, and harvest.

Close on the heels of the Spaniard from the South came the American from the East. It is with this last tide of settlement that we have interest. White settlers appeared in People’s Valley, at Walnut Grove, Walker, and other places in the county before the Civil War but rapid devel­opment dates from the establishment of Prescott in 1864. Governor Goodwin and his party arrived from Navajo Springs on December 21, 1863, stopped for a while at Whipple Barracks for rest, and then started in to establish a center for the civil government. During the next summer the "Old Governor’s

10

Mansion" and first state capitol was built on the banks of Granite Creek and the County was off for the start. Placer gold in Lynx and Granite Creeks was the inducement that brought the first settlers to these pine covered mountains where bacon and beans were worth as much as the gold they sought. Dear prices for grain and food of all kinds en­couraged the cattleman and the farmer and thus helped to put the county on a more stable basis than would have been pos­sible with mining as the sole industry.

Table II indicates the population of the county for each of the U. S. Census years beginning with 1890 and shows the increase and percentage of increase for each decade.The ten years from 1890 to 1900 is outstanding with an in­crease of thirty-seven percent. All types of industry were beginning to gain momentum and the development of the United Verde mine at. Jerome was a factor decidedly influential.The school enrollment for 1890 is available neither in the University library nor in the records of the Yavapai County superintendent of schools. An estimated enrollment of 1228 based on an average worked out from figures for the years 1885-6 and 1895-4 may or may not be a good guess. If the guess was a good one it is the only decade of the group in which the increase in population was greater than the in­crease in school enrollment, a circumstance that leads one to question the validity of the estimated enrollment.

Comparison of population increases with those of school

TABLE If"POPULATION OF YAVAPAI COUNTY AND SCHOOL POPULATION OF SAME SHOVING IN­

CREASES AND PERCENTAGES OF INCREASES BY DECADES

YearPopulation of County

IncreaseDuringDecade

Percent of Increase For Decade

SchoolEnroll­ment

Increase Percent of During IncreaseDecade For Decade

1890 8,685 12281900 13,799 5,115 37 1787 559 511910 15,996 2,197 13 2178 391 171920 24,016 8,020 55 4466 2,288 511950 58,511 4,495 15 6548 2,082 51

ji7/ Data from U. S. Census reports. Biennial Reports of the State Superintendentof Public Instruction for the years involved and Annual Reports of the Yavapai County Superintendent of Schools for the same years.

12

enrollment calls attention to the rapid development of the public school, a trend not confined to the county or the state but national in proportions. With the exception noted above the school population has increased much more rapidly than the civil population. .

Prescott, seat of the county government is the largest town of the county. Settled in the sixties and soon made capital of the state she has had a steady but not rapid growth. The federal census of 1930 gave her a population of 5517 for the incorporated portion of the city which did not include Fort Whipple with 876, Miller Valley 875, Hassa- yampa Mountain Club and other outlying additions 364, Shad- owcroft 55, and Moeller addition 125 making a total for the city and adjacent suburbs of 7822. In the six years that have elapsed since the taking of that census there have been rather rapid increases in the population of the section of Miller Valley lying to the northwest of town. As there are no vacant homes in other portions of the city it is safe to estimate that the population is not far from 8500 now (1937)

Jerome, queen of the copper camps, is thirty-five miles east of Prescott on state highway 79, and was credited by the last federal census with a population of 4935. Like Prescott the population here would be increased were the little settlements near, which are actually part of the town counted in the enumeration.

At the foot of Mingus mountain, high on the side of

13

which Jerome is located, we find a group of settlements largely supported by the smelters belonging to the two Jerome mines. Clarkdale, model city of the state, is owned by the Phelps-Dodge. Here live the smelter employees, smel­ter officials, and citizens who operate the small business district there. The census of 1930 gave Clarkdale a popula­tion of 2500, a figure which is very probably somewhere near correct now due to the fact that the town is company owned and controlled and there is no place for private individuals to build except for a very narrow strip.down next to the river Verde. Cottonwood, two miles south of Clarkdale, is the independent town of the valley and it is here that those who wish to own their own home and engage in business without being controlled by the company live. The Arizona Yearbook for 1931 estimates the population of Cottonwood at 1050.If the outlying settlements of Smelter City and East Jerome are taken into consideration this estimate is probably six or eight hundred low. Clemenceau, some three-fourths of a mile on south of Cottonwood, is the smelter town of the United Verde Extension mining company of Jerome. Exhaustion of ores in the mine and closing of the smelter is the hand­writing, on the wall for this happy little city. The commis­sary and the drug store and" the bank have been closed al­most two years now and the homes have not been kept in repair by the company which has been anticipating the clos­ing. Again reference is made to the Arizona Yearbook of

14

1931 and its estimate of 1000 for the population of Clemen- ceau. If this figure was correct then it perhaps is correct today for in spite of the fact that the businesses of Olem- ehceau have been closed the houses are still inhabited and the school population has fallen off very, very little, indicating that the population is still there even though employment must be sought at Olarkdale or Jerome. This cluster of three towns together with the agricultural com­munity of Camp Verde,some eighteen miles farther south on the Verdef'consitute) the principal centers of population on the east side of the county. For fear of Inflicting an un­intentional wound to the civic pride of the village, it would perhaps be well to mention that Camp Verde was the first settlement on the river then designated as the Rio Verde, being settled about 1864 or 65 by farmers, and ranch­men whose children still constitute the stable population of approximately 500. This figure includes the farming territory adjacent to the town proper.

On the northern rim of the county are Seligman and Ashforlc, both on the main line of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railway upon which their municipal life very heavily depends. Both are division points and both have Harvey Houses. Seligman has a railroad repair shop and Ashfork has an Arizona Highway Department repair station. Both receive some trade from the local livestock industry. The old reliable reference, Arizona Yearbook for 1931, gives Ashfork

15

a population of 894 and Seligman 752. These figures are subject to serious question due to the fact that Ashfork had only 90 pupils in average daily attendance in her public schools that same year against 162 in the schools at Selig­man.

Mayer and Humboldt on the Black Canyon highway are small towns dependent on the mining and cattle industries. Again the writer has to disagree with the Arizona Yearbook as to estimated populations. It suggests 300 for Mayer and 502 for Humboldt, a figure that should be reversed and re­duced rather liberally if a true picture is to be given. .

Skull Valley, Kirkland, Hillside, and Congress Junction, all stops on the Santa Fe, and Octave, company town of the American Smelting and Refining company all have something more than the usual country store and post office but they can hardly be called towns in the generally accepted sense of the term.

Genesis of This StudyUpon the historical and physical background briefly

indicated above is founded the local government and institu­tions of Yavapai County today. A major interest of that government is the system of public instruction therein main­tained. And it is to the financial facts and problems of that system that this study is devoted.

January 1, 1935 the writer assumed the duties of County Superintendent of Schools of Yavapai County and thereby

16

became very personally Interested in the financial problems of the school districts of the county. At that time every school district in the county was on a cash basis but the state government had fallen behind to the extent that the state warrants for the county’s share of the state school fund were convertible into cash with difficulty. Many school districts of the state were being forced to accept discounts on their warrants and the rapidly mounting roll of delinquent taxes placed a strain on our financial structure that brought into bold relief its weaknesses.

Each year from 1932 until 1937 the schools of the county dropped a little deeper into financial difficulty. In fact the ability to operate them longer would have been seriously questioned had not the sales tax been inaugurated in 1933 to partially offset losses from delinquent property taxes. Violent controversies arose over the proper assessment of mining properties. The mines, railroads, and the banks all contested their assessments and some of the suits went to the Federal courts with consequent delay in tax payments.This study was started as an attempt to analyze the tax sit­uation in Yavapai County so that the writer could go before the school groups of the county, discuss intelligently the tax situation, and offer suggestions for improvement that were based on something more than personal opinion and pre­judice.

17

Objects of This StudyThe objects of this study have been: To inquire into

the trends of the general population and school enrollment and consider the possibility of charting the currents.

To study the industries and resources of tho county in their relations to the schools both from the standpoints of support given and services demanded.

To study the tendencies of assessed valuation of dif­ferent kinds of property and the effects on school finance in certain school districts of the county.

To gain first hand information as to the sources of school revenue and to chart the shifts occasioned by the recent financial difficulties of the state and county.

To study, comparatively, reductions in county and school expenditures resulting from the late fiscal embarassment and seek pertinent implications therein.

To assemble in condensed, understandable form the per­tinent facts relating to the schools of Yavapai County so as to make possible their presentation to lay groups inter­ested in education.

To make recommendations, based on the data, looking to the improvement and stablization of the fiscal policies of the schools of the county.

Sources Of DataThe principal sources of data have been the records in

the offices of the County Superintendent of Schools, Tax

18

Assessor,, the Board of Supervisors, and in the Biennial Reports of the State Tax Commission.

The Biennial Reports of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction supplemented the records of the County Superintendent of Schools and supplied comparative data from other counties and from the State as a whole. Related studies furnished valuable information for purposes of com­parison: and provided assistance in the technique of hand­ling data. The information assembled by the "Fact Finding Committee" that was appointed in the early days of the ad­ministration of the late Governor Moeur was valuable. Conferences with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Harries, Santa Fe Tax Agents and with Mr. R. K. Duffey and Mr. Chas. R. Kusell of the United Verde provided definite suggestions worthy of the most serious consideration.

Limitations of The FieldAs suggested in the title of the work, this study will

be confined to the educational situation in Yavapai County with special attention devoted to the financial problems arising out of the difficulties that have recently involved the nation, state, and county. In most cases an attempt will be made to secure data covering the period from 1912 to the close of 1936. This span of years should be suffi­cient to show the effects of the flow and ebb of educational fortunes in unison with industrial contingencies. As the mining of copper is the greatest industry of Yavapai County

19

the fortunes of that industry will be found to exert a pro­found influence upon the financial administration of her schools. As the vicissitudes of world trade, tariff regula­tions, war, and peace are all mirrored in the sensitive copper marts the fiscal background of the county’s school system may not be found to be entirely,stable. And in this connection some attention will be given to various forms of taxation without essaying to enter into an exhaustive study of the same.

Related StudiesSeveral studies related to the one in hand have been

made in the state of Arizona. The one most closely allied perhaps is that of John Oscar Mullen, Superintendent of Schools at Jerome, Arizona who submitted to the University of Arizona in the summer of 1935, a thesis entitled, A Proposed Educational Organization For Yavapai County, Ari­zona". Although this study does not address itself directly to the financial problems of the county it takes cognizance of those problems in arriving at the conclusions leading up to the proposed new organization. Naturally the physical and historical background is the same.

...Joseph Lewis Monical, a worthy gentleman known to thewriter only by his work, "A Financial Survey of Gila County" has done for his county what the writer proposes to do for Yavapai. In that Gila County was one of the first to feel the depression due to the failure of large taxpayers to pay

20

gtheir assessments in 1931 it became a fertile field in which to study the drastic problems arising therefrom. A legally correct but fiscally unwise policy of refusing to pay warrants in the order of registration accentuated the already acute situation and laid a perfect background for this creditable study. Raymond E. Booth in his "School Finance in Navajo County" has sensed the need and made the study revealing the effects of the depression on the school finance of that county. In that Navajo County pays only about half as much into the state school fund as it receives in return^ it will be interesting to see how the recommenda­tions of'Mr. Booth agree with those to be made for Yavapai County where the situation is almost exactly reversed. Fran cis R. Vihel attacked a most-formidable subject when he started his "Financial Survey Of Maricopa County" This survey went into great detail covering the economics of crop production and its relation to the finance of the coun­ty, ownership of land, bonded indebtedness, and overlapping taxing units. A stupendous work, the value of which has slight chance of being appreciated, is the least that can

be said of it.

5. Monical, Joseph Lewis. A Financial Survey of GilaCounty, Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Arizona, 1934, p. 92.

4. Booth, Raymond E. School Finance in Navajo County,Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Arizona, 1936, p. 159.

5. Vihel, Francis S. A Financial Survey of Maricopa County,Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Arizona, 1936.

21

In the state wide field, Larson's "School Finance and Related Problems In Arizona"^ is the most comprehensive and at the same time the most pointedly analytical work.It orients the state in relation to the nation and other nations with reference to the tax situation, studies the sources of revenue, the expenditure of that revenue, and offers suggestions looking toward the solution of some of the state's more pressing problems.

The report of the survey of the Arizona public school 7system that was conducted in 1925 by C. Ralph Tapper at the

request of the State Board of Education is another work that touches directly on the present undertaking. The twelve years that have elapsed since it was made have not reduced to any great extent the value of the facts therein assembled nor of the conclusions drawn. In many items the passing of the years have but emphasized the wisdom of the suggestions offered.

"A School Building Survey of Payson, A r i z o n a " " A School Building Survey Of Roosevelt District Ho. 66,

6. Larson, Emil L. School Finance and Related Problems inArizona, Social Science Bulletin Ho'. T,' University of Arizona Bulletin, January 1953.

7. Tupper, C. Ralph. A Survey of the Arizona Public SchoolSystem, Under the Authority of the State Board of Education, 1925. Phoenix Gazette, Phoenix, Arizona, 1925.

8. Larson, Emil L. A School Building Survey of Payson,- Arizona, Unpublished Report, University of Arizona,

1932. " r

22

9Maricopa County, Arizona", "A Survey of Certain Phases ofPatagonia Union High School", and "A Survey of Prescott

11 .District No. 1", all are in fields closely related to the present work and contain information of value to any oneinterested in the educational problems of the state or its

' i o ' 'subdivisions. The thesis of John A. Howard, "A Proposed' Plan Of School Finance For Arizona" contains a wealth of information and suggestions relative to the state school system and much that is of direct value to one interested in any branch of school finance.

9. Larson, Emil L. A School Building Survey of Roosevelt District Ho. 6'6, Maricopa County, Arizona. .

: Unpublished Report, University.of Arizona, 1932.10. Larson, Emil L. A Survey of Certain Phases of Patagonia

Union High School, Unpublished Report, University of Arizona, 1933.

11. The Staff, College of Education, University of Arizona.A Survey of Prescott District No. 1, Unpublished Report, University of Arizona, 1937.

12. Howard, John A. A Proposed Plan of School Finance ForArizona, Unpublished Master's.Thesis, University of Arizona, • 1930.

CHAPTER II

EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF YAVAPAI COUNTY

Legal Basis of State School .System Public education has been one of the first responsi­

bilities of popular government in the United States. In line with that policy the act enabling Arizona to form a constitution and state government and be admitted to the Union provided in section twenty,

"That provision shall be made for the establish­ment and maintenance of a system of public schools which shall be open to all children of said State and free from sectarian control; and that^said schools shall always be conducted in English."The constitution formed under the above mentioned act

discharged its obligation to public education under ArticleXI, Section 1 as follows:

"The legislature shall enact such laws as shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general uniform public school system, which system shall include kindergarten schools, common schools, high schools, normal schools. Industrial schools, and a university, which shall include an agriculture college, a school of mines, and such other technical schools as may be essential— — "

Section two provided for the State Board of Education,State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the CountySuperintendent of Schools* Section three provided that theGovernor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, thePresident of the University and the Principals of the State

24

Normal Schools should be members ex-officio of the State Board of Education and that the Governor should appoint a city superintendent of schools, a high school principal and a County Superintendent of Schools as the remaining "members thereof. • :

Financially, the schools were not forgotten by the constitution. It provided for a permanent school fund, a state" tax and a county tax. Four sections of land in each township were set aside for school support and special grants of land were set aside for the university and the normal schools.

"The general conduct and supervision of the public school system shall be vested in a State Board Of Education, a State Sunerintendent of Public instruction, County School Superintendent and such governing boards for State institutions as MAY be provided by law."

In this constitutional provision is found the first of a long line of legal provisions that are not clear. It is readily seen that the County Superintendent is to work under the others in his local county but what about the State Board and State Sunerintendent? The State Board is ex- officio and appointive while the State Superintendent is elected by and is directly responsible to the sovereign people. That we have had so little friction between the two is a compliment to the caliber of the individuals who have served on the State Board and in the State Superinten­dent *s. office. ' -

Article 2, Section 990 of the Revised Code of Arizona

25

reads in part, "The powers and duties of the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be to superintend the public schools of this state.--— . Article 1, Section 989 under the heading of State Board of Education: Powers and Duties,says in part --------To exercise general supervision overand regulate the conduct of the public school system within the state.------" Herein the statutes have followed thelead of the constitution and failed likewise to clearly delineate the duties of the Board and the Superintendent for if the State Board is "to exercise general supervision over" the schools of the state and the Superintendent is to "super intend" the public schools of the state and the dictionary says that "superintend" means to have charge and direction of; manage; supervise, the same authority is delegated to the Board and to the Superintendent. It no doubt was the. idea of the founding fathers to make the State Board of Education the highest educational authority in the statewith the State Superintendent in the capacity of Executive

: . . . . . . ' •

officer. Mullen says in speaking of the authority of the State Board of Education, "This seems to be rather inclusive authority but it loses power because of general and special powers granted to others." In practice the State Superin­tendent uses all the influence he has as a member of the State Board to bring that body to support what he deems to

13. Mullen, John Oscar. A Proposed Educational Organization For Yavapai County, Arizona, Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Arizona, 1935, p. 30.

26

be the best policies concerning the public schools of thestate; Failing in that he renders xvhat service is requiredto the Board and assumes his place-as an executive officerof the state in promoting his program the best way that he

14can. Tupper criticises the present organization of state educational agencies and suggests a state board of laymen, seven in number, serving eight year terms that expire in such a way that not more than two new members can come on the board in any one year. Under such a board he seems to assume that the state superintendent should be an appointive officer chosen by and responsible to the board.

Relationship of County and State Systems As our major interest lies in the Yavapai County schools

it will be well to leave the state organization, study the county organization, and see their relationship. The' real authority in the county organization is the local school board in each of the districts. These boards, elected by the people and responsible to them only, determine budgets, order expenditures, hire teachers, janitors, and librarians and manage the general affairs of the school. And when in­structed to do so by a vote of the district they may buy or sell school sites, construct buildings and make in the name of the district transfers of all property belonging to the district. This authority is practically unrestrained. The

14. Tupper, 0. Ralph. Survey of the Arizona Public School System, p. 9.

27

county superintendent of schools, who is in theory the chief school administrator of the county, exercises only such in­fluence as he is able to get the boards to grant him. Legal­ly there is no reason why the boards should advise with the county superintendent or heed his wishes. Actually, a county superintendent that will make the most of his opportunities can exert a powerful influence for he has the financial records of the county at hand and should know more about the finances of any district than do the members of the school board. And, again, if the county superintendent of schools is awake to his opportunities he will make himself an author­ity on school law, a factor that will bring the members of many school boards to his desk.

The county superintendent of schools has but one ad­vantage over the city superintendent of schools. If he offers advice that is not acceptable, the school board can­not fire him for the attempt. Tradition gives the county superintendent a very small place in the county organization and makes it most difficult for him to remove himself from the role of glorified clerk and political parasite but after -all the only authority that the city superintendent of schools has is that which he has talked his school board out of, a privilege no one has denied the county superinten­dent of schools.

Briefly the county set-up is this: A local schoolboard in each district fixes educational policies and sets

28

the amount of money to be raised for maintenance and oper­ation of the school. It employs all professional and main­tenance assistance, provides school plants, rents, furnishes, and repairs the school property and expels pupils. Enforc­ing the use of the course of study.and textbooks, making reports to the county superintendent of schools, providing transportation, establishing kindergartens, departments of manual training and home economics, are other of the many

duties of the school board.A.city superintendent of schools, in the more populous

districts of the county, who is employed by and responsible to the local school board and exercises only what authority the board delegates to him, is the next step down the ladder

of actual authority.A single county superintendent of schools apportions

funds, draws warrants (when ordered to do so by any local board of trustees), keeps a register of warrants, presides over institutes (when and if there are any), enforces the use of the course of study and textbooks, conducts teachers’ examinations, distributes all laws reports, circulars and blanks for the use of school officers, keeps in his office the reports of the superintendent of public instruction, school trustees and teachers, records all his official acts in a book, appoints trustees when vacancies occur, makes reports to the state superintendent of public instruction showing such matters relating to public schools in his county

29

as that official may require, notifies school boards of meetings of the state board of education in which the expediency of a change of textbooks is to be considered, visits at least twice each year all the schools of the county except those employing a principal or city superin­tendent of schools which he may visit as he deems fit, at­tends annual meetings called by the state superintendent of public instruction, appoints teachers and repairs school buildings under certain conditions, suspends school dis­tricts, fixes, within limits the county per capita school tax, and, when delegated to do so by the county board of supervisors, administers the county school reserve fund, and performs extra-legal duties and services even more numerous than those mentioned in the statutes. This county super­intendent is an elected official" whose duties under the Constitution seem to bear somewhat the same relation to the county that the State Superintendent bears to the state.But the statutes make the office principally clerical and ministerial. As mentioned above, the office is in a position to make itself a power if the official incumbent will but seize the opportunity. If moves,already under way to raise the qualifications of this official are ever successful, another step in the direction of making the office more than a mere clerkship will have been taken.

The state and county systems are rather loosely con­nected. The state school fund is collected as a statewide

30

tax and is apportioned to the counties on the basis of average daily attendance. All districts must make reports to the state through the county superintendent of schools. Free textbooks for the'elementary grades are purchased and distributed through the state office of education and courses of study are set up, printed and distributed for the same grades by the same authority. Of course both the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction are chargedwith the general supervision and administration of the schools of the state but when it comes to a matter of actual authority both would come off second best in most contests, with local school boards when matters of local expediency were being considered. ,

The greatest grant of power given to the state is, in the writer's estimation, the authority to grant and revoke certificates on the basis of rules made by the State Board.

Financial AdministrationWhen segregated on the basis of the agency that collects

and distributes the funds, secondary and elementary educa­tion in Arizona is supported from three sources: the state, which collects not to exceed twenty-five dollars per student in average daily attendance and distributes the same to the counties on that basis; the county, which levies a minimum of twenty-five and a maximum of forty dollars per student and distributes what it collects on the basis of the average daily attendance using only the six months of school having

31

the highest attendance as a basis of calculation; and the school district, which deducts the amount of money to be received from the state and county from the budget for the year and has the rest levied against the property of the district as a special district tax. Thus the state, the county, and the school district each has a definite financial responsibility in the matter of public education.

The state’s portion of the county school fund is sent in the form of a warrant to the treasurer of the county con­cerned. This is deposited to the credit of the county gen­eral school fund. The county’s share of the school load is collected as a portion of the regular county levy and is apportioned to the school fund as collected. When sufficient money thus becomes available to make it worth while the coun­ty superintendent apportions it to the districts. This ap­portionment is a paper transaction only, the county general fund being charged and the different district accounts being credited with each district’s share. When thus credited the funds become available for the payment of warrants that have been issued by the county superintendent of schools on the orders of the district school boards. This briefly out­lines the administration of school funds. As a later chapter of this study is to be devoted to school revenue, the sub­ject will not be developed further here.

.32

School PopulationAn almost continuous increase has marked the school

population of Yavapai County during the era with which this study has concerned itself. Starting in 1913 with an average daily attendance of only 1280 in the elementary school and 113 in high school, the steady growth to its present average daily attendance of 3791 in the grades and 1392 in high school is especially remarkable in view of the fact that the county's chief resource is mining, an industry that is noted for the color of its kaleidoscopic booms and the size of its ghost towns when the pay dirt ceases to pay. The size of the county and the extent of the mineralized area have con­tributed to the stability. A number of nice little towns have suddenly faded from the picture but the effect has been largely offset by others that were developing. The business paralysis that developed following the stock market crash of 1929 produced the most noticeable slump in school atten­dance during the era. That, however, was much less marked than one would have expected due to the fact that numerous young people who found themselves unemployed returned to finish school. Decreases in the mining communities were . also counter-balanced by increases in agricultural commun­ities where unemployed sought refuge. Table III gives the average daily attendance in both high school and the elemen­tary grades, with the amount of increases and decreases in accompanying columns.

55

TABLE IIISCHOOL POPULATIOH OF YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA AS INDICATED

BY AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE IN THE ELEMENTARY GRADES AND HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE YEARS

1912 TO 1957

A .D.A.Elem. H.S. Total Increase Decrease

1912-15 1280 113 13931914 1509 103 1612 2191915 1664 121 1785 1731916 1773 140 1913 1281917 2145 167 2312 3991918 2460 182 2642 3301919 2437 176 2613 291920 2767 211 2978 3651921 2789 279 3068 901922 2770 303 3073 51923 3349 355 2704 6311924 3440 391 3831 1271925 3445 375 3820 111926 5750 466 4196 3761927 3937 484 4421 2251928 3966 680 4646 2251929 4074 713 4787 1411950 4173 895 5068 2811931 3972 1156 5128 601932 3811 1197 5008 120193319341935

3727 1203 4930 78

19561957 3791 1392 5185

34

Pupils5400

3000480046004400 ,! High

School4200 vTZ40003800360034003200 /V300028002600

t rj.Elementary School2400 //2200

18001 'v >1400

1200

Chart 2. School Population of Yavapai County, Arizona as indicated by Average Daily Attendance in theElementary Grades and High School for the Years 1913 to 1937

35

Districts and TeachersTable IV lists the number of school districts in the

county during each of the years since 1913 together with the number of men and women teachers employed therein. As a matter of interest and not because of any relation to the object of this study, the percentage of men teachers em­ployed in the county for the years in question has been worked out and tabulated in the same table.

TABLE IVELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE TEACHERS

EMPLOYED THEREIN FOR THE YEARS 1913 toi 1937

Year

School

•Elem.

DistrictsAcc.

H.S. Schools Men Women TotalPercent of teachers who were men

1915 28 2 0 7 74 81 81914 38 2 0 12 82 94 121915 40 3 0 14 94 108 131916 44 3 0 14 104 118 . 111917 47 3 0 11 139 150 71918 46 3 0 11 149 160 61919 49 3 2 12 154 166 71920 50 3 0 16 180 196 81921 55 3 0 17 147 164 101922 53 3 0 20 182 202 101923 54 3 0 20 182 202 101924 55 3 0 19 198 217 81925 56 4 2 . 21 208 229 91926 47 5 0 20 221 291 81927 52 6 8 22 220 242 91928 52 6 6 25 216 241 101929 44 6 4 25 235 260 91930 45 6 4 35 208 241 131931 45 6 7 34 175 209 161952 • 46 6 8 28 154 182 151933 44 7 9 39 173 212 • 181934 44 7 8 30 188 218 13 .1955 44 7 rj 46 177 223 201936 43 7 6 50 . 180 230 211937 46 7 6

36

The number of organized districts in the county seems to have reached a peak during the decade following 1920. The latter part of this period witnesses the establishment of numerous "accommodation schools" and this policy of the county superintendents may be responsible for the decline in the number of organized districts. Accommodation schools are schools that are set up and operated by the county super­intendent of schools to serve a school population that ap­pears to be temporary. A building or a room in a residence is usually rented and the teacher is paid out of the county school reserve fund on the basis of attendance.

High school districts correlate exactly with the number of towns able to support high school education. The two high school districts appearing in the early years of Table IV are the high schools at Jerome and Prescott. In 1915 a third high school made its appearance. That is the one at Clarkdale. In 1914 the United Verde Copper Company moved its smelter from its location at Jerome into the valley at the foot of the mountain and constructed nearby a town for the people who worked in the smelter. Thus Clarkdale came into existence and with it the high school. The next high school district to be regularly organized was Camp Verde in 1925. Ashfork appeared as a high school the next year and Seligman in 1933.

The interesting thing about these high school dis­tricts is that they were operated as a high school in most

37

instances for some length of time before they took the trouble to organize a district. The high school districts of Yavapai County are superstructures supported by parent common school districts. The boundaries of the common school district and those of its secondary offspring are cotermi­nous. The board of trustees of the common school district serves the high school as a board of education and for all practical purposes the two districts are one and the same.In fact a search of the records last year failed to reveal any documents to show that the Prescott High School Dis­trict had ever existed even though bonds against the high school district were outstanding. When the need for high school instruction arose it seems that the common school, through its school board, just started offering instruction in secondary subjects and the high school was.

Transportation of High School Students Another interesting situation exists in this matter

of providing high school education. Several districts in the county— Clemenceau, Chino Valley, Skull Valley, Oak Creek, and Congress Junction— transport their secondary school pupils to neighboring high schools and pay the cost of transportation and tuition. In that no high school dis­trict exists in these communities, the costs involved must be charges against the elementary school district. The attendance of the high school pupils appears on the records of the receiving school only, therefore the cost of schooling

38

the secondary school pupils is reflected in an increase in the per capita cost of the elementary school. Another out­come of the same situation is the effect that it has on the apparent expenditures for education in the county. Clemen- ceau pays Clarkdale six thousand dollars for high school tuition and draws a warrant for the amount. That warrant appears as an item of elementary school expense. Clarkdale takes the six thousand dollars and spends it for supplies used in instruction and for fuel oil and the item appears again as a high school expenditure chargeable against educa­tion. As a matter of fact the money has been collected only once and spent only once and a false picture has been drawn by the very figures that are never supposed to lie.

Men and Women Teachers in the County The fluctuation of the percentage of male teachers in

the county is rather interesting. A perusal of Table IV seems to indicate that men desert the profession in time of war and in time of prosperity. Or it may be that the reverse is true and that the men are forced into the profession in times of industrial lethargy. For three years beginning with 1914, the percentage of masculine teachers was above eleven. The next four years, which included the years of the. war and the financial boom immediately following, found Yavapai County employing only six to eight percent men teachers. One wonders if the nation's financial troubles of 1920 bear any relation to the increases recorded for the

39

three years following that date. The male teacher was again lacking in numbers during the time that-we were all. getting rich just prior to 1930. From the year of the great stock market crash until the present, mere man seems to have been coming into his own in the teaching profession. From a negligible nine percent that year the percentage has shown a steady increase until in 1937 a fifth of the teachers of the county were men. If the nation again goes into a cycle of unbridled business expansion it will be interesting to note the effect on the personnel of the teaching staff. Yavapai County is far too small an area in which to study such a trend and expect the findings to be even remotely valid. With the hope of indicating the general direction, however. Table V has been compiled.

TABLE VPERCENTAGE OF MALE TEACHERS IN THE SCHOOLS .

OF YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA AND THE UNITED STATES

YavapaiCounty

Arizona UnitedStates

1915 13 15 191920 8 11 181925 9 14 181950 13 24 221955 20 32 19

As this study is not especially concerned with the question of the composition of the teaching profession, the material has been assembled for five dates only and they are

40

separated by five year intervals. It seems safe to assume on the basis of the trend indicated that the percentage of male teachers in the state as a whole and in the United States exceeds that in Yavapai County. Chart 3: supplies a visual illustration of the men employed in the schools of the county.

7./26/?/X/r i__/<5 • ;/f/a/2 "///o < z X,g \z X z74&+3 .Z/ ■0. *'#5 iI\§$%'NX1 i1.S. X 1s -N1IX 111i 18

* - ' - ' mChart 3, Percentage of Male Teachers In the Schools of Yavapai County,

Arizona,

H

CHAPTER III

PROPERTY IN YAVAPAI COUNTY AND ITS EDUCATIONAL. LOAD

Many theories have been advanced concerning the best method of arriving at the ability of a community to support education but the only one that has received any direct legal attention in Arizona is wealth. The amount of wealth existing in a community is perhaps an index of the ability of that community to support education but the validity of that index depends upon whether or not that wealth is pro­ducing income. Economics defines wealth as all material ob­jects having economic utility— a good definition and one that points to the weakness of wealth as a basis of school support. A house worth ten thousand dollars represents wealth but if the owner of that house is unable to rent it for two years, its value as a basis of educational support during those two years is nil except insofar as the owner may mortgage it to pay the taxes, a situation that obviously cannot exist indefinitely. The professional education of the teacher down the street does not represent wealth as defined above but the income derived through the application of that education does represent an item that could be used as a source of public income. In the last analysis it is not the wealth but the income from wealth that makes it a criterion of the ability of a community to support education

43

or any of the other functions of government.The Education Finance Inquiry Commission^ of Hew York

worked out a formula that they considered useful in arriving at a community’s ability to support education. Under this formula the income of the territory in question plus one- tenth of its wealth divided by two is made the basis of com­putation. Whether or not this ratio of wealth to income is correct, the writer is not prepared to say but the experi­ences of the school districts of Yavapai County during the years from 1950 to 1937 certainly indicate the weakness of wealth alone as a basis on v/hich to collect taxes for public education.

ExemptionsAnother item that seriously affects the validity of

wealth as a basis for the support of government and educa­tion is the matter of exemptions. Monical,"*"® in studying the situation in Gila County, found that ninety-five percent of the real estate there was government owned and therefore tax-exempt. Vihel^^ found that fifty-eight percent of the land of Maricopa County was exempt for like reasons. Sixty- one percent of the real property of Yavapai County pays no

15. Financing Education In Hew York, The MacMillan Company,—15237 :

16. Monical, Joseph Lewis. A Financial Survey of GilaCounty, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Arizona, 1954.

17. vihel, Francis R. A Financial Survey of MaricopaCounty, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Arizona, 1956.

44

tax because it is publicly owned. Government exemptions can perhaps be justified. At any rate local subdivisions of government are not in a position to criticise the national government for a policy that they themselves are only too glad to follow. Exemptions extended to privately owned property could bear a little investigation and legislative attention. Most if not all exemptions were extended in good faith but it is doubtful if the state’s loss is compensated for by a comparable public good. The widow, the ex-service man, the church, and the charitable institution save their taxes, true, but other taxpayers must carry this, additional load. In many instances those who have been extended the privilege of freedom from taxation are in a much better position to pay than their taxed neighbor. This is es­pecially true in the case of the compensated ex-service man and the widow of means. The great criticism of all exemp­tions is that they provide loopholes through which certain tax evaders escape their just burden. Table VI gives the . amount and percentage of exemptions in Yavapai County for the years 1913 to 1937.

45

TABLE VIASSESSED VALUATION, TOTAL EXEMPTIONS (ESTIMATED), PERCENT

OF EXEMPTIONS, AND AMOUNT TAX RATE WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWERED HAD NO EXEMPTIONS BEEN GRANTED IN

YAVAPAI COUNTY 1913-1938

Assessed Year Valuation

Cents per hundred Percent dollars of assessedexemp- valuation tax ratetions would have beenare of lowered had nonet val- exemptions been

Exemptions nations Rate granted1912-13 39,798,872 5,333,164 .134 - (a)

1914 43,474,850 5,405,020 .124 (a)1915 45,551,978 5,416,446 .118 (a)1916 58,277,287 (a)1917 98,716,072 5,427,618 .054 .352 1.91918 130,575,381 5,475,594 .04193 .59 1.21919 154,082,679 5,451,559 .0406 .34 1.31920 150,044,420 5,452,011 .0419 .475 1.91921 122,360,179 5,455,236 .0445 .606 2.61922 107,909,313 5,471,444 .0507 .49 2.41923 103,726,282 5,501,024 .0530 .825 4.31924 91,644,836 5,526,294 .0603 .733 4.41925 95,699,894 5,527,652 .0589 .756 4.451926 93,394,465 5,538,029 .0592 .75 4.441927 95,992,408 5,553,691 .0578 .7913 4.571928 89,325,899 5,632,773 .0630 .8112 5.111929 92,969,076 6,389,947 .0687 .7603 5.221930 85,967,171 6,779,072 .0788 .7856 6.191931 78,609,862 6,801,496 .0865 .84135 7.271932 56,996,862 6,683,779 .1172 1.2701 14.881933 51,572,377 6,628,933 .1285 1.07 18.501934 45,288,424 6,709,700 .1481 1.51 22.361935 44,037,327 6,930,284 .1573 1.64 25.791936 44,268,861 7,376,891 . 1666 1.50 24.991937 44,550,928 7,222,258 .1620 .50 8.10(a) Data not available

46

Column four of the table above shows the amount in cents per hundred dollars of assessed valuation that the tax rate would have been lowered had no exemptions been granted. Figures for the amount of the exemptions were taken from the records of the County Board Of Supervisors but they include only the exemptions granted to private in­dividuals, no attempt ever having been made to assess the property belonging to the different subdivisions of govern­ment. The writer placed an arbitrary value of •>5,220,694 on property of the governments for the years 1913 to 1930 and an additional §265,000 from 1930 to date. These figures are intended to include only state and federal lands and the improvements belonging to the federal government.

Valuations Per School Child in Certain Districts

In Arizona and in other states with similar laws the place of residence has much to do with the amount of wealth available for taxation to support a child's education. The child whose parents reside in a going mining town is in a much better position to receive adequate support for his schooling than is the lad whose home is in an agricultural community. In order to show more clearly the effect of time and place on the financial background for education in Yavapai County Table VII is here presented.

....

TABLE VIIASSESSED VALUATION PER STUDENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA AND

IN EIGHT REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR THE YEARS 1914 TO 1936

Dist. 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921

CoJL

$24,318.19JL

$23,799.80 (b)JL

$37,342.54:IL

$49,928.06JL

$44,998.41 $42,361.09JL

$39,766.45

1 8,883.19 8,458.00 7,780.09 8,943.95 8,582.88 8,163.78 7,308.05

6 (a) (a) 11,958.43 28,066.58 26,305.69 27,818.61

9 38,966.49 41,407.00 102,393.70 150,368.65 120,901.09 107,982.22 119,458.15

15 (a) (a) 27,216.17 26,800.68 26,527.02 15,808.46 (b)

28 1,930.69 2,272.26 3,065.02 3,606.03 3,932.68 2,995,57

29 22,069.91 17,435.23 13,287.65 14,222.20 15,932.65 19,646.62 22,263.11

31 84,029.47 74,563.92 40,223.67 45,907.06 43,927.46 38,645.59 31,478.12

43 7,301.86 6,999.05 34,032.69 56,203.50 36,468.95 28,982.15 13,134.09

TABLE VII (CONTINUED)ASSESSED VALUATION PER STUDENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA AND

IN EIGHT REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR THE YEARS 1914 TO 1936

DlzI . .....it. 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929

Co 629,148.92 #27,448.07 #23,638.07 #21,816.04 #20,741.32 #20,593.30 #18,285.34 §18,340.71

1 6,273.25 6,908.92 7,118.81 6,897.55 6,108.76 5,935.67 5,657.56 5,722.26

6 18,208.62 13,067.21 10,654.20 10,506.91 9,757.02 9,178.50 8,305.49 • 5,985.36

9 79,663.74 65,407.62 46,341.85 43,269.03 45,344.41 42,375.91 35,158.61 37,161.96

15 13,343.87 14,168.47 12,987.75 20,624.77 13,655.55 17,203.07 11,771.54 14,164.51

28 2,651.78 2,568.78 2,442.58 1,839.86 5,353.89 2,092.86 2,754.50 2,640.07

29 18,269.85 17,913.55 17,746.62 14,617.81 10,902.71 11,290.17 10,777.60 9,329.10

31 24,264.56 21,952.18 21,096.01 18,244.27 27,622.70 32,992.07 29,457.77 35,720.40

43 6,549.15 7,023.58 7,951.35 6,876.57 6,360.70 5,891 7,201.00 7,351.46

CD

TABLE VII (CONTINUED)ASSESSED VALUATION PER STUDENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA

AND IN EIGHT REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR THE YEARS 1914 TO 1936

Dist. , 1930 , 1931 1952 1935 1934 1935 1936

Co ':";16,715.37 $15,597.19 $11,563.57 $ 8,654.28 $12,876.95 $ 8,594.52 $ 8,557.67i 6,191.69 5,554.49 5,128.06 4,042.09 4,045.33 5,575.15 3,708.196 6,471.08 5,717.11 4,353.49 3,667.53 3,326.49 2,004.54 2,009.389 55,009.55 50,816.35 18,168.15 10,903.68 13,896.02 14,541.93 14,565.79

15 13,511.17 17,345.89 14,138.60 12,743.35 12,585.38 15,455.73 13,780.7428 1,866.72 2,046.73 1,336.94 2,541.85 2,581.83 1,411.15 1,805.8429 . 9,315.08 11,469.09 12,218.71 8,960.29 8,667.18 6,900.05 6,392.16

51 33,734.08 28,326.16 22,465.53 22,421.50 19,400.96 17,766.49 17,534.8145 6,133.45 4,933.89 4,890.37 5,475.51 3,296.20 2,428.12 2,446.62 .(a) Not assessed for year.(b) Data not available.

o

50

The table above shows the assessed valuation per student in A.D.A. in Yavapai County and in each of eight representative school districts. These districts were chosen because each is representative of a form or forms of wealth found generally in the county. The wealth.in Prescott is invested in homes, railroad property and stocks of merchandise. Clarkdale is.a company owned smelter town. The property there is almost exclusively owned by the Phelps-Dodge. .Cottonwood district takes in the villages of Cottonwood and Clemenceau and numerous farms on the Verde River in addition to the United Verde Extension.smelter which was permanently closed in 1937 and is now in the pro­cess of liquidation. Jerome is definitely a mining district, the United Verde Mine of the PheIps-Dodge Corporation and the United Verde Extension being the two properties that pay the great portion of the tax. The United Verde Extension is now mined out and its property in process of liquidation. Camp Verde is agricultural. It has no mines and no railroad. Ashfork is definitely a railroad town as the few ranches in the district have comparatively little value when compared with the Santa Fe *s double tracked main line, switch yards and Harvey House. Mayer is. a ranching community that in the early years of this study had an operating smelter and numerous small mines that could be worked profitably at the high prices then prevailing for metal.

In the light of the information given in the paragraph

51

above, it becomes readily apparent that districts dependent upon the mines for support can expect to find their assessed valuation fluctuating wildly. The agricultural districts are always poor but they are the most stable in the county.The figures seem to indicate that Camp Verde faces an eter­nal financial struggle with little hope of ultimate victory but fortunately no chance of eventual bankruptcy.

Following the slump of 1921 the valuations of the dis­tricts of the county have been in a slow but constant de­cline. Ashfork is an apparent exception to this rule but the sudden rise in the valuation of this district can be ac­counted for by the annexation of territory in 1926 and 1927 at which time the boundaries were greatly extended thereby •taking in several miles of Santa Fe main line track assessed at that time for $70,000 per mile.

Variations In Wealth Among Districts of the County

In his"Survey of the Arizona Public School System,"18Tupper called attention to the extreme variations in wealth

among Arizona counties and among the districts of the coun­ties. His findings are adequately borne out here.

Chart 4 shows in graphic form the fluctuating values in Yavapai County and in the eight representative school districts.

18. Tupper, C. Ralph, op. cit.

52YAVAPAI COUNTY

Prescott Dist. 1 Camp Verde Dist. 28Cottonwood Dist. 6 Clarkdale Dist. 29Jerome Dist. 9 Ashfork Dist. 31Skull Valley Dist. 15 Mayer Dist. 43

//a, oo o

L4l o c o

OOP

ZOOOQ

8 ooo

Chart 4 ssessed Valuation per Student in Average Daily Attendance in Yavapai County, Arizona in Eight Representative Districts Thereof for the Years 1914 to 1936.

CHAPTER IV

ASSESSMENTS AND ASSESSMENT TRENDS IN YAVAPAI COUNTY

The Assessment Of PropertyIn chapter three we considered the ratio of wealth to

the children to be educated and used as our basis of com­putation the assessed valuation of the property in the var­ious school districts being studied. In this chapter it might be well for us to consider the method followed by the officials of the state and county in arriving at the "assessed" valuation of real and personal property.

True And Assessed Valuations'

Section 3068 of the Revised Code of Arizona (1928)says,

"All taxable property shall be assessed at its full cash value. The term * full cash value *, when used in this chapter, shall mean the price at which property would sell if voluntarily offered for sale by the owner thereof, upon such terms as such prop­erty is usually sold, and not the price which might be realized if such property were sold at forced sale."

This provision of the law seems to be considered by the taxing officials of the state as a sort of legal Santa Claus story. Everyone knows what the law is, yet year after year the State Tax Commission meets as a board of equaliza­tion and with due gravity puts the official seal of the state upon the Valuations fixed by the local assessors with

54

the result that v/e have the word of the State of Arizona that the values shown In Table VIII are the average "actual cash value" of the said property!

TABLE VIIIAVERAGE ACTUAL CASH VALUE OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF PROPERTY IN

ARIZONA AS FIXED BY THE STATE TAX COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1936^ . -

Type of Property Average Valuation

Range horses Work horses

# 7.6027.95 ner head

Saddle horses • • ": ■ ■ 7' 26.10 ‘ ti iiMules 23.70 n nAsses (And there were only 266) 5.75 ti iiRange cattle - 12.04 it iiGraded cattle 13.21 u iiSteers (2 yearsi and up) 13.06 ii iiCattle, beef and feeders 16.02 ii iiCattle, milch ‘ 24.48 ii iiSheep 2.56 ii iiGoats .53 iiSwine 6.78 ii nAutomobiles 157.72 eachIrrigated land (Maricopa County) 52.23 per acreIrrigated land (Yavapai County) 37.43 11 iiIrrigated land (Apache County) 13.94 11 iiGrazing land (Maricopa County) 1.21 11 iiGrazing land (Yavapai County) 1.09 11 itGrazing land (Apache County) .78 11 ti

# Data from the Thirteenth Biennial Report of the StateTax Commission to the Governor of the State of Arizona.

"Comparative Values in Arizona 1935", a pamphlet pub­lished in 1937 by the Arizona State Tax Commission compares the information obtained by the Federal Farm Census with the data secured by the county assessors for purposes of tax­ation during the year 1935. Several quotations from this

source seem indicated here.

55

In summing up comparisons of acreage and valuation,19the pamphlet comments as follows:

"The Census enumerators found 1,456,181 acres more land than was assessed by the tax assessors in Arizona for the same period.

"The Census found the value of land in Arizona was $79,966,877.00 more than was assessed by theassessors in the State of Arizona----- How federal^0enumerators were able to find more acres of Farm Land than were assessed to all lands by Arizona's assessors is difficult to explain. How federal enumerators arrived at the proper value of the land is not known, unless it may be suspected that the federal enumerators were told the selling price of the land while the assessors were told the taxable price. It must be admitted, however, that (1) The State of Arizona lost the taxes on 1,456,181 acres of land. (2) The State of Arizona lost the taxes on $79,966,877.00 worth of taxable property reported to .the United States Bureau of the Census. (5) Either the Census Bureau is woe­fully incompetent or the assessing system in Arizona is woefully in need of repair."In the matter of the assessment of livestock it seems

that the officials of the state and of the counties havebeen inclined to overlook a few items for the bulletin con-. 4 21 tinue s:

"In the livestock classifications alone the State of Arizona.lost a valuation of $13,944,042.00 which would have been on the Tax Rolls of Arizona had the assessors been as diligent as were the ; census enumerators. To be specific, the loss in valuation in the livestock classifications were as follows:

Number Valuation Cattle . 284,262 $6,704,186 Horses and mules . 65,481 3,614,071 Goats 85,861 251,725

19. Bureau of the Census Arizona Tax Commission,Comparative Values in Arizona 1955 Section A-P 3

20. Ibid., p. 5, Section A.21. Ibid., p. 10, Section B.

56

SheepSwinePoultry

550,589 2,853,45116,873 96,172

398,915 424,347$13,943,952

That the picture may be clearly shown the total valuation of the Federal Census and that of the State Tax Commission are as follows:

All Livestock in ArizonaFederal Census State Valuation

Number 2,285,055 1,185,034Value $21,172,828 $7,228,876The state lost 1,400,021 head and $13,943,952

valuation. It must be admitted, therefore, that:(1) The State of Arizona lost the taxes on 1,400,021 head of livestock, cattle, horses and mules, sheep, goats, swine and poultry. (2) That the State of Arizona lost the taxes on $13,945,942.00 worth of taxable property reported to the United States Bureau of the Census. (3) Either the Census Bureau is woefully incompetent, or the assessing system of Arizona is woefully in need of repair.”More will not be quoted from the bulletin but suffice

it to say that it continues the comparisons to take in many of the other classes of property in Arizona and finds in each case that Arizona assessments are inexcusably low. The Federal Census made no attempt to place a valuation on mines but the Bureau of Mines in 1953 listed 314 producing mines in the state and gave the tonnage and value of ore produced. During the same year the State Tax Commission assessed only eight Producing Patented and Unpatented Mines in the state.

A talk with David H. Biles, Assessor of Yavapai County, elicits the information that most real and personal prop­erty is assessed at approximately 60 percent of market value and it is his opinion that property in other counties of the

57

state is valued in about the same ratio or even less in some instances. The present practice among the assessors' of Arizona is to see which one can get the valuations for his particular county the lowest, for the lower they are the smaller is any given county’s share of the state tax burden. Maricopa and Graham county complain about the undue reduction made in mining company assessments and Yavapai and Cochise grumble about the millions that should be on the tax roll in Maricopa but is carried in the name of the Federal govern­ment to evade taxes.

22Vlhel states that the low assessed valuations current in Arizona are due to the deliberate attempts of the assess­ors of the state to shift part of the cost of state govern- ment. He further expresses the opinion that the assess­ments made against the railroads and the mines are much nearer the true valuation than is the case with other classes of property.

Weaknesses Of The SystemIn the last analysis there seems to be only one thing

wrong with Arizona’s system of assessing property for taxation-~it just does not work satisfactorily. Our system of employing assessors at the ballot box is all very demo­cratic but it has its drawbacks in that we expect a bit too

22. Vlhel, Francis R. A Financial Survey of MaricopaCounty, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Arizona 1936, p. 34.

23. Ibid., p. 42.

58

much of human nature. One must admit that it is difficult to go out and implore John Citizen to remember you favorably on election day and at the same time demand that he do something about that failing memory and report for taxation that hundred head of steers over on the mountain that were "overlooked" last time. Few men can be successful candidates time after time and remain the kind of an assessor that the state needs. If the person charged with the actual work of fixing the assessments were employed by the State Tax Com­mission or perhaps through the County Board of Supervisors the situation would be improved. . The farther this individual .is removed from the direct action of the electorate the bet­ter chance the state has of getting an honest appraisal of values. In removing such an official from the direct action of the people it is realized that the dictatorial powers thus granted are subject to abuse but as long as our citizens have the right to seek legal remedy from over-assessment It seems unlikely that any particular policy adopted could meet with more difficulties than the one now in use. The sugges­tions made above are somewhat in line with the recommenda­tions of the national Tax Conference as included in their "Model System Of State And Local Taxation" wherein they recommend that assessors be appointed. The Conference sug­gests that where state constitutional requirements make the

24. Proceedings, Twelfth Annual Conference, National Tax Association, p. 439.

59

election of assessors mandatory that the power of removal should be left with the State Tax Commission or Commissioner as the case may be. Terms of at least four years are recom­mended for the appointed assessors and the state tax admin- , istrative body is a permanent commission in whose membership is included members of the dominant political parties of the state. Staggered terms for the commissioners are recommended in order that continuing policies may be developed and car­ried out. A preliminary report of the Committee on a Model System of State and Local Taxation as recorded on page four hundred and thirty-nine of the Proceedings of the Twelfth national Tax Conference suggests that most of the weaknesses of assessors could be overcome by improving our system of taxation and eliminating the "unreasonable and unworkable" general property tax.

Assessed Valuation of Yavapai County 1912-1937x

The wide fluctuations in the valuation of the county has been by no means due solely to the whims of the assessor in office at any particular time. The pulse of industry and the fortunes of war make themselves all too sharply felt in a county whose sustaining industry is the production of cop­per. Table IX shows the effect that both war and business stagnation have had on taxable wealth in our county.

TABLE IXFINAL NET ASSESSED VALUATIONS FOR YAVAPAI

COUNTY 1912-1937

Year Net Valuation

1912 $ 16,111,921.211913 39,798,872.191914 43,474,850.301915 45,551,978.201916 58,277,287.691917 98,716,072.381918 130,575,381.621919 134,082,679.771920 130,044,420.171921 122,360,179.001922 107,909,313.001923 103,726,282.001924 91,644,836.001925 93,699,894.001926 93,394,465.001927 95,992,408.001928 89,523,899.001929 92,969,076.001930 85,967,171.001931 78,609,862.001932 56,996,862.001935 51,572,377.001934 45,288,424.001935 44,037,326.621936 44,268,862.191937

There was a time when the mines alone paid on a valuation of eighty-five million dollars in Yavapai County. Today that time is but a memory and the total valuation of the entire county is but slightly more than half of that.

Yavapai County is not alone in her troubles born of an erratic assessed valuation and a capricious copper mar­ket. The State of Arizona as a whole has been subjected to

61

the same ills that have befallen the counties of which she is composed. Table X shows the assessment changes that have affected the state during the years subsequent to 1912.

TABLE XPINAL NET ASSESSED VALUATION FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA 1912-1937

Year Net Valuation1912191319141915191619171918191919201921192219231924192519261927192819291930193119321934193519361937

$140,338,191377,281,436408,618,137420,532,411486,406,518699.245.000835.916.000856.791.000886.210.000 830,536,582 732,021,286 697,002,006 649,879,308 640,895,855 653,163,397 673,127,177 681,736,018 700,890,801 714,945,809 674,729,235 473,342,415 386,871,750 356,783,687 355,482,661

. 357,966,807

The Cbmmittee on Mines Taxation of the National Tax Conference^ took into consideration this wavering value of mining property and suggested that "The tax on mines should bear no relation to revenue requirements" presumably a pro-

25. Ibid., p. 412.

62

posal intended to assist in the stabilizing the tax rate in the states with extensive mining properties and at the same time to use the income from the taxes on the mines for the creation of a depletion reserve against the day when the ore bodies were mined out and the mines closed.

Assessments for Different Classes of Property Table XI which follows shows the assessments against

the five most important classes of property .in Yavapai County for the years 1912 to and including 1937.

TOTAL VALUATION OF FIVE CLASSES' OF PROPERTY IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA FOR THE YEARS1912 TO 1956 INCLUSIVE

TABLE XI

D r y FarmingCity and Town Lots Telephone and and Grazing Producing

Year Railroads and Improvements Telegraph Lands Mines

1912 5 3,641,297 vl,828,463 § 54,858 872,634 A 4,702,2551913 10,156,040 5,247,448 172,068 803,841 13,524,5541914 10,584,680 5,449,184 175,052 ■. 739,868 14,733,8021915 10,761,956 * 172,598 -x- 15,430,9191916 10,731,641 * 181,541 26,466,7621917 11,454,846 4,155,110 214,572 1,204,281 61,950,2881918 11,700,151 4,853,119 235,812 1,423,017 85,911,1301919 11,758,111 5,167,868 252,117 1,212,646 84,165,9231920 , 11,739,956 6,052,758 294,201 1,508,354 76,930,3701921 11,765,865 , 6,134,805 352,706 1,631,414 68,814,7641922 11,741,880 6,374,588 302,755 1,597,543 56,524,0301923 11,741,880 6,541,529 342,550 1,524,049 52,550,040 ,1924 11,794,740 6,617,487 343,091 1,518,754 41,179,2431925 11,947,710 6,671,025 355,529 1,709,051 43,974,7701926 11,957,610 7,225,958 354,997 1,550,452 45,799,6391927 12,480,325 7,331,942 368,827 1,552,079 47,640,6371928 12,428,185 7,740,062 407,391 1,662,810 42,249,8171930 12,428,185 8,249,798 428,179 1,723,076 48,124,6421931 12,629,535 8,611,578 466,919 1,729,388 39,891,6191932 12,629,535 8,831,536 606,449 1,594,493 34,112,8481933 10,699,210 7,121,100 564,708 1,514,635 18,548,0691954 10,589,013 5,389,706 555,646 1,098,948 19,450,4201955 10,295,904 5,078,638 555,524 1,259,678 /712,3771936 10,057,024 5,409,468 551,569 1,215,784 299,4751957 10,015,969 5,371,236 552,035 1,260,078 13,695,000-This classification not included in Third Biennial Report of State Tax Commission.

64

For the individual who is inclined to feel that the present is unduly burdened with problems of state, a quiet perusal of the early reports of the State Tax Commission would prove encouraging. In territorial days it seems that the matter of assessing property was left entirely to the judgment of the local assessor. There was no supervising body to exercise even nominal restraint upon his actions or to offer encouragement in:time of pressure.

The Work of First Tax Commission The first State Tax Commission was appointed by Gov­

ernor Hunt on May 13, 1912 which gave that body only a few weeks time in which to set up office and start work before the tax rolls for the year had to be completed and the tax rate in the various counties fixed. Either that first Com­mission was composed of men of action or the assessors of the state had unhappy visions of being called upon to ex­plain the abject poverty of the citizens of their partic­ular domains for the assessed valuation of the state in 1912 increased an even 43 percent over the assessment of the year before. Another trend that has its inception from the inaug­uration of that first Tax Commission was the increase of as­sessments chargeable against the corporations. Thus from the time of the Territory we inherited the fight over taxes and the end is not yet. Below is given a table that shows the beginning of the fight for greater assessments and for a shifting of the tax burden to corporate shoulders.

PERCENTAGES OF STATE TAXES' PAID BY VARIOUS CLASSES OF PROPERTY DURING THE YEARSINDICATED

TABLE XII

Class of Property------------ ------ -r-

1911 1912 1913 1918 1924 1950 ; 1936

Lands and Improvements 14.2 12.7 10.7 7.9 12.9 11.9 13.2Mines and Machinery Town and City Lots

19.5 31.7 37.2 58.6 42.3 39.7 23.2and Improvements 26.5 18.2 15.2 9.1 14.1 17.5 20.6

Livestock 7.8 6.5 5.9 5.2 3.7 1.7 2.2

Railroads 19.1 20.0 22.2 11.7 15.5 15.5 22.8

All Other Property 13.1 10.9 8.8 7.2 11.7 14.2 18.0

66

Fluctuating Assessment of the MinesThe attention of the reader is directed to the ex­

tremely rapid increase in the percentage of state tax shifted to the mining companies. This trend continued until 1918 when the mines paid fifty-eight percent of the taxes of the state. From that peak the taxes on the mines have gradually receded until in 1936 they paid only twenty-three percent of the tax of the state.' The information above does not per­tain to Yavapai County directly but in view of the fact that the wealth of the county is to a great extent invested in the mines it becomes very pertinent data.

Chart 5 gives a graphic picture of the effect that the varying value of mining property has on the total assessed value of the county. Another item that the chart shows most forcibly is the comparatively fixed assessments for other classes of property. From 1913 to date the railroads have paid on a valuation ranging from ten to twelve million dol­lars. Dry farming land is practically the same that it was in 1917. City and town lots and improvements have shown a steady increase in value, due to the Increasing population of the county, up until 1933 when the effects of the business depression began to make themselves felt.

67

Chart 5. Total Valuation of Five Classes of Property in Yavapai County, Arizona for theYears 1914 to 1936

illion

Railroads______________City And Town Lots_____Telephone And TelegraphDry Lands____________Producing Mines

.v

68

Methods Used in Assessing Mines The former Bullion Tax Law having been repealed by

the First State Legislature, the first Tax Commission was faced with the problem of taxing the mines on an advalorem basis. From that time until the present a continuing ef­fort has been made to find a satisfactory method of taxing the mines. That first State Tax Commission asked the min­ing companies to furnish them with information covering the amount and character of ores mined, mining costs, prices received for metal sold, and the possible extent and value of ore bodies yet to be mined, with the object in mind of attempting to arrive at a value upon which to levy taxes for immediate use and of gathering information that would assist them in formulating a law to govern the future pay­ment of taxes. All companies of the state cooperated with the exception of the United Verde at Jerome which withheld or gave very grudgingly the information asked and then pro­tested the valuation placed upon it. The mining company lost on an appeal carried to the state supreme court. In October of 1912 the mining companies of the state proposed that the value of mines be ascertained as follows: First: That all patented mines be assessed per acre at the price paid to the U. S. Government therefor. Second: That allimprovements upon said mines be assessed by the State Tax Commission at the same value as other property. Third:That the net earnings from the said mines be ascertained

69

and assessed at 100 percent of the true value thereof.Fourth: That in addition thereto all producing mines beassessed upon 12^ percent of the gross product or yield thereof in value. Violent objection was offered to this proposal from those who felt that the five dollars per acre paid by the mining companies to the government for their patented land was more of a token payment than an actual consideration for value received. The proposal was drawn up in the form of a law and submitted. The law that the legislature did pass provided for the producing mines to be assessed at four times their net profit plus one- eighth of the gross plus the value of the improvements.This law was repealed in 1914.

The next system of assessing the producing mines pro­vided that the average annual net income over a period of years be used as a starting point from which a division into nine distinct classes was made. A capitalizing fig­ure or index figure was fixed for each group based on ore reserves and production costs and assessments for eachindividual mine worked out on the basis of this index.

• ' •

Beginning in 1915 the period of time over v/hich annual net income for the mines was considered was three years. This was followed in 1916 with a five year average as a base for the index figure. From that year the Commission began ex­tending the number of years to be considered with the inten­tion of reaching a full ten year period by 1926, but in

70

1923 the United Verde, United Verde Extension, and theUnited Eastern objected to the valuations placed on theirrespective properties. The United Verde Extension paidits taxes under protest and entered suit for a refund. Thesuit was carried to a successful conclusion in 1925. Inextending judgment in favor of the company the court in itsopinion dealt a substantial blow to the method of assessingthat had been used by the Tax Commission by saying:

"The character of mining property is constantly undergoing change, with exhaustion in some mines and new discoveries in others, and these changes must be met and dealt with as they arise. They cannot be solved through the application of some simple, unyielding formula; much less can they be solved in advance by the decree of a court of equity."By resolution adopted on June 30, 1925 the Tax Com­

mission abandoned the method of arriving at valuations of producing mines by capitalization of net earnings alone and changed the system to take into consideration ore reserves, stock sales and quotations and production costs. In addi­tion to the above information the Commission made annual trips of inspection to the various mining properties, thereby obtaining all the information possible in order to arrive at an equitable valuation of all the producing properties. : ■ :

26In 1928 the State Tax Commission comments.

26. State Tax Commission of ArizonaHinth Biennial Report to the Governor, p. 9.

71

"V/hile the Tax Commission no longer uses the net production as the sole basis for fixing mine values, but uses it only as one of the factors, it can readily be seen that, comparatively speaking, the mines are now assessed on a much higher basis than they were when the higher mine values prevailed. This is quite contrary to the propaganda that was being circulated during the late political strife, when it was stated for campaign purposes that the Tax Commission had shifted the tax burden from the mine owners to the farmers."This ,Icomparatively higher basis” of valuation for

mining property was not without its effect for the next biennial report of the commission tells of a judgment rendered in behalf of the United Verde Extension for tax refund in the sum of S192,626.78 and of unsettled suits pending on the part of the Magma Copper Company and the Shattuck-Denn Mining Corporation. Two years later, in the biennial report of December, 1932, tax suits appear to have become such a common occurrence that they are not mentioned individually. The simple statement is made that judgments granted against the counties have reduced valua­tions in the amount of ^34,604,370 and caused the refunding of state taxes to the extent of $328,742. The commission report of December 1934 simply suggests that some two mil­lion dollars in taxes were involved in litigation with the mining companies at the time the report of December 1936 was published, all of which goes to show that the method of properly assessing the property of the mines is yet to be agreed upon.

The activity of the State Tax Commission and the

72

various county assessors was not the only factor that operated to push the assessed valuation of the mines to an all-time high within six years after statehood. The war which began in Europe in 1914 created a steadily increasing demand for the red metal which reached a peak in 1916 when the price touched 27.2 cents per pound for electrolytic copper on the Hew York market. High prices for copper stim­ulated both production and prospecting. In 1915 exception­ally rich ore was found in the second shaft of the United Verde Extension mine at Jerome and the fabulous tales that got into print concerning that mine and the older United Verde precipitated a boom of no mean proportions. During 1916 and 1917 more than fifty companies were granted the right to sell stock for the promotion of mines in the Verde district. Of these, the Jerome Verde, Green Monster, Verde Combination, Dundee, Gadsen, Jerome Pacific, and perhaps a few others made legitimate attempts to develop showings that- seemed promising. The United Verde Extension blew in their new smelter at Clemenceau in July 1918 and between that date and December 51 produced twenty-three million pounds of copper. The United Verde smelter at Clarkdale recovered seventy-seven million pounds of copper, a million two hun­dred and ninety-two thousand ounces of silver, arid twenty- nine thousand two hundred and eighty-one ounces of gold in the same year. In the Humboldt-Mayer district the Blue Bell, De Soto, Stoddard, Consolidated Arizona, and the Kay

73

all produced some ore and spent a lot of money In pros­pecting and in developing.

All this 1days of *49 * activity placed millions of dollars of mine assessments on the rolls of the county but in 1921 the huge stocks of accumulated copper broke the market and the bubble burst. The price hit a decline from which it did not recover until 1932 when it touched bottom with an average price for the year of 5.55 cents. Rotting headframes, rusting machinery, and disconsolately flapping sheet iron on deserted buildings tell the story of the hun­dreds of small mines and prospects that went out with the financial tide. Only the United Verde Extension continued through the lean years without stopping production. Of all the mines closed only the rich United Verde came back.

In 1934 only nineteen million of the former wealth and alleged wealth of the companies remained on the rolls at the county assessor’s office. The following year the county assessor assessed the United Verde as a non-pro- - ducing mine and the classification of producing mines on the assessor’s roll fell to seven hundred and twelve thou­sand followed in 1956 by an all-time low of two hundred ninety-nine thousand. Thus in as few words as possible is told the story of the rise and fall of the assessed valua­tion of Yavapai County.

Since the days of the first Tax Commission many harsh words have passed concerning what constitutes the mining

74

companies1 just share of the cost of government. The writer does not propose to attempt the answer but suggests that the reader again consult Chart 4 and note that the assessed valuation of other classes of property did not skyrocket in 1917 and 1918 as did the assessments of the companies. It could be possible that the valuations of the companies can stand the deflation that they have been receiving the last few years and still do no violence to justice. Another conclusion that seems warranted Is that all classes of taxpayers have been guilty of all the tax evasion possible. The wide discrepancy between the Arizona tax rolls and the tabulations of the Federal Census is not due solely to laxity on the part of our county officials.

CHAPTER V

SCHOOL REVENUE

SourcesFunds for the operation of the common and high

schools of the state come from three taxing units, the state, the county, and the local school district. Sec­tion 1088, Revised Code of Arizona as amended by the Twelfth Legislature reads:

"State Levy For Common and High School Education. There shall be appropriated in the general appropriation act, for common and high : school education in the state, during each fis­cal year, a sum of money not more than twenty-five dollars per capita per annum on all pupils in average daily attendance in the common and high schools in the state, as shown by the records of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the preceding year. All Income and money dedicated by the enabling act and the constitu­tion of the state, to the purpose of common and high school education shall be placed to the credit of the state board of education, to be dealt with as provided by law."

This paragraph is the legal basis for the raising of fundsby the state for distribution to the public schools of thecommonwealth. It is this section that has to be defendedby the school people of the state at each session of thelegislature, for being only statutory law it is subject torepeal or amendment at any session of the lawmaking body.

76

County LevySection 1090 of-the Revised Code of Arizona as

amended by the Twelfth Legislature provides for making a county levy for the common and high schools of the county. It reads: .'

"County Levy For Common and High School Education, (a) On or before the first day of jiuly of each year the trustees of common school districts and the boards of education of high schools shall file with the county school superintendents an itemized estimate of the amount of money needed for defraying the ex­penses of the schools.within their respective districts for the ensuing year. The county school superintendent, when he files his estimate of the amount needed for the schools of the county, shall transmit to the board of supervisors the estimates of common school districts, high school districts and union high school districts, with such re­vision as he shall deem proper with reference to the general county school levy. The county school superintendent shall on or before the first day of August of each year, furnish the county board of supervisors an estimate in writing of the amount of school funds needed for the ensuing year. In making up his estimate the superinten­dent shall consider all sums requested by the boards of trustees of common schools and the boards of education of high schools.

11 (b) The • county superintendent shall multi­ply the sum representing the average daily atten­dance of the common and high schools of the county, other than one-room and two-room rural schools for the previous year, by such sum as will produce the amount of funds estimated by him to be need­ed for the ensuing year, less the amount to be re­ceived from the state school fund, the forest re­serve and other sources; provided, that in no event shall such sum be less than twenty-five dollars nor more than forty dollars. In figuring aver­age daily attendance as herein provided only the six months of school showing the highest average daily attendance shall be considered. He shall add to this sum a sufficient amount to enable him to apportion to each rural school district

77

maintaining a one-room rural school for a minimum term of eight months, not more than twelve hundred and fifty dollars, and to each rural school dis­trict maintaining a two-room rural school for a minimum term of eight months, not more than twen­ty-five hundred dollars; provided that the county superintendent may, with the approval of the board of supervisors, estimate the expenses of and make his apportionment to one and two-room school dis­tricts on the basis of average daily attendance; provided that in districts having little or no assessed valuation the boards of trustees may pe­tition the county school superintendent for an ad­ditional amount not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars for a one room school and five hun­dred dollars for a two-room school. The amount allowed"shall be taken from the reserve fund.The amount received by any county from the ap­portionment of state per capita levy, together with amounts to be raised by county levy, as finally determined by the county school superin­tendent , shall constitute the aggregate sum of money to be raised by state and county taxes for the support of the common and high schools for the year, and shall constitute the county school funds; provided, that the revised estimate and school fund may contain the reserve fund as hereinafter pro­vided.

"(c) The amount received by any county from the apportionment of the state school fund, to­gether with the amounts raised by the county as herein provided, shall constitute the aggregate sum of money to be raised by state and county tax for the support of the common and high schools for that year. The aggregate sum, except the county school reserve fund, shall constitute'the county school fund."V/hen translated into English, the above specimen of

the legal profession’s weakness simply provides that the county superintendent of schools acting through the county board of supervisors may lay a tax of sufficient size on the property of the county to raise a minimum of twenty-five dollars and a maximum of forty dollars per pupil for those pupils enrolled in schools or more than two teachers and in

78

addition, a flat twelve hundred and fifty dollars for each one-room school in the county and twice that for a two-room school. In calculating the amount of money for which to levy the county school superintendent is permitted to use the average daily attendance for the highest six months only whereas the levy for the state is figured on the average for the year.

This section of the Arizona code has never been passed on by the courts and for that reason it has been given widely varying interpretations. Some county superintendents in the past have interpreted the section as giving them the authority to fix the county rate at any figure between twenty-five and forty dollars without regard to whether or not the figure used would produce all the funds asked for in the budget of various school districts of the county. Still other county school superintendents have apportioned the county school funds in such a manner that certain "dis­tricts have actually received from the state and county more money than they asked for in their budget. This statement is based on a study of the Annual Reports of the County Superintendents of Schools on file in the office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Mr. C. E. Rose, superintendent of city schools,Tucson, Arizona is most emphatic in his belief that the authority granted the county school superintendents to arbitrarily fix the amount of the county per capita levy

79

is an unconstitutional grant of power. Whether or not the authority granted is constitutional, the provision certainly puts the county superintendent in an uncomfortable position in counties where there are large corporate taxpayers who stand to lose by the equalizing effect of this county per capita levy.

School District LevySection 1091 Revised Code of 1928 as amended by the

Eleventh Arizona State Legislature authorizes school dis­tricts to levy taxes for the support of common and high school education within their boundaries. The text follows:

"School District Levy For Common and High School Education. The county school superintendent shall determine whether or not his estimate will produce , the amount of money asked for by the boards of trustees of the common schools or boards of educa­tion of the high- schools, and if not, he must estimate the.additional amount needed for such district or districts and certify the same at the time of cer­tifying to his estimate. The board of supervisors of each county shall annually at the time of levying other taxes, levy a school tax of a rate sufficient to raise the said minimum amount of money, and in addition a rate on the property of any districts in which an additional amount has been asked for by the board of trustees of said district; said tax shall be added to the county tax and be collected in the same.manner. That portion levied for county school purposes shall be paid into the county trea­sury to the credit of the county school fund. Such additional portion as has been, levied for school purposes in a particular district shall be paid into the school fund of such district.This section, together with the two sections quoted

previously, provides the legal foundation upon which the school finance of the state rests. All three sections have

80

been subject to frequent legislative scrutiny with the result that changes have been frequent. The principle of dividing the responsibility for school support between the state, county, and local school district has been adhered to rather definitely however.

Operation Of The State Tax For SchoolsThe use of the state as a taxing unit for the support

of schools is based on the principle that all the property of the state should support the education of its future citizens regardless of the place of their residence within the state, a principle sound in theory but sometimes in practice difficult of administration.

Under the law.of Arizona as it now stands the legis­lature must include in the general appropriation act a sum of money not to exceed twenty-five dollars per student per annum to be used for the support of common and high school education. This provision does not mean much in that a maximum amount only is named and any session of the law­making body could exercise its prerogative of making an infinitesimal appropriation or repeal the section. It does, however, place a moral obligation on the lawgivers that is not easily ignored with the result that the maximum figure is usually obtained.

On the second Monday in August each year the Tax Com­mission sitting as a Board of Equalization must certify to

81

the board of supervisors in each county of the state the amount of money that they must levy against the property of their respective counties for state purposes. This tax is collected by the various county treasurers along with the county taxes and the state’s share is remitted to the state treasurer. The portion of the state tax that belongs to the schools is then pro-rated to the counties on the basis, not of their valuation but on the average daily attendance in their common and high schools.

On first glance this appears to be an absolutely just and impartial division of funds but in practice irregular­ities develop that lead to some dis-satisfaction. When the depression came along some school men of the state desir­ous of operating their system as economically as possible hit upon the plan of sending the children of the first three grades to school only one-half day and using one teacher to handle two groups of children. Each group of children was reported as having attended a whole day in school with the result that their schools collected state and county funds in twice the amount that the law had con­templated. The result of this was a legal definition of the school day by the next session of the legislature which has its own disadvantages.

The next objection, like the first, is born of a desire to reduce local taxes. Teachers are overloaded by putting fifty, sixty, and sometimes seventy pupils in one

82

room. Districts that are driven to such extremes usually pay their teachers inadequately with the result that we sometimes find a thirteen hundred and fifty dollar teacher handling a room of fifty pupils for which the district will collect three thousand two hundred and fifty dollars of state and county funds on the basis of forty dollars per pupil from the county and twenty-five dollars from the state. It just so happens in this state that the localities that have the least wealth seem to have the most children and are therefore collecting more from the state equalizing fund than they are paying in, all of which occasionally leads to the suggestion on the part of some school administrator that the offending school is not satisfied with the state’s edu­cating its children but is desirous of making a profit on the transaction in addition. A study is now being made into the possibility of using a pupil-teacher or classroom-unit basis for the distribution of state and county funds. It is believed that such a step would discourage the over-loading of teachers with its accompaning evils.

Much of the desire to abuse the present plan of appor­tioning funds on the basis of average daily attendance could be eliminated if an effective method- could be found of preventing school boards from spending state and county money for purposes of capital outlay or applying on bonded indebtedness. Such uses are supposed to be illegal under the code as it now stands but loopholes seem to be available

83

to those who seek them. But even with the shortcomings of our system as mentioned above it is fundamentally sound and productive of much good. Any changes contemplated should be carefully studied to see that the basic features of statewide equalization are not lost. *

In order that the reader may see more clearly the effect of the state tax in the field of equalization Table XIII is herewith presented.

AMOUNT EACH COUNTY PAID INTO STATE SCHOOL FUND FROM PROPERTY TAX FOR EACH DOLLARRECEIVED FOR YEARS 1922 TO 1935'”' .

TABLE XIII . . . . . .

1925 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1950 1931 1952 1935 1954 1955 1956Apache .58 .47 .43 .41 .49 .53 .50 .52 .58 .70 .69 .72 .92 .94Cochise .81 .90 .94 .96 1.09 1.14 1.06 1.19 1.54 1.29 1.25 1.19 1.28 1.31Coconino .82 1.04 1.03 1.10 1.22 1.23 1.18 1.26 1.25 1.49 1.45 1.48 1.72 1.67Gila 1.42 1.37 1.13 1.15 1.26 1.10 1.10 1.20 1.20 .81 .94 .86 .84 .82Graham .24 .33 .37 .59 .43 .41 .43 .44 .49 .57 .49 .53 .53 .51Greenlee .56 .84 .86 .87 1.18 1.22 1.16 1.24 1.24 1.27 1.33 1.19 1.17 1.17Maricopa .35 .41 .50 .49 .57 .59 .57 .63 .63 .70 .70 .71 .71 .70Mojave 1.21 1.29 1.24 1.56 1.92 1.84 1.76 1.92 2.10 2.47 2.73 2.84 2.69 2.43Navajo .28 .55 .37 .40 .45 .50 .46 .51 .50 .59 .51 .62 .56 .65Pima .48 .55 .76 .78 .95 .99 .95 1.08 1.06 1.12 1.02 1.07 1.06 1.07Pinal 1.29 1.42 1.53 1.47 1.95 2.01 2.05 2.13 1.69 1.39 1.28 1.47 1.35 1.28Santa Crus .32 .43 .53 .60 .65 .70 .69 .67 .67 .74 .61 .65 .64 .67

Yavapai 1.59 1.66 1.71 1.85 2.00 1.83 1.84 1.77 1.80 1.97 2.10 2.00 1.93 1.91

Yuma .48 .59 .75 .69 .89 .92 .85 .90 .95 1.18 1.09 1.25 1.24 1.31^'Information taken from Biennial Reports of the. State Tax Commission to the

Governor.

85

Even the most casual glance.at Table XIII will reveal the relative positions of the counties of the state with reference to whether the state school fund is costing them money or contributing to the support of their schools. Mojave, Pinal and Yavapai have contributed to the fund every year since 1922. Apache, Graham, Maricopa, Havajo, and Santa Cruz have been consistently on the receiving side of the balance. Gila county has been a contributor up until the depression closed her mines and she moved over to the other side of the ledger. Pima and Yuma counties now as­sist the less fortunate whereas they were formerly in the receiving column. The picture is easy to see. Mojave with her vast uninhabited territories has few children to edu­cate yet is blessed with numerous mines and a main line railway to the extent that her valuation per school child is high. Yavapai County has some six times the school pop­ulation of Mojave but she has tax resources in proportion. Mines, railroads and homes represent most of the wealth.By far the greater portion of her eight thousand square miles is uninhabited which reduces her educational load to a minimum. With Pinal it is again the story of the mines furnishing the wealth and much desert territory keeping the population down.

The five counties mentioned above as consistently receiving aid are definitely agricultural and ranching areas. Maricopa County with the city of Phoenix as its

86

center of wealth has by far the greatest valuation among the counties of the state but her wealth of children Is even greater. Pima and Yuma Counties are two that have moved over into the column of contributors In the last few years when the sales tax has lifted part of the state tax burden from real estate.

The Sales,Tax and Its Collection When the sales tax law was passed it was generally

commented that the mining counties were being relieved of taxes at the expense of the others. Table XIV gives an interesting sidelight on this.

TABLE XIVSALES TAX COLLECTIONS AND PER CAPITA SALES TAX PAID BY COUNTIES DURING FISCAL

YEARS OF 1954 AND 1936"

Collections

Population 1930 Census adjusted for year

Per Capita tax paid for year

Rank of county based on per ca ita sales tax collections

1934 1936 1934 1936 1934 1936 1934 1936

Apache $ 10,060.07 $ 20,794.15 7,403 7,765 ^1.04 $1.24: . 13 .14Cochise 127,380.65 309,902.74 40,998 40,998 3.23 8.1(1 6 4Coconino 51,357.95 113,077.71 10,107 14,064 4.48 8.5C' 1 3Gila 42,937.63 146,019.22 28,971 31,016 1.96 4.9E 11 11Graham 21,217.67 49,322.31 9,614 10,373 1.40 5.04 12 9Greenlee 10,244.65 17,637.82 9,886 9,886 1.02 1.9C> 14 13Maricopa 522,363.42 1,157,304.20 147,692 168,000 3.40 7.3E 5 6Mojave 19,894.46 54,524.63 4,738 5,572 4.23 10.5fi 2 1Navajo 32,784.16 71,267.02 11,063 21,202 2.19 5.5^ . 8 12Pima • 195,654.68 484,235.21 50,300 56,073 3.63 9.If 3 2Pinal 41,497.34 101,192.37 18,266 22,081 2.16 4.9f : - 9 10Santa Cruz 21,188.65 52,336.21 9,684 9,684 2.03 5.8*;' 10 8Yavapai 92,426.66 199,235.16 27,990 28,470 3.57 7.3J 4 5Yuma 50,535.41 113,222.71 16,780 17,816 3.05 6.7C 7 7"Data from Thirteenth Biennial Report of the State Tax Commission

88

Despite the fact that the Thirteenth Biennial Re­port of the State Tax Commission indicates that approxi­mately eighty percent of the sales tax collected is on retail sales and consequently must come in great part from the centers of population of the state, it is interesting to note in the table above that Mojave, Coconino, and Yavapai are among the top ranking counties in per capita sales tax collections for the years 1934 and 1936 and Apache, Graham, and Greenlee are at the bottom of the list. Again it becomes apparent that you cannot collect taxes from a people who do not have the money.

The sales tax as a source of revenue has been an un­qualified success as far as the State of Arizona is con­cerned. The receipts from that source have grown with each year of its use and if not abused the tax will be valuable both as a source of revenue and as an avenue for bringing the people of the commonwealth back to a wholesome tax con­sciousness.

District Levies: Their Source and SumAt the present time in Arizona, the funds for school

maintenance are in large part secured from state and county taxes. The high district rates are chiefly due to debt service and in lesser amounts to levies that should properly be designated as capital outlay. Tables XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIII show the total expenditures for current expense in the districts of the various counties, the amount raised by

89

districts for tho same purpose and the percentage that the district levy is of the total expenditures. The four tables contain the information for both elementary and high school for tho years 1934-35 and 1935-36.

TABLE XVRELATION OF DISTRICT LEVIES FOR CURRENT EXPENSE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO THE

TOTAL CURRENT EXPENSE OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STUDIED BYCOUNTIES FOR THE YEAR 1934-35-::'

County A #D. A.

Totalexpenditures for current expense

Amount raised by district levy

Percent of total cost raised by district levy Rank

Apache 1,311 ft 85,292 ft 1,308 1.5 6Cochise 5,851 433,599 85,985 19. 7Coconino 1,834 147,359 21,044 14. 3Gila 3,237' 277,787 48,525 17. 5Graham 2,254 138,553 6,441 4. 14Greenlee 1,418 109,372 6,059 5. 11Maricopa 23,800 1,480,414 139,977 9. 10Mojave 812 73,612 13,171 17. 4Navajo 2,133 161,543 23,740 14. 8Pima 8,559 616,904 20,530 33. 1Pinal 3,179 221,666 9,492 4. 13Santa Cruz 1,750 106,555 5,980 5. 12Yavapai 4,151 278,734 52,975 19. 2Yuma 2,746 160,959 16,153 10. 9'"Data from Thirteenth Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public

Instruction.

TABLE XVIRELATION OF DISTRICT LEVIES FOR CURRENT EXPENSE IN HIGH SCHOOLS TO ^HE TOTAL CUR­

RENT EXPENSE OF THE HIGH SCHOOLS, STUDIED BY COUNTIES FOR THE YEAR 1954-35

A.D.A.Total expenditures for current expense

Amount raised by district levy

Percent of total cost raised by district levy Rank

.Apache 277 $ 53,116 .. 0 14Cochise 1,468 200,588 106,271 5 13Coconino 288 51,721 30,272 58 5Glia 814 88,573 10,578 11 12Graham 558 50,252 11,038 21 11Greenlee 418 41,629 9,144 21 10Maricopa ‘ 6,006 ; 631,786• 274,543 43 7Mojave 140 31,619 34,016 107 1Navajo 541 70,333 43,142 61 3Pima 1,571 139,051 50,165 36 9Pinal 574 79,840 48,985 61 2Santa Cruz ' 291 41,551 23,354 56 6Yavapai 1,249 134,456 48,656 36 8Yuma 551 74,889 45,787 61 4

TABLE XVIIRELATION OP DISTRICT LEVIES FOR CURRENT EXPENSE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO THE

TOTAL CURRENT EXPENSE- OF TEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, STUDIED BYCOUNTIES FOR THE YEAR 19,35-36

County ..... ' A.D.A.Total expenditures for current expense

Amount raised by district levy

Percent of total cost raised by district levy Rank .

Apache 1,503 0 96,427 ' 0 7,078 7 ' 12Cochise 5,768 447,395 130,732 29 1Coconino 1,768 144,924 35,815 24 2Gila 3,288 285,105 46,132 16 4Graham 2,537 150,541 14,246 9 • 10Greenlee 1,565 105,252 9,512 9 9Maricopa 24,085 1,579,267 164,457 10 7Mojave 945 79,299 8,152 10 6Navajo 2,254 173,191 26,195 15 5Pima 9,400 640,162 . 43,593 6 13Pinal 3,381 234,704 25,525 10 8Santa Cruz . 1,749 113,959 5,370 4 14Yavapai 3,860 299,215 64,201 21 3Yuma 2,707 : 184,519 13,590 7 11

TABLE XVIII .RELATION OF DISTRICT LEVIES FOR CURRENT EXPENSE IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS TO THE TOTAL

CURRENT EXPENSE OF THE HIGH SCHOOLS, STUDIED BY COUNTIES FOR THE YEAR 1955-56

' Percent ofAmount total cost 1

Total expenditures raised by raised byCounty A.D.A. for current expense district levy district levy Rank

Apache 249 A 55,139 0 14Cochise 1,417 211,780 .‘’il 149,936 70 2Coconino 296 50,280 34,774 69 3Glia 855 95,499 26,287 27 12Graham 619 48,820 13,480 27 13Greenlee 417 45,501 14,745 32 ■ 11Maricopa 6,508 695,952 366,781 52 8Mojave 187 55,018 - 29,893 85 1Navajo 539 74,057 46,522 62 4Pima 1,483 150,033 67,125 44 9Pinal 615 95,957 54,819 57 6Santa Cruz 299 40,760 25,650 62 5Yavapai 1,315 149,968 63,355 42 10Yuma 622 86,694 45,624 52 7

94

The percent of current expense raised by the districts of the counties runs all the way from nothing to 107 percent. The zero figure comes from Apache County and means that for at least one year no school district in the county had a levy for current expense. The high figure is from Mojave where the whole county is in a union high school district and the small average daily attendance made it mandatory for the district to raise funds to offset the high per capita cost induced by the small enrollment. The average percent of the current or maintenance expense raised by districts for the two years studied would exceed twenty-five, little, if any. This opinion,is corroborated by the data shown in Table XIX-which was assembled by Emil L. Larson, Professor of Education at the University of Arizona and deals with the state as a whole.

95

TABLE XIXPERCENTAGE OF SCHOOL MAINTENANCE FROM

STATE AND COUNTY FUNDS

Year State County State and County

PollTax

School Maintenance

1907-08 10.6 64.6 75.2 14.2 $ 624,376.441911-12 6.6 61.5 67.9 9.7 890,533.271913-14 39.6 51.3 90.9 9.8 1,212,116.371916-17 31.9 59.5 91.4 7.6 1,686,157.281917-18 42.2 45.6 87.8 6.7 2,017,474.411918-19 36.2 42.1 78.3 (15.7) 2,314,573.421920-21 17.9 34.9 52.8 2.2 5,576,875.191921-22 27.9 43.5 71.4 2.2 5,000,400.001922-25 33.9 32.8 66.7 2.1 5,468,415.221930-31 23.8 42.1 65.9 1.4 8,890,464.691931-32 26.1 46.8 72.9 1.2 8,018,889.721932-33 24.4 50.5 74.9 1.2 6,006,848.801935-34 59.0 43.4 82.4 1.5 5,756,376.071934-35 24.9 69.5 94.6 1.4 6,035,166.761935-36 29.9 74.4 104.3 .4 6,567,014.38

From this table it is apparent that the state is furnishing about twenty-five percent of the maintenance funds of the school districts and the counties are sup­plying approximately fifty to fifty-five percent of same which leaves only twenty or twenty-five percent for the districts to assume. This leaves the tax paying ability of the districts, in a large measure, free to care for their needs in the field of debt service and capital outlay.

Differentiation Needed Between Levies and Expenditures

In studying the costs of different governmental agencies it cannot be too strongly emphasized that care must be used in distinguishing between ad valorem taxes collected

96

for a given purpose and the actual amount of the expendi­tures . Since 1920 the State Tax Commission has followed a policy of showing by means of "pie" graphs the distribu­tion of the total tax levy for state purposes. To the casual observer these will immediately appear to be showing the amount of the state expenditures for the different state functions, an assumption that is far from correct due to the fact that these graphs take into consideration ad valorem taxes only. As certain functions of government are more dependent upon ad valorem taxes than are others, the graphs make those functions appear to be using a much greater share of the funds of the state than in actually the case. On page 27 of the Thirteenth Biennial Report of The State Tax Commission appears a graph showing the distribution of the tax levy for state, county, and school district purposes wherein education is charged with 60.72 percent of the levy. This figure is correct, technically speaking, but the aver­age reader will fail to note that some three million dollars of sales tax collections have not been considered as tax monies and have therefore been left out of the calculations. 7/hen the sales tax is considered as part of the income of the state, the percentage of that income devoted to educa­tion becomes 49.82 instead of the 60.72 as it at first ap­peared.

This chapter has shown that funds for the operation of the schools of the state come from three taxing agencies.

97

the state, county, and the local school district. The ap­portionment of the funds collected by the state has operated in the way in which it was intended and has served to• equalize the educational opportunities of the children res­ident in counties of varying degrees of wealth. Although not studied in this chapter the county tax for schools has had the same equalizing effect among the districts of the county. Liberties taken with teacher loading and rather broad interpretations of the school code with reference to what constitutes current expense have caused some criticism; of the operation of the state school fund. These criticisms are possible of elimination by changes in the method of apportionment and a strict adherence to the spirit of the law in the matter of what constitutes current expense.

The sales tax was found to have lifted to some extent the burden of state ad valorem tax and in like degree freed the real and personal property of the districts for the raising of county and district funds. The sales tax which has been called with some justification the poor man’s tax was found to have been collected in the greatest per capita amounts in the counties of greatest per capita wealth and in the trading centers of the state. The writer feels that a single combined report of the financial activities of the state covering the receipts and expenditures of the state and all its subdivisions would make it possible for the lay­man to know a little more about the financing of government.

CHAPTER VI

THE SITUATION IN YAVAPAI COUNTY AS CONCERNS THE RELATIVE ABILITY AND INCLINATION OF THE COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL

DISTRICTS THEREOF TO "SUPPORT EDUCATION

Relative V/ealth of CountyYavapai County, thanks to her natural resources, has

always been a relatively wealthy county. Table XX indicates that during the entire period covered, from 1912 to 1936, she has never ranked lower than fourth among the counties of the state in total assessed valuation.

99

TABLE XXASSESSED VALUATION OF YAVAPAI COUNTY AND HER RANK

AMONG THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE KITH REFERENCE TO THIS UNIT OF MEASURE#

Rank Year Assessed Valuation

5 1912 ft 16,221,7773 1913 39,776,7193 1914 43,659,1763 1915 45,551,9784 1916 58,279,0223 1917 98,716,0725 1918 130,575,3813 1919 134,082,6794 1920 130,044,4204 1921 122,360,1794 1922 107,909,3134 1923 103,726,2824 1924 91,644,8363 1925 93,699,8943 1926 93,394,4853 1927 95,992,4083 1928 99,323,8993 . 1929 92,969,0764 1930 85,967,1714 1931 78,609,8624 1932 56,996,8623 1933 42,596,3773 1934 45,288,4243 1935 44,037,3273 1936 44,268,861

# Data from Biennial Reports Of The State Tax Commission

A great portion of the county’s assessed valuation is held by corporations and those corporations, namely. The Phelps-Dodge Corporation (United Verde branch), The United Verde Extension, and the Santa Fe railroad have been good taxpayers. It is true that these "soulless" corporations are not going to pay any more taxes than they are forced to. But neither does anyone else.

1 l if.

100

Tax Delinquency In The State And Yavapai County The preponderance of corporate wealth upon which the

taxes have been rather consistently paid has made it pos­sible for Yavapai County to maintain a preferred position in the matter of tax delinquency. Table XXI which was taken from Larson*s Survey of the Madison School shows the per­centage of delinquency in each of the counties of the state for eleven years.

TABLE XXITAX DELINQUENCIES III THE VARIOUS COUNTIES OF ARIZONA 1921 TO 1935. (YEAR REFERS TO

DATE OF LEVY. COLLECTION IS DURING CURRENT FISCAL YEAR)*-

County 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1930 1931 1933 1934 1935 1936

Apache 7.89 14.10 9.81 5.62 14.10 19.59 22.81 6.81 6.66 7.02 7.08Cochise 5.78 3.85 3.03 2.62 1.39 1.62 4.10 6.23 27.67 26.30 5.36Coconino 4.26 5.41 7.19 4.41 5.00 5.87 7.70 6.83 7.21 5.44 14.98Gila 4.82 3.74 4.35 1.74 2.21 2.33 31.62 25.91 31.15 11.98 8.91Graham 24.90 20.46’ 20.02 9.11 7.08 8.71 14.63 12.85 12.15 10.70 9.42Greenlee- 7.81 6.62 5.11 2.42 1.51 1.86 2.21 62.61 61.18 60.38 3.05Maricopa 40.42 40.00 13.89 14.42 18.32 21.72 26.72 25.87 34.76 22.64 19.79Mojave 8.91 10.77 9.67 8.66 8.64 8.95 12.79 13.26 9.64 8.75 10.36Navajo 9.52 16.78 17.17 9.78 • 13.33 17.18 17.81 10.26 8.33 8.90 8.27Pima 6.07 7.11 .35 .59 1.29 3.19 19.58 24.47 22.93 19.66 5.81Pinal 11.13 11.26 9.32 5.37 5.24 4.40 5.10 14.98 14.59 13.12 17.58Santa Cruz 27.94 24.66 25.41 17.86 9.52 9.78 18.47 26.53 33.74 21.16 20.37Yavapai 3.09 ' 2.12 3.89 4.35 2.57 3.44 5.70 17.51 31.91 33.74 6.67Yuma 16.22 12.61 14.51 15.00 14.11 23.22 35,10 31.11 20.57 21.79 22.87

State 11.28 9.31 9.37 8.00 9.07 11.59 13.86 26.14 27.67 21.60 13.04

"Larson, Emil L. General Survey of The Madison School (1938)

101

102

In this table the tax troubles of the state of Arizona are clearly delineated. As far back as the year 1921, the ' first year covered by the table, the counties that were due to have increasingly pressing financial problems begin to make themselves evident.. In that year the delinquency in those counties stood out appreciably. Graham, Maricopa, and Santa Cruz each collected 75 percent or less of the tax levied. It might appear from observation of the table that tax delinquency is a habit for the counties that have a good record seem to hold it and the counties with high delin­quencies do likewise. V/hat probably happens is that once a county gets behind, a' vicious cycle sets in- that is diffi­cult to break. If taxes are not paid, different departments of the county government find themselves finishing the fis­cal year in the red with the result that the red balances are added to the budget for the following fiscal year, the taxes are increased to make up the deficit, the good tax­payer is penalized and recruits are added to the ranks of those already delinquent. Beginning about 1931 the effects of sagging prices and dull markets began to make themselves felt and tax delinquency became more evident throughout the state. In 1933 the average tax shortcoming for Arizona was 26.14 percent and the following year 27.67 percent. The situation improved in 1935. The tax suits with the mining companies were settled and business conditions improved generally in 1936 with the result that the state's delin­

103

quency dropped almost half. It was during 1933, 1934, and 1935 that the tax battle between the State Tax Commission and the producing mines of the state was fought out and during those years the delinquency in the mining counties went up to dizzy heights. With the exception of those years the record of the counties in which the mines are located is exceptionally clean. The average delinquency over the period of years studied in Table XXI is given in Table XXII below.

TABLE XXIIAVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF TAXES. DELINQUENT IN THE COUNTIES

OF ARIZONA FOR ELEVEN SELECTED YEARS BETWEEN 1921 : AND 1936

Average PercentageCounty of delinquency

Coconino ~ 6.75 Cochise 7.81 Mojave 10.03 Pima 10.09 Pinal 10.19 Yavapai 10.45 Apache 11.04 Gila 11.70 Navajo ' 12.48 Graham 13.63 Yuma 20.64 Santa.Cruz 21.38 Maricopa 25.32 Greenlee 33.98State 14.63

It here becomes evident that Coconino County, the valuation of which the railroad and telephone and telegraph companies held 54 percent, has been the most consistent

104

taxpayer of the counties' of the state. Cochise County is runner-up and her property through the years studied has been better than 60 percent corporation owned. All this might lead one to the conclusion that the corporations are an unfailing source of county revenue were it not for Greenlee County on the other extreme of the scale with an average of one-third of her taxes delinquent during the eleven years of the study. And Greenlee County is more than 60 percent corporation owned!

Political Factors Affecting Tax Delinquency With the sole exception of Greenlee all the counties

of high tax failure are farming and ranching areas which leads one to the conclusion that the overdue taxes must be divided among a multitude of small owners. A factor enters here that is not subject to study by means of tables and graphs yet it definitely affects the collection of taxes.In the counties where a large portion of the taxes are paid by a few companies, any procrastination on the part of the companies will be Immediately and keenly felt with the re­sult that it will be only a matter of time until some man is going to run for county attorney or perhaps a position on the county board of supervisors on a "collect the taxes" platform. Then even if he is not successful the matter will have been called to the attention of the public so forcefully that it will not be safe for the officials of the county to do less than their best to effect collection.

105

Just the reverse is true in the counties where delinquent taxes are scattered among great numbers of small property owners. There a campaign promise to collect the delin­quent taxes would likely lead to defeat at the polls and act as a decided deterrent to any officer interested in improv­ing the fiscal position of the county.

A misdirected idea of sympathy is another factor that complicates the collection of taxes. In the last analysis the state can enforce the collection of taxes only because it has the power to sell property for taxes. No one hesi­tates to enforce the law against an inanimate company or corporation but to sell the homestead out from under the old folks is another proposition. The trouble is that every time one parcel of taxes goes un-collected, other property of the county has to carry a bit more. When thousands of taxpayers get behind the added burden to the good taxpayer becomes oppressive to the extent that he too may get behind. The refusal of the officers of the greatest agricultural area of the state to sell property for taxes surely accounts for their unenviable position in the matter of delinquent taxes.

Position of the County with Reference To Valuation per Pupil

Among the counties of the state, Yavapai County has ranked well toward the top in the matter of total valuation. Her school population has been relatively small. These two

factors taken together have meant that the school child resident in the county has had a substantial block of wealth to support the cost of his instruction. Table XXIII gives the reader a definite picture of the situation.

TABLE XXIIIASSESSED VALUATION PER PUPIL IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE IN

YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA AS COMPARED Y/ITH THE COUNTIES HAVING THE LOY/EST AND THE. HIGHEST VALUATIONS AND WITH THE AVERAGE VALUATION FOR THE STATE

ArizonaYear Yavapai Average Low High

1922 $39,857 $16,610 $5,831 039,8571923 35,070 14,600 5,268 35,0701924 28,804 14,498 5,688 28,8041925 24,808 12,578 5,318 24,8081926 24,987 12,551 5,101 24,9871927 22,959 12,336 4,703 22,9591928 19,852 11,606 4,375 21,4761929 19,672 11,076 4,606 21,8751930 17,434 10,862 4,297 20,9661931 16,790 6,494 4,491 18,5141932 15,786 5,950 4,126 17,7291953 11,563 6,150 .. 5,019 15,0191934 10,469 5,049 2,564 13,7291935 9,041 4,574 2,575 11,9821936 8,578 4,500 2,308 10,673

Data From Biennial Reports of The State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

For six years of the period studied the county had the highest per capita valuation in the state and for six years the per capita valuation was more than double the state average. During the entire period studied the per capita valuation was from four to seven times that of the county in the lowest bracket. Therefore, this table bears

107

witness to the ability of the county to support schools. Another trend definitely indicated by Table XXIII is the sharply declining wealth per child due to shrinkage in property values, a trend that would have been much less marked had the table not started in 1922 when values were inflated.

Yavapai County's Expenditures Per Pupil Per capita wealth, while indicating the ability of a

county to support education, is no criterion of what that county may be doing. A study of the per capita expenditures for education would, however, be indicative of the disposi­tion of that county to assume responsibility and raise funds for the promotion of the educational activities of the area. Table XXIV supplies that information for Yavapai County and for the highest and lowest ranking counties of the state for the school years 1922-23 to 1935-36 inclusive.

108

TABLE XXIVPER CAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IN YAVAPAI

COUNTY, ARIZONA AND IN THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST RANKING COUNTIES OE THE STATE FOR THE PERIOD

FROM 1923 TO 1936 INCLUSIVE

YearYavapaiCounty

Highest County in State

Lowest County in State

1923 0113.43 R136.67 062.191924 152.11 123.11 61.631925 119.47 119.47 67.811926 115.08 115.08 65.741927 116.61 116.61 67.211928 115.70 115.70 71.521929 108.05 108.05 70.131930 109.41 112.75 68.571931 111.64 116.00 79.661932 104.37 - 109.10 72.991933 86.80 93.76 58.001954 80.65 83.07 • 56.001935 74.13 87.84 60.891936 : 77.52 86.11 64.33

Data from Biennial Report of State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

During five of the years studied Yavapai County had the highest expenditure per child in average daily atten­dance of any of the counties in the state. She was not far from the top of the list at any time during the period of the study. This definitely indicates both the ability and the inclination to raise and spend money for education.

It has been suggested before that the mining communities were likely to be found riding the clouds or stuck in the slough of despond. Table XXIV indicates, again, that idiosyncrasy, for in 1935 the per capita expenditures for elementary education in Yavapai County was only 56 percent

109

of what it was in 1924. In education as in other things the philosophy of the mining camps is still, "Spend your money when and if you have any." The agricultural counties are interested in and willing to support education but their limited resources curtail their ability.

School District Expenditure per PupilThe same financial relationship and characteristics

exist between the different communities of Yavapai County that exist between the counties of the state. The mining communities have the money and the agricultural districts seem to have the children. Generally speaking, the Amer­ican public can be depended upon to support schools if they have the money and for that reason the less favored sections of the state and county are not to be condemned if their best efforts do not come up to the standard set by their more fortunate neighbors. !7e sometimes have a tendency to feelthat the school that spends the most money on its pupils is the best school when as a matter of fact the reverse is often true.

Table XXV gives some information on the per capita expenditures in fourteen representative schools in Yavapai County. '

AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE AND PER CAPITA COSTS IN REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS OFYAVAPAI COUNTY FOE THE YEARS 1924, 1931 AND 1936

TABLE XXV

1924 1931 1956Ave. Cost A.D.A. Av. Cost A.D.A. Av. Cost A.D.A,

One-TeacherSchools

Clear Creek Cherry Walnut Grove Walker NelsonGroup Average

.^105.78114.92167.68117.68 89.41118.69

201181416

A 87.55 205.11 162.20 188.50 87.99

146.23

189111123

A 84.08 80.45 98.97

109.42 68.28 88.24

2016151226

Ashfork 173.88 75 108.29 80 43.87 1133 to 7 Seligman 93.27 .79 78.87 137 67.84 140Teacher Mayer, 134.53 99 118.81 71 58.64 93Schools Humboldt 135.56 144 159.91 87 83.05 60

Camp Verde 98.69 111 90.09 92 64.86 79Group Average 127.18 111.18 63.65

Schools Prescott 124.36 704 98.55 927 74.23 1023of more Jerome 141.05 820 103.44 1048 68.15 808than 10 Clarkdale. 182.19 348 112.70 412 65.75 358Teachers Cottonwood 86.44 501 117.15 435 89.51* 449

Group Average 133.51 107.96 74.41Prescott 224.70 s 182 144.38 491 101.30 623Jerome 290.55 82 184.47 342 105.16 343Camp Verde mm mm — 104.30 41 97.12 37

High Clarkdale 304.00 90 175.78 287 135.66 232Schools Ashfork •* - 532.35 10 455.06 16

SeligmanMayer

w — — ' 281.94 • 25 157.7892.75

3925

Group Average■* 4-n4 4- 4 ̂ ri m r273.01

n n 80 ch220.20

illdren to Clarkda:163.26

le~ Hi/rh "Sellobi.X H U J . U U . G O V U J. U - ------------- -------- ------- -------- * -Data from Records of Yavapai County Superintendent of Schools.

110

Ill

The reader will note that the per capita costs in the group of one-teacher schools is higher than in the other groups in each of the three years for which data were as­sembled. This seems to be an inevitable weakness of the school of small enrollment. The only remedy appears to be consolidation of districts, a redress made impossible or inadvisable by the extent and topography of the landscape in Yavapai County. Some reduction in the costs in these small schools could be effected by collective purchasing and by the strict enforcement of the attendance laws. The teach­er * s salary is the big item of expense, however, and this cannot well be reduced for the rural teacher is too poorly paid at best.

■ The group of schools employing from three to seven teachers has an average per pupil cost but little below that.of the town schools. The point of interest with reference to this group is the wide divergence in their costs as between schools and from year to year. Humboldt has a low of $64.86 and a high of $.159.91. Mayer has a decline from $134.53 in 1924 to less than half the amount in 1936. Ashfork takes the grand prize with a low of $43.87 and a high of $173.88.

The high schools are effected by the same factors that influenced the elementary schools. In this bracket Seligman and Ashfork have the high costs per child with Ashfork again carrying off the doubtful honors with a

112

per capita cost of §532.35 cents per pupil on her enroll­ment of ten.

The. unfortunate thing about the unusually high expendi­tures in both the elementary and the high schools of the county is that the money spent does not purchase the best to be. had in the matter of instruction. The one-room schools which are notoriously high in cost per pupil offer the least in equipment and.often the bare minimum in teacher prepar­ation. Teachers are all too often without experience. Most of the time they have had no training in the diplomatic technique that is so necessary to success in rural commun­ities. In Yavapai County the good rural teacher gets an opportunity to move into one of the town schools at the end of her first or second year of teaching. The pay in the town schools is better and the tenure is much more secure therefore the rural schools continually lose their best teachers. They are replaced by another group of beginning teachers or by teachers dropped from the town schools either because they did not quite make good or because they married. Generally speaking, the only good teachers who remain in the rural schools in Yavapai are married women teachers who find it necessary to remain in the profession. Fortunately the rule invoked against married women teachers in the city schools confers a blessing on the rural districts. Most of the rural schools operate on the §1250 that they receive from state and county sources and for that reason the per

113

capita cost is in direct ratio to the average daily atten­dance. If the attendance is at the minimum of eight the per capita cost will be near §160 and if it approximates 16 the cost will be about §80 per pupil. It seems to be tradi­tional in the small community that the school board must not lay any special levy against the district and the writer’s experience in attempting to break that tradition has not been crowned with complete success. The unfortunate thing about the whole rural school problem is that most districts and many teachers do not know how to get the most school out of the money that they do spend. The teacher with imagina­tion, (may her tribe increase) can do wonders with the little group of children found in most of these schools even under the financial limitations imposed.

From the standpoint of per capita costs the small high school faces the same problem found in the one-teacher elementary school.. In order to maintain even the minimum . standards for. high school instruction, a high school of only ten pupils must have at least three teachers and some sem­blance of library and laboratory equipment. When thought of in that light perhaps the per capita expenditure of §532 in the Ashfork high school in 1931 is not so bad after all. The lamentable part of the story is that such a terrific expenditure did not purchase for those children any instruc­tion in home economics, band, art, shop work, and numerous other subjects that some people prefer to the straight

114

college preparatory course that can of necessity be ex­panded upon very slightly.

Consolidation is of course a remedy but the trans­portation over twenty-five miles of good roads that are at times made difficult because of snow is not the obstacle that an over-developed or mis-directed sense of community spirit proves to be. Handling of the strictly academic sub­jects such as English and mathematics through supervised correspondence courses from Phoenix Union High School and devoting teacher time to those fields one time known as "frills” would broaden the scope of the school but still would not lessen the cost per student.

Purposes for which Taxes Are LeviedInquiry into the purposes for which money was raised

by the various counties of Arizona might give some insight into the things which they deem it necessary to support. Table XXVI is an analysis of the tax levies of the various counties of Arizona for the year 1936.

115TABLE XXVI

ANALYSIS OF THE TAX LEVIES FOR THE YEAR 1936 SHOWING THE PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL TAX LEVIED IN EACH OF THE SEVERAL COUNTIES OF THE STATE FOR ALLSTATE, COUNTY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT PURPOSES

Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee Maricopa Mojave

1. State Tax for Common and High Schools 6.08 ' 6.29 7.09 4.15 3.86 6.46 3.82 5.97

2. County Tax for Common and High Schools 39.47 18.02 19.19 27.80 50.43 27.87 24.82 25.52

3. District Tax for Oonmon and High Schools 2.93 26.62 20.74 16.68 2.59 14.90 15.51 9.384. Total Tax for Maintenance of

Co&tnon and High Schools 48.48 50.93 47.02 48.63 56.88 49.23 44.15 40.67

5. County High School Bonds 11.476. School District Bonds 3.98 11.69 10.61 11.16 7.08 5.28 16.08 2.49

7. State Educational Institutions 3.57 3.70 4.17 2.44 2.27 3.79 2.25 3.51

0. Total Tax for Educational Purposes 67.50 66.32 61.80 62.23 66.23 58.30 62.48 46.679. Total Tax for Roads Total State and County

• 5.92 5.08 5.98 12.08 15.07 9.5510. Tax for Pensions 3.64 2.34 3.26 2.99 3.22 3.32 2.20 8.23

U. Miscellaneous Bonds .83 4.64 3.50 4.41 2.65 .02 1.62 5.5112. County Tax Refunds

General Overhead of.27

13. County Government General Overhead of

22.97 15.22 25.54 21.84 18.70 20.91 15.44 80.0714. State Government 5.06 5.23 5.90 3.45 8.22 5.37 3.19 4.9715. Total Tax for all Purposes

Total Tax for Bond Interest and100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100,00 100.00 100.00

16. Redemption Included above 16.28 16.33 14.11 16.30 15.70 14.75 82.78 18.0817. Levy per $100 Valuation 2.31 1.30 1.27 2.69 3.79 1.77 2.78 2.2118. Valuation $6,323,883.00 $42,826,555.00 $15,443,472.00 $15,220,747.00 $6,765,365.00 $9,415,399.00 #96,323,018.00 #12,407,896.00

115-&

TABLE XXVI (CONTINUED)

Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma State

1. State Tax for Conroon and High Schools 4.18 5.35 5.31 3.99 6.43 4.77 4.93

2# County Tax for Common and High Schools 35.92 26.72 24.53 32.12 19.47 17.55 24.86

3. District Tax for Common and High Schools 19.99 11.01 11.94 12.11 19.38 10.53 15.41Total Tax for Maintenance of

4. Com on and High Schools 69.09 43.08 41.78 48.22 45.28 32.85 45.20

5. County High School Bonds .16

6# School District Bonds 7.52 14.76 7.90 9.14 10.51 12.04 12.47

7« State Educational Institutions 2.45 3.14 3.12 2.34 3.78 2.80 2.89

8* Total Tax for Educational Purposes 70.06 60.98 52.80 59.70 59.57 47.69 60.72

9, Total Tax for Roads 2.86 10.58 20.09 8.24 10.79 25.77 12.00Total State and County

10. Tax for Pensions 2.48 2.38 2.70 2.39 3.07 1.99 2.52

11. Miscellaneous Bonds 3.72 3.72 .47 3.98 .46 3.12 2.48

12. County Tax Refunds 3.13 .32General Overhead of

13. County Government 17.60 17.89 19.52 22.37 17.63 17.46 17.86General Overhead of

14. State Government 3.48 4.45 4.42 3.32 5.35 3.97 4.10

15. Total Tax for all Purposes 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Total Tax for Bond Interest and

16. Redemption included above 13.90 29.07 20.84 21.36 21.76 38.53 25.57

17. Levy per $100 Valuation 2.68 2.04 2.27 3.12 1.50 2.48 .50

18. Valuation $8,124,136.00 $52,865,340.00 $23,132,598.00 $6,144,289.00 $44,268,861.00 $18,695,248.00 $357,996,807.00Data from Thirteenth Biennial Report of State Tax Commission

116

In the Table XXVI it is well to notice, first, the amount of the county tax levies as given in line 17. This shows that some of the counties are more heavily burdened than others and for that reason must exert a greater effort to raise their taxes than in necessary in the more favored counties. Coconino County with a county tax rate of only $1.27 has a comparatively light load when compared with Graham County on the other end of the tax scale which had a rate the same year of $3.79. This low rate for Coconino may be a very, pertinent reason why that county had the best record for tax delinquencies, Cochise with a tax rate only three cents higher than Coconino was second in rank in Table XXII which placed the counties in order of their fav­orable record for payment of taxes. If the reader will take the time to compare the two tables a high correlation will be found between low tax rates and the percent of collections.

In the matter of state tax for common and high schools the percentage of the county levy devoted to the same was in direct ratio to that county’s contribution to the state school fund and bears no relation.to that county’s interest in education.

The county tax for common and high schools Is affected by the relation between wealth in the county and school pop­ulation. In addition, the percentage is directly dependent on whether or not the county superintendent of schools

117

levies the maximum or minimum per capita tax under the pro­visions of Section 1090 of the Revised Code of Arizona as. amended by the Twelfth Arizona State Legislature.

The real inclination of the people of the counties to raise money for school maintenance is indicated in the third line of Table XXVI which shows the district tax for common and high schools. Apache County devotes only 2.93 percent of her tax levy in 1936 to district taxes for the support of common and high schools while Cochise, her wealthy neighbor in the next column, dedicates 26.62 percent of her annual levy to the same purpose. Graham county raises only 2.59 percent of her taxes for special school district main­tenance purposes whilb the Coconino box score is 20.47 per­cent and Yavapai rates 19.38. These figures mean that in the poorer counties school costs are cut to the lowest pos­sible minimum and the great majority of the districts operate on state and county money with no local special levy. These loss favored counties are hard pressed and are seeking the cheapest way out for their local taxpayers, a policy for which they are not to be blamed. It is when this policy is abused and funds that were given the districts from state and county sources for maintenance are devoted to capital and bond purposes that the more fortunate counties begin to question the operation of our state equalizing levy.

Line nine of the table 'under discussion gives the per­centage of the entire state, county,, and school district

118

levies devoted to educational purposes and Immediately under it appear tho total figures for roads. Here the com­parison is very misleading for practically the entire cost of the construction and maintenance of the roads is met with funds derived from the gasoline tax and does not appear as an item in this table which takes into consideration ad valorem taxes only. In fact most of the expenditure herein indicated as being raised for roads is for the retirement of road bonds. Apache and Coconino show no expenditures for road maintenance which would be impossible were funds not being raised from other sources than the county tax levy. Navajo County raised 70 percent of her taxes for schools and only 2.66 percent for roads, for which congratulations are in order. Yuma County apparently has a very active county engineer and highway department for one-fourth of her tax monies went to roads and schools lost accordingly.

The total tax for bond interest and redemption given in line sixteen of the table is of interest because it calls to attention the large portion of the cost of present day government that is consumed in the payment of bonded in­debtedness. One-fourth of the cost of government in Arizona in 1936 was devoted to fixed charges over which those in charge of affairs for the year had no control. In Yuma County 38.53 percent of the 1936 levy went to the bond and interest account to the decided disadvantage of current

119

needs and in Maricopa County the situation was little bet­ter. Here, again, Coconino stands in a favorable light with only 14 percent of her tax levy consumed by past ex­penditures.

About the only thing left to be said in summary is that it might be well for the public to make a critical study of these tax breakdowns on the eve of bond elections and weigh carefully the present need against the future day of tax judgment.

CHAPTER VII

COlTCLUSIOltS AMD RRCOMTJENDATIOHS The information gleaned from the records in the of­

fices of the County Superintendent of Schools, Board of Supervisors, County Treasurer, and County Assessor, when studied in the light of the information supplied by the Biennial Reports of the State Tax Commission and of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Annual Reports of the State Auditor, lead one to the following conclusions.

I. Introduction1. The educational history of Yavapai County, Ariz­

ona began in 1864 with the establishment of the first school in Prescott under the direction of "Charming Dale" Rogers.

2. The educational fortunes of the county have moved in unison with the fate of the mining industry.

5. The schools at the mining camps have led a more glamorous life but the schools in the ranching and agricul­tural communities have compensated for their prosaic ex­istence by being with us still.

4. Yavapai County has extremes in both altitude and terrain with variations in climate caused thereby.

5. The chief industries of the county are grazing and

121

mining. •6. The Federal Government owns GO percent of the total

area of the county but that ownership is perhaps an asset.7. Yavapai County was inhabited in pre-historic times

but modern civilization dates from the time of the Spanish explorers. Settlement by English speaking people dates from the decade preceding the Civil 'Jar.

8. The writer became interested in the financial problems of the county through his work as county superin­tendent of schools.

9. The object of this study has been to explore the trends of tho county's finance and made recommendations based upon the findings.

10. Studies related to this one have been made by John Oscar Mullen, Joseph Lewis Monical, Raymond E. Booth, Francis R. Vihol, Emil L. Larson, C. Ralph Tupper, John A. Howard and other schoolmen too numerous to be mentioned.

II. Educational Organisation of Yavapai County1. The establishment of a system of public schools was

provided for in the Enabling Act.2. The Constitution of Arizona placed the general con­

duct and supervision of tho public schools in the hands ofa State Board of Education, a State Superintendent of Public Instruction, County Superintendents of Schools and such other boards as might be established by law.

122

3. The real authority in the county school organization is the local school board.

4. The county superintendent of schools and the various city superintendents of schools have little authority other than that extended at the pleasure of the local school boards.

5. The county school systems are rather loosely bound into a state system of public schools.

6. Public elementary and secondary schools are supported with funds derived from state, county and school district.

7. The school population of the county has been marked by an unusually steady growth for a mining county.

8. Since 1913 the greatest growth in school population has been in the secondary field.

9. Men seem to desert the teaching profession in times of war and in times of industrial prosperity.

III. Property in Yavapai County and Its Educational Load

1. Arizona schools are principally dependent upon the property tax for support.

2. The effectiveness of the property tax is impaired by lax assessing and many exemptions.

3. Exemptions in Yavapai County have run as high as 16 percent of the total valuation.

4. There is a wide variation in the amount of assessed valuation supporting each child's education in different districts in the county.

123

5. Since 1921 the assessed valuations in the districts of Yavapai County have been in a steady decline.

IV. Assessments and Assessment Trends in Yavapai County

1. In the matter of assessing property at full cash value, the assessors of Arizona have ignored the law.

2. The Federal Bureau of the Census found much more property in Arizona than the county assessors were able to find and assess.

3. The policy of electing assessors by popular vote is subject to question.

4. V/ide fluctuations in the valuation of Yavapai County have not been due solely to the assessors.

5. The railroads and the mines are the great property taxpayers of the county.

6. Since the days of statehood, many methods of as­sessing the mines have been tried. None has been completely satisfactory.

V. School Revenue1. Approximately 85 percent of the income of the school

districts of the county comes from property tax laid and collected by the state, the county, and the school districts themselves.

2. The state school tax equalizes the educational bur­den of the counties up to the extent of $25 per student.

124

3. The county school tax equalizes the cost of schools among the districts of the county up to a maximum amount of forty dollars per student.

4. Some schools have taken undue advantage of the state school fund.

5. Average daily attendance as a basis for the distri­bution of school funds could be improved upon.

6. The practice of taking into consideration ad valorem taxes only when figuring the percentage of the tax dollar devoted to education does not place education in a fair light.

VI. The Situation in Yavapai County as Concerns the RelativeAbility and Inclination of the County and the School

Districts Thereof to Support Education1. The county has, since 1912, ranked high in the

ability to support education and other functions of govern­ment •

2. As compared with the rest of the state, the property owners of Yavapai County have been good taxpayers.

5. Perhaps "the corporations" are not as bad as they have been painted.

4. There are political considerations that influence the collection of taxes unduly in some counties.

5. Yavapai County has been liberal in her expenditures for education.

6. Small enrollments have been responsible for many of

125

the schools of tho county not getting the quality of in­struction that their per capita costs would indicate they are receiving.

7. The "no married women" rule of the city schools has been a help to the rural districts.

8. An analysis of the purposes for which propertytax was levied in 1936 in the counties of Arizona indicates that Yavapai County is both willing and able to support an adequate system of public schools.

RecommendationsThe recommendations which follow are based upon the

writer’s interpretation of the data studied while making this survey. An honest attempt has been made to keep them from being colored by his experience as county superinten­dent of schools in the hope that they may be of assistance in solving some of the financial problems of the schools of Yavapai County and the State of Arizona.

1. The school laws of the state should be rewritten by an attorney experienced in such work and a committeeof schoolmen familiar with the legal problems of the schools of the state.

2. The present state support for schools should be maintained and increased if possible. The present basis of apportionment is not entirely equitable and should be super­seded by a pupil-teacher or classroom-unit method for the

126

distribution of state funds.3. Article 4, Section 1011, Subsection 10, Revised

Code of Arizona, 1928 should be so amended as to permit the qualified electors of any school district to authorize their school board to lay and collect a tax of not to ex­ceed fifty cents per hundred dollars of assessed valuation on the property of the district for purposes of new con­struction.

4. School administrators should encourage and assist their teachers in studying the financial basis of the public school system as one step toward a more enlightened electorate.

5. An attempt should be made to make the office of County Assessor appointive.

6. The tendency to extend exemptions to still more real and personal property should be discouraged.

7. Tax collections should be rigidly enforced and a discount offered to the prompt taxpayer to the end that delinquency may be radically reduced.

8. Legal provision should be made for anticipating tax delinquency so that budget padding will be no longernecessary

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Books1. Brim, Orville Gilbert

Rural Education.Macmillan Company, Hev/ York, 1925.

2. Butterworth, Julian E.Principles of Rural School Administration.Macmillan Company, Hew York, 1926.

3. Cubberley, Ellwood P.State and County School Administration.Text-book Series, Paul Monroe, Bditor,

Macmillan Company, New York; 1922*4. Cubberley, Ellwood P.

State and County Educational Reorganization. Macmillan Company, New "York; 1915.

5. Cubberley, Ellwood P.State Funds and Their Apportionment.Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 2,

Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1905.

6. Finney, Ross L.,. and Schafer, Alfred L.Administration of Village and Consolidated Schools. MacmiYlan Company, New York, 1924. ' ~

7. Sears, Jesse B.Tho School Survey.Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1925.

8. Swift, Fletcher HarperFederal And State Policies In Public School Finance Tn""The United States.

Ginn and Company, Boston, 1931.

B. Bulletins and Pamphlets9. Carr, William G.

"Five Years of State School Revenue Legislation." Research Bulletin of the N.E.A., Vol. XII, No. 1,

January 1934.

128

10. Carr, -William G.School Finance.Stanford University Press, Stanford University,

1933.11. Doucette, Forrest E., Editor

The Arizona Year Book, 1930-1931.Manufacturing Stationers, Phoenix, 1932.

12. Frazor and Torbet, Accountants and Auditors,Survey of The Financial Administration*of The Public

Schools of Arizona.Manufacturing Stationers, Phoenix, 1930.

13. Larson, Emil L.School Finance and Related Problems in Arizona. Social Science Bulletin No. 1, University of Arizona Bulletin, January 1933.

14. Mort, Paul R.State Support of Public Education.The National Survey of School Finance, U. S.

Department of Interior— Office of Education.The American Council of Education, Washington, D. C.

1933.

15. Swift, Fletcher HarperStudies In Public School Finance, The West,

California and Colorado.Research Publication of the University of Minnesota. Education Series Mo. 1, Univ. of Minn. 1922.

16. Tupper, C. RalphA Survey Of The Arizona Public School System.•Under Authority Of The State Board" Of Education,

1925, Phoenix Gazette, Phoenix, Arizona, 1925.

C. Unpublished Materials17. Curtis, Loren •

A Financial Survey Of Yuma County.Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Arizona,

1937.18. Howard, John A.

A Proposed Plan of School Finance For Arizona. Unpublished Master’s Thesis'/ University Of Arizona,

1930.

129

19. Koch, PaulA Report Of a Survey Of Certain Phases Of The Pima

County School System'.Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Arizona,

1931.20. Larson, Emil L.

A School Building Survey of Roosevelt District 66, Maricopa County, Arizona.

Unpublished Report, University of Arizona, 1932.21. Larson, Emil L.

A Survey Of Prescott School District No. 1 . Unpublished Report, University of Arizona, 1937.

22. Larson, Emil L.A School Building Survey of Payson, Arizona. Unpublished Report, University of Arizona, 1932.

25. Larson, Emil L.A Survey Of Certain Phases Of Patagonia Union High

- ^ c fr0 0 | ' t ■ — — “ '

Unpublished Report, University of Arizona, 1933.24. Larson, Emil L.

A General Survey Of The Madison School.Unpublished Report, University of Arizona, 1938.

25. Monleal, Joseph lewisA Financial Survey Of Gila County.Unoublished Master’s Thesis, University of Arizona,

1934.26. Mortenson, Martin Jr.

Survey of Educational Conditions in Graham County, Arizona. —

Unpubli'shed Master's Thesis, University of Arizona, 1923.

27. Stevenson, R. G.Financial Survey Of The Public Schools Of Coconino County, Arizona.

Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Arizona, 1931.

28. Sweet, SanfordA Study Of Costs In The High Schools Of Arizona. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Universitv Of Arizona,

1923.

130

29. Vihel, Francis S.A Financial Survey Of Maricopa County.

D. Official Records50. Annual Reports— Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors.

‘Yavapai County. 1912-1936.31. Annual Reports Of The State Board Of Equalization.

1912-193'/.32. Annual Reports Of The County Suoerintendent Of Schools.

Yavapai County. 1912-1937.53. Assessment And Tax Rolls— Yavapai County, 1912-1937.54. Biennial Reports Of The State Superintendent.Of Public

Instruction. 1912-193*/. ' '35. Biennial Reports Of The State Tax Commission.

1~9Y2-T93~36. School Laws Of Arizona, 1931.37. School Laws Of Arizona, Supplementary Bulletin, 1935. 58. School Laws Of Arizona, Supplementary Bulletin, 1937. 39. United State Census Reports. 1890-1930.40. Yavapai County School Budgets. 1912-1937.