Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1915-09-24

be held void.
II is true that the water company
is compelled to make use OF costly
machinery in order to pump the water
and distribute 1t throughout the town,
while the sewer company is not But
these facts do not tell the entire story.
The water company serves practically
the entire community II is doing
very much larger business and its net
returns are very greatly in excess of
those OF the sewer company This is
true whether we consider them in the
absolute sense. or relatively Ii has
been made very clear in the progress
of the Investigation into the conditions
under which the sewer company is OPP
Grating. that one of the principal diff
culties Is the failure of a large per
centage Of the people of Tonopah to
make sewer connections. II was upon
the basis OF this fact that the Commits
sion urged the establishment Of a san
itary district and the requirement that
all living within that district should
connect with the sewer It was be-
lieved and II still Is believed that If
this were done the business of the
sewer company would be so largely
increased that il might be quite feas
ible TO make substantial reductions in
the rates and charges
Mr. Moore. representing the com.
, painants. takes issue with the view
, OF the Commission upon the point that
, the establishment OF sanitary dis
, trict Is the true remedy 1t is proper
+ to say IN this behalf that the Commits.
aim hBH sd
that the establishment of a sanitary
I district. standing by itselr would com
, pletely settle the questions at issue
between the sewer company aud us
patrons The view of the Commits
I sion has been that such a course
/ would be q long stride IN the right
! direction. and would create condi-
lion which would enable the Com
, mission TO deal with the whole situa-
! ton very much more effectively and
! satisfactorily
r As specific fact bearing out his
. contention that the charges OF the
4 sewer company are excessive, Mr..
= Moore stated that the State Bank &
Trust company's building IN Tenopah
was being charged for sewer service
. at the rate of 500 per month, while
charges for water and electric light
were less II has already been stated
d that such comparisons do not furnish
2 a fair basis upon which to determine
II the reasonableness cf rates But re
e ferrng specifically 70 the matter OF
y the 500 charge for sewer service
u monthly, for the building mentioned
a. It is proper TO direct attention to a
re statement made at the hearing by the
e presiding Commissioner, which state
II ment begins on page So Of the tran
Ie script and reads as follows:
= "Comsr Bartine one of YOU
= claims Is that the schedule as a whole
2, is excessive Can you give any reas
y oEs for so thnking2 Upon VIVA
= ground would you make the claim
! that the charges are excessive? VIVA
= elements would you take into consid
Grafton? There are many things e
be considered in determining wha
are reasonable rates. II is a question
that cannot be determined In the alb
~ stract You referred to the assumed
- excessive charge in the case of tn
20 Bank building. down here When "
~ come TO state the proposition that IN
W charge Is 500 a month, aggregaiin
VI $l0S0 a year, for sewer connection d
1e one building. and state that abstrac
y ~. il seems like a very large sun
~ and yet it might be that the cond
70 tions may well justify that charge, an
~ unless il is shown that they do no
" the Commission has no guide in Oh
= matter"
~ There seems to be no good reaso
no to modify the foregoing statemen
NO Something. however may be added
nd II which gives emphasis TO its fore
IL land pertinency Looking at the sltu'
ton between the sewer company an
In line owners of the state Bank & Tru'
company's building, II we are to a
-, sume that the net returns upon this
"a huilding are lust and reasonable, 1t
zee difficult to see by what process
ed reasoning the conclusion is reache
IN. that the returns of the sewer eolhpan
nm are excessive and unreasohaol
On without attempting TO be unduiS sp
oh cifc or closely accurate, 1t may !
,ic stated that the evidence taken IN u
nv litigation progressing between the !
ore ceiver of the state Bank a trust cor
we pany and the attorney generals ono
reA representing the depoMtors, hhoV
al thai the building in question is at y
,or present time much more proiltap
Inc. piece of property than is the sew
,nd company's plant Speaking generall
the ii appears that the total rentals
IN. the building are about Slioo p
yer month. and that the net earnings u
nan about Sll00 This net Is exclusive
80 ~ ea,ver charge complained Of
i'm we assume that Sll00 per month !
10 annrovimatelv correct II amour
nm ~ moro than $4,000 year which
.as M ner cont upon u valuation OF SIS
INV 200 The appraised value Of w
'tad hniidtne a about S65.oOO Upon VA
ms. basis $4,000 year would be apo
! "a s4 per cent According to the rep'
pro. ol the Nevada Tax Commission