Belt Valley times. [volume] (Armington, Mont.) 1894-1977, 1924-12-11
OPINION On 1916
sWlLkBoH
Mr.. C. h. ProviIi.
CITY Treasurer
Belt Monkana.

NJ ~ a. EfUNtAt
City Treasurer,
Belt Montana.
Dear Sir:
In accordance with your verbal re-
quest for an opinion relative to dis
posaI OF funds ON hand IN the 1915
Special Sidewalk and Curb Fund.
please allow me TO submit the follow
ing.
AS / understand it there are six
teen warrants, each for q thousand
dollars, coming due on January l.,
1926, representing the Indebtedness
incurred because Of the sidewalk and
curb construction of 1915. Special
assessments have been properly leszaa
against the property involved and
payments on these assessments have
permitted the payment Of all interest
on the warrants 70 dste. with an es>
timated amount on hand on January
!, 1925, sufficient to pay interest due
on that date and at least two Of the
warrants.
l find that by the provisions Of
Section 5249, Revised Codes Of Mon-
tana, 1921, you should pay out Of
funds on hand on January /, 1925, IN
tsrest on the total warrant indebted
ness of $16,000.00. The balance OF
funds in this 1915 Special Sidewalk
and Curb Fund shouId be applied %
retire as many as possible Of 0ut-
standing warrants. in the order Of
their registration with you. I sug-
xsst that If you have surplus after
paying certain number Of these
warrants (say two, as you suggested
that this would perhaps be possibza)
that you offer to- appIy such unused
SUM on the next registered thousand
dollar warrant. II would appeaT
from what say hereafter that this
holder Of such warrant would be will
ing to accepts part payment, without
pcaludicing his rights So ko the col
lection Of sfis balance, Of course, and
thus enable the City to save the diff
ferenee between the two and one half /,
per cent interest received On funds in
your hands and the six per cent re-
qairsd to be paid By the terms Of the
warrant. Or rather in this case, the
saving viii be 10 she 1916 fund, a. I
am Of the opinion that the city is not
liable on these warrants,
The procseainga resulting In this
issue Of warrants seem 10 be based
on the authority o. Section g244,
Codes Of 1921, this section being
part Of the act covering this matter
enacted by the legislature in 1913.
BY this act (see Code 5247l special {
assessments as made In this ease (by {
Resolution No. 50. City Of Belt@ con {
stitute q lien upon the property upon /
which the assessments is made. Seine
time ago / went into the matter Of
the personal liability Of property
owners for these assessnaenfs, bma
became coavinced that the city could }
do nothing along this line. This was 4
she opinion also of Mr. Frank Woody, J
tax expert and attormsy fsr kha Mop-
sana Taxpayer Aaspeiataon. Hs
suggested ghat the onay salu&son was '
for the city "a pay 90 fhe @seaial 49, d
sessments out Of maesss IL tzse gan q
sral fund and take As@d To t9z@ pEwp- 4
sxtS. But since tAs Gssw h@s no fszmda
or menies IN the gszssg#l f8aa ana \
Hsmee naueh Of tte pxoEshrsy Enwolx@a d
bad deainqpsnt e0unty saxss a@aGmss
\ wAieh fhs city would $50 have toIF
pav Ell. and sines TIE realty market J
Ia EB@zk ~ se dun that Il does nnk 49,
seax shas szs essy neasa assppaa ssl
lhs pzppaF4y even & Il got good s1zlA
'e II ism@@m kuaasah - conaiaer shaal
hsza ne cskw i ax9sxad IN shisE e
~ 8aak ii lap@ad kAa w'agEma N
sassH "a aa n wazaas Aaa Aaa sass III y
aaeaaaz asamdaw - sAe aaaaAsAzsa Il
y 40 @exs6 mAaape ga ps#sshaps v@xI a
xoan xsazaew ha@eY As&uay II szzn nsHt- y
~. A1smsm azn mazS 81 sawsxssx
- - CO ~ ~ mAaas am aa n
saHhna& ssB pa@aMedznas III
u - - sa@@a p@ezz 80 b. xawszzax Il
'assnasin@ tzaas q psspav Taaaamkson u Il
'sasssspu wsa waa@ma Il have noe gaaun III
ffnmkse@ en Rnms @we) I'M