Montana labor news., 1944-04-20

A MYSTERY OF
FINANCE

The water supply for the city Of Hell
n comes from sources which are from
10 to 20 miles beyond the city limits.
Prior to october 1911, the Helena
water plant was privately owned-the
owner being the Helena Water Works
company. At the time of transfer, the
outside water rights were assessed within
the city, as a result Of an opinion of
the Supreme Court of the state of Mon
tana in 1908.
In 1907 Mr.. Frank Edwards, mayor of
Helena, appeared before the county COM
missioners sitting as a board of equali-
cation for Lewis and Clark county-and
there commended that water rights, ire
spective of source, made valuable through
DOMESTIC USE, within the city Of
Helena should be taxed by the city and
the school district lying within the city.
At that time the water rights were as
sessed at 100000 for county purposes
and for rural or outside school district
purposes.
School district No. l of Lewis and
Clark county, lies within the city of
Helena, and the opinion Of the court sub
jected the water right valuation of
S160.0OO) to city taxes and school dis
trict taxes within the city.
The title of the action was Helena
Water Works company VS.. Settles Set
ties was county treasurer at that time.
Case is reported in 81 Montana 237 and
95 Pacific 1888.
AS argued then and as may be argued
now, water rights at sources are of little
value. ana are valuable only at place of
use, and are of exceptional value when
devote dto domestic use, and should be
taxed where valuable, or within the area
where used. Or putting it another way,
the county and school districts enjoy a
high valuation for taxable purposes,
which is created by water consumers
within the city, who are required to pay
unreasonably high rates for such service.
1T should be observed that in 1882,
the Butte Water Company paid taxes to
the city of Butte Of $5,837.82 and to
Silver Bow county there was paid the
sum OF S45, 548.7 49, FROM this we can
assume that the Butte Water company
owes the city of Butte, and school dis
trict No. l about eight times what they
have paid them, in the last 80 years.
The reports obtained from Silver Bow
county and the city Of Butte, and the
report of the privately owned Butte !
Water Company to the Public Service
Commission, indicate that the water
rights of said company are NOT assessed
for city purposes, and that the city of
Butte and the school districts within
the city of Butte, are wholly deprived
Of this revenue.
The following figures are taken from
the year 1882: With the comparatively
small amount of taxes paid to the city
of Butte, one should have in mind that
the people of Butte Including Walker
ville) a for water service the sum of
S544, STATIC annually. This may account
largely for Butte's financial embarass-
ment, or shortage of operating funds,
and may in large measure account for
the lack of money with which to proper
ly operate the schools located within the
city Of Butte.
The discrepancy between the water
company's assessment returns and its
statement to the Public Service Com
mission is appalling. With both state
ments filed under oath, it eight be diff
ficult to reconcile the assessment return
covering warrants, cash and accounts re-
ceivable $39,O25 with the balance sheet
submitted to the Public Service Com
mission, showing the following figures:
Cash 5,OO3.2O
Notes and bills receivable 26,3727O
Accounts receivable .--...--.. 38,458.9l
Interest receivable ...-.......... l,030.76
Their statement submitted to the Pub
lie Service Commission, shows the fol-
lowing items in the balance sheet, viz:
Plant and equipment $1,000, 966.01 Of
which the inventory shows:
INTANGIBLE"
Organization ........---S 100000
Rights, license, etc. ...-- 100000
If it cost 100000 to organize this
company, what would it cost to organ
ize Bethlehem Steel? If they paid the
city 81, 400,0 for a license and the Use
the streets, WHO RECEIVED THE
MONEY?