The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1960-01-15

"Not necessarily" but did not elabo
rate. 80
Gilfeather then asked, if it ism
true that some other major segment
of property are assessed consider
ably higher than the 55 to 81 per CEN
utility-railroad level of the State
Boards? Clarifying, he asked specific
ally about automobiles and farm ma
chinery. Winters said it is true that
automobiles are assessed at 662s pen
cent and farm machinery at 70 pei
cent of full and true value.
NO DIRECTIVE ON AUTOS, Il, II
FARM MACHINERY
This brought from the Great
Falls Observation-Disclosures: ct he
board hasn't issued any directive to
the counties to also lower assess
ments on cars and farm machinery
which are assessed above land and
utilities? % Winters replied no such
directive had been issued.
Referring to the Toole county case,
Gilfeather asked if it wouldn't be
possible to avoid legal action in each
of the Sc counties by grouping low
ones in each area of the state as a
unit for court purposes. One of the
Board members admitted sit is pos
sibility''.
Taking note of the number of
counties which aren't doing a good
job, Board member Byrne pointed out
that the Boards reduction program
in effect penalties the counties which
are doing reasonably good jobs.
Subcommittee m m Der Bertha
Streeter (R-Lake) then asked "Do
you still think you're going to have
to exercise the pressure your office
can in order to bring the low counties
up?" Byrne replied: Pressure was
exercised in Toole. Much bitterness
resulted. It's impractical to try and do
it statewide, BESIDES that's "a dicta-
torial program i. we don't think it
American ="
Turning to Winters, Miss Street
err asked: "It is your duty to assess
utilities in one bonafide way-full
and true?" Winters answered by
asking a question right back:
Should've local assessors also live
up to the law?''
Seeking further information, the
ady Senator asked if the Same (per-
.entage) reduction in assessments
vas given to every utility?" Winters
aid mo, because each had been
assessed at varying percentages of
ull and true over the many years
,ast.
There's been an assessment dis
repancy all these years?" she asked.
70 which the Board chairman replied
He cited as examples of
percentages assessment reductions the
Board put through for 1859 as fol-
ows: Montana Power Co.. So per
emit; Montana-Dakota Utilities, 6.31;
'acific Power & Light, So, and Noun
ain State Tel. & TEL, 2.87 per cent.
Subcommittee member Ted Schwin-
en- (D-Roosevelt) then asked the
'oard how ''you arrive at exact val
es on utilities, yet, can't set exact
alues on other properties?" He was
eferred to a certain page in a Board
amphlet which detailed how counties
re to reclassify property as a pre-
minary to securing uniformity of
alues between the same types of
roperty. |.
Subcommittee Chairman Paul Ring
ng (D-Meagher) asked ''The reduc-
ons were based solely on the Boards
esire to comply with the Fenton de-
sion?" To this, Byrne replied:
That's true"
"The case is on appeal?' the SUBJ
,mmittee chairman asked. Byrne
ND, Eyes.
Ringing, "The case is not actually !
ecided at this time?" Winters: 1Not
,tually resolved
Cavan then asked eff the : case
admit been appealed (by the Board)
lily one type of property would have
zen affected?" (pipelines) under
% reduction program? Winters said !.
lily one type.
OW TO CUSHION a
ETTER COUNTIES? i
H. S. Cooper, Hill county assessor d