The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-08-07
THE CITY'S WATER CONTRACT.
Probability that It Will Not Be Renewed if
Reductions Are Not Made.

The finance committee will meet tonight to
consider the citys revenues in their relation TO
the reduced duplicate. One of the topics that
will be thoroughly reviewed in this connection is
the renewal of the water contract. The position
the water committee took in reporting back to
Council the old contract with but slight modif-
cation. and that in the interest of the company
is not accepted as being just the thing in antici
patton of largely reduced revenue. 81 do not
see what the committee was about in not exam
lining the question more closely" said leading
city official IA unanimous vote was taken
to maintain the old rates, because
as one of the committee told me-
the waterworks people claimed they were not
making any money and that they had only Ito
private consumers. This was incidentally put
ting it that as their revenue from private con-
sumption was small the city ought not to ask
lower rates in new contract Furthermore, as
the expenses of such work is great the city
should be content with having less number of
feet of mains laid each year. By reducing the
yearly requirement for new mains and contract
ing for the old rates. $50 for each fire plug. $50
for each drinking fountain, and 1886 for the
fountain in Military Park. the company thought
it would be able to make some money. am OBJ
posed to these prices, and want them materially
cut down. If we are to reduce expenses, here is
a chance, but what Is the use to talk about the
contract reported by the committee. 1t will
not do"
81 learn that the company's rates 70 private
consumers based somewhat upon the plan of
charging according to ones ability to pay9'
"There have been many complaints in that
respect and they will be considered. have
learned that under equal conditions as to houses,
surroundings and consumption of water, the
charge in one instance only SIG for the year.
while the consumer adjoining had to pay $29
because he had a corner lot. This is a sample
of what has been told us. The water-works
charter ordinance gives Council the right to leg
| islate on the question of prices to consumers
and the committee will take il up
as an important factor in considering a
renewal OF the contract with the city.
| do not think we will have any trouble in ad-
justing this matter. Possibly it may result only
| in refusing to renew the contract at the present
time thus letting the old rates exist until next
spring. By that time we know what the
Legislature will do for us in helping Us out on
| low revenue. In any event, though, / am op-
/ posed to the contract reported by the committee
Under it there will be an annual increase of g.
| 900 or more in payments to the water works.
This was true of the old contract. for while the
aggregate cost of water for the city in 1873 was
$25 COG it will be this year 1872 49, The first
| years cost under the present contract was $28
| l3l AZ. or $4013 04 less than the current year.
| Taking that rate of increase under the new con-
tract reported by the committee on city water,
| five years hence will cost $50 1877 so for the year.
The water bills must bear the first reduction.