Arizona republican., 1899-01-18
MORE ABOUT THE BONDS.

The suspicion which some people
 sought to create in. the minds of local
 taxpayers, that there was some plan of
 corruption to be perpetrated by the
 city coun3il in connection with the proposed water works and
 sewer systems has been fully
 answered by the council in the appointment of a committee of fif- teen representative business men and
 taxpayers to supervise the expenditure
 of the proceeds of the bonds. The
 question has resolved itself into a plain
 business proposition-whether the citi- lzens of Phoenix desire to own their
 water works and sewers; whether it is i economy to do so; whether the plan
 makes for the health, prosperity and
 growth of our city.
 Within the next few days probably several meetings will be called to thor oughly discuss this matter. One meet ing has been called for this even ing and should be attended by all of the taxpayers of the city. Phoenix to- day is probably more free from con- tracts with the water company than it will be in the near future, if the pres ent system continues. Twenty-Five per cent of the real and personal taxes of this city are now paid into the hands
 of the water company. About $4000 is paid for rentals, at the rate of $75 per annum for each hydrant, and abou! $2,000 a year is paid for city sprink- ling. The county pays about $1 800 per annum for water used at the court house and for the county sprink- ling cart The water works plant is bonded for $300,000, a sum far in excess of the cost of the plant; it certainly must pay interest on these bonds. In the last f1fleen months it has probably improved it's plant to the extent of at least S15,OO0.
 The amount paid by the city and county for water to the water company is about $7,5OO per annum, which will very nearly: if not quite, pay the com pany's expenses. There is probably S30,000 per annum spent by the prop crty owners of this city for insurance. It is only reasonable to suppose that with a standard pressure of eighty pounds upon the water mains, insur- ance rates would be decreased 25 per cent and if Enls was done the saving to the property owners on insurance alone. in the city, would pay the in terest upon the bonds of $150,000, for the proposed water works. Today the city needs large increase in the num- hoy. Nf I 11Y7t a+f 0f per annum for each hydrant, it is inn possible for the city to put them in.
 The experience of municipal owner ship of water works in all cases, except ing very few where gross mismanage- ment has occurred, has been that it is not only a saving to the consumers of water on account of reduction in rates, but is a source of revenue to the city, besides furnishing water for fire purposes free of charge.
 A comparison between the cities of Omaha and Minneapolis, which we pro- cured from the American Non-Con- formist, shows that Omaha annually expends over $S7,0 for hydrant ren- tai. 1ts charges are from two to four | times as much as they are in the city of and yet Minneapo- 1 lis, owning it's own water sys- tenn, charging no rental for hydrant or fire purposes, which is a direct saving of at least from $8O, 900 to s10O,OOO per annum to the city, providing for all the | incidental expenses Of maintaining the | plant, sets aside out of the receipts of | the water works fund of S100.000 per | annunl; showing that the water works | owned by the city effects a direc5saving | to the city of Minneapolis of nearly i s2O0000 a year, besides furnishing to the water consumers of that city, | water at from one-half to one-quarter of the price charged in Omaha.
 The taxpayers of the city of Phoenix should opsn their eyes. 10 this proposi- ion. They should not allow one-quar- ,er of the taxes of this city to be di- verted to the uses of the water com pany; the city should own it's water