The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-06-11

company the acceptance of the sum Of
six hundred and fifty thousand dollars
fer their plant, beg leave to report as
follows;
Several years ago the property OF
the water company was appraised at
the sum OF four hundred and sixty eight
thousand dollars. This was acknowledge
ed to be at that time very large APP
praisement, and included an item Of
sixty thousand dollars, which was tech
nically called Going Value" and
which was in addition to the actual val
ue of the property. This appraisement
was not, strictly speaking, a eompro-
mise for two of the appraisers who had
placed the value at many thousands of
dollars below these figures, finally plac-
ed this high valuation upon the property
in hopes that the water company would
recognize the liberality of the appraiSe-
ment. and make an offer to sell for that
amount. The plant has not appIeeia-
ted in Value since that time. In fact
the engineer estimates that there has
been a depreciation of 10 per cent for
the reason that the company. in view of
a possible parting with its property,
has kept it's repair expenditures at the
lowest possible limit.
Recognizing the Importance Of sup
plying certain portions of the city with
water, that ought to have been accom-
modated years ago, and with an earn
est desire to stop the contention that
we have been having with the water
company for many years the mayor
and council decided, in so far as it lay
IN their power, to assist in purchasing
the waterworks at the sum of five hun
dred and fifty thousand dollars. We
believe that every officer that favored
that resolution felt that the offer of
that price was one hundred thousand
dollars in excess of the value of the
plant Now the president of the water
company says he IS willing to recon-
mend to the bondholdeFs their accept
=
dollars, but he does not know whether
they will accept or not. We understand
that the plant has been bonded for
! twelve hundred and fifty thousand doll
lars, and that these bonds have been
sold to two or three hundred different
/ holders. Your committee is of the i'm
/ preston that even if the bondholders
! accepted the suggestion of their presi-
dent, the mayor and council could not
I for a moment consider the acceptance
/ Of the offer 1t would be rightly re-
i garded by the tax payers of this city
as a wrongful betrayal of their in
4 terests and subject to the severest CEN
sure. However desirable it may be to
adjust our differences with the water
company, and protect those living in
the dry district, yet it would be Grim
inal to place a useless burden Of severas
! hundred thousand dollars upon our tax
/ PAYERS in addition to the actual value
Of the property.
1.-THE city engineer informs US that it viii
cost $4,000 to extend the water mains
where necessary and to make proper re
pairs to the plant as it now stands. This
would mean then a bonded Indebtedness Of
g9o0. eco for a water plant, just double the
amount the people voted for this purpose
three years ago.
we therefore recommend that the prop
osition submitted be rejected and that tht
city attorney be instructed to commence
such proceeding in the courts may hs
necessary to acquire the present plant
] with the least possible delay or instruei
the city engineer to prepare plans for ths
4-Ils
bv the city Respectfully submitted.
III. s. NICHOLS, Chairman
Some Of the eouncilmen expressed them
selves very freely this morning in regarJ
to the meeting last night. One said tina
Mayor Parker should reorganize the water
works committee at once and remove Mr.
Nichols from the head of it. Anothe
thought that in view of his actions las
night Mr.. Nichols should resign. Othe
members were inclined to pardon Mr.
Nichols on the ground that he got excite,
because of his great interest in the water