The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-21
1t Has Proved a Profitable
City Investment.
NET EARNINGS HEAVY
When Compared With Plants Oper-
ated Under Private Ownership.
TOTAL COST HAS BEEN 50, 6o2, 7os
Registrar Moody Complies Figure,
to Defend the Policy of Pub
lie Ownership.

Following an investigation covering the
operations of the city waterworks depart
ment from the inception Of the system,
just prior to. 1870, down to Dec. 81 OF last
year, Registrar Moody is prepared to- re-
port to the water committee and the city
council that public ownership Of this mu
nicipal utility in Minneapolis has been a
payment investment.
The investigation just finished is the
first of its kind ever undertaken by the
department and was begun in this instance
at the request Of certain aldermen who
desire officially to refute statements made
in the council and outside during the
nicipal ownership of an electric lighting
plant. These statements were to the eff
feet that the Minneapolis water depart
ment was an unbusiness1ike institution,
had been operated at loss, and in gen
-eral was a glaring instance Of the un-
necessary burdens a city has to carry to
satisfy the sentiment for municipal owner
ship. There are some aldermen hostile to
the electric. lighting proposition, who say
they honestly believe this, and the state
ment has been made frequently in one of
the local papers that persistently oppose
all further spread of the doctrine OF public
ownership of municipal utilities in it's ap~
plication to Minneapolis.
Compared With Private Ownership.
Registrar Moody's statement was COM
piled on the basis Of private ownership,
with the difference that he charged a rate
for hyrant rentals and water used for
other city uses outside Of general con-
sumption fully so per cent less than the
rate charged under any system of private
ownership in the country,-$30 per year
I for hydrants and cents per 1000 gallons
for water. used Tor street sprinkling
drinking fountains and other purposes fol
which no rental is now charged: It Is
also Of significance in this connection thai
1.-the charges to meter users as we'll az
others is the lowest in the United States
1 and more than 100 per cent less than that
charged by any private company. accord:
4 ing to Mr.. Moody.
| Some Big Totals. I.
Here are some Of the main facts brought
1 out in Mr.. Moody's statement: "a
4 The cost of the waterworks system to date
! has been $4,6O2, 70S, and the earnings, com
puted on the basis of private ownership a!
follows: General water receipts, So, S39, 173
)hydrant receipts, $1,269 900; free uses, $1,000,
4 1853; total, $5,S77, FOL. Against this he putt
4 the following fixed charges Depreciation
1 $973,974; interest on Investment over bono
4 issue, s1259, 496; general maintenance, $1,635,
848; interest on bonds. $1,o4o,5Ss; bonds re.
tired. $4,000; leaving 1921 as earnings
i over fixed charges, which under system o.
private ownership would have gone for divi.
! dends or surplus. ~ =.
For general maintenance, the average
! cost for the past eight years has been
! 500, 900. It reached the maximum in
! 1898, when it was $104,957, dropped $12 zoo
the next year with the advent Of reform
| water committee, and last year stood al
/ sos, 642.
| The general water receipts for 1901 were
| $3.50, 720, sthe largest up to date by about
| s., 5000, and SIG, 900 greater than the aver
age for the past six years. On the basis
/ of $50 year for each hydrant the earnings
under this head last. year would have beer
$99, $780, and for other free purposes $751;
1885,
| Bonds for water purpose have been is.
sued up to date to the amount Of $685.
900, Of which $4,000 have been retired
I The cost of construction OF the system
above this amount has been paid out Of
the earnings Of the department.
I Moody's Comparison Impartial.
Testifying for the correctness and fair.
ness of his figures, Mr.. Moody says:
/ I, have put great deal of time in tn
preparation of this statement and hav1
1 tried in every particular to make it strictl!
4 impartial. I have studied the reports OF tn
water departments of many other cities oper
1. ated under the system Of municipal ownership
and did my best to get accurate. reports from
Z those cities where the water is furnished b!
1 private companies, and am prepared to stant
for the absolute fairness of my statement.
1 The water rates in Minneapolis both for tn
meter user and all others, are less thar
! in any city in the country, with but very few
! exceptions, and from one-half to cne-thir,
the rate charged in cities where the system
is under private management On the SCOT
of hydrant rentals have charged $50 pc
year, against SIS to 500, the price charges
4 in many other cities.s And even on this Low
basis, with the item Of almost $1,000
4 charged In on account of depreciation of tn
system, and charging interest on everythin.
invested above the bond issue, the facts We
show earnings over fixed charges OF 1897, 794
II do not believe any fair-minded man cal
l study this statement and come to any othe
! conclusion than that public ownership OF tn
4 Minneapolis waterworks has been bi.
i paying investment.