The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-11-01
ONE YEAR S44,4O8
What Water Company Would
Net the City Now.
The Gross Earnings Are Near
Iy $4,000 a Year.
WHAT FIGURES SHOW.
Receivers Report on File inFed-
eral Court.
Proves That Water Plant Is AL
most Gold Mine.
Why 1t Should Be Better In
N
WHAT FIGURES SHOW.
Why 1t Should Be Better In
vestment for the People.

/
Ii the city of Topeka owned the wa
terworks plant, it could make it pay
net profit of at least 44,4OSS7 a year,
| out of which the interest charge of S27.
500 on the bonds could be paid and
leave $16,90S.87 a year with which to
extend and improve the water plant
The above estimate, however, is
based on the assumption that the fu-
ture earnings will not exceed the aver
age earnings for the past six years AS
! a matter of fact, the gross earnings for
the year 1904 are $4,000 above the av-
erage of the past six.
| This is not guess work. 1t can be
easily figured out by~anyone who cares
to investigate the voluminous report of
receipts and disbursements which was
filed on October Is in the United States
court by Receiver ]. w. O'NeiII and
which covers the entire periC< of Mr..
O'NeilFs receivership from September
22 1898, to October IA, 1904
The report of Mr.. O'NeiIl is the first
official statement which has been made
| concerning the real nature of the fin
ancial income which the city might ex-
pect from the plant. 1t is not too much
to expect that with the present gross
| income of nearly $S5,OOO a year, the city
would not only be able to pay the ST.
800 annual interest on the bonds, but
would have a net revenue of $25.OO0 ev-
cry year which could be used in inn
proving the plant, creating a sinking
| fund to pay the bonds, and in reduc-
ing the cost of wateA.
Here are some things which the re-
port shows, and which the obstruc-
tlon1sts in the city council should con-
/ slider we'll:
During the past six years, the gross
revenue of the plant has been $780,
97199. or for the period of rs months
covered by the report, an average of
$6,lf7-69 month, which is $T4, ,132.28 a
year This is for the whole six years,
remember; at the present time the re-
ceipts are much higher than this
During the six years, the water COM
pany has charged up $42, 2,119.09 to the
item of special disbursements" Ac-
cording to the statement of Receiver
j. w. O'Neill, nearly the whole of this
was used for the cost of litigation and
attorneys fees. This gives the OBJ
Structionists in the council an idea of
what it costs to go to law.
During the six years, the receiver of
the company has, on order of the
court. actually turned over to Presi-
dent Charles F. Street $159, 9,021.92 in
good hard cash, which represents what
the water company has earned in six
years. But it does not represent what
the total net earnings were. There is
an item of $50, cash on hand
on October IA, 1904. There is also a
judgment of $13,339.55 for back
rentals against the city, which will be
paid as soon as the special tax levy for
the purpose is paid in
And it should not be forgotten that
the water company has been under a
receiyership, and the receiver has
been paid not less than $4,000 year
as superintendent The report does
not show Just how much. but 1t is
known that Elias Summerf1eld re-
1S9X.
chances are that Mr. O'Neill has re
ceived even more than TINS. But
$4,000 a year for the past six years
would be $21,600. The city would dis
pense with this expensive luxury.
Collecting these various items Wnicn
should be considered to ascertain what
the plant would earn under city own
ership, the following is the result;
Cash turned over to Street $15 9,O21-S2
Cost of litigation -- 4z'I19'oS
Receivers salary as super
Judgment against city 13,S59.o5
Cash on hand -.....-.>. 3U,S 20
Total net for six years .s266.45S.2O
Average net per year to
These are figures which the oppo-
nents of city ownership can't escape.
They show conclusively that city own
ership would be of great financial
profit to the city, besides giving to
the city itself the control of its water
supply.
In the above computation, the item
of taxes has not been considered. or
course under city ownership, the plant
would not pay taxes. This item of
expense would be eliminated, but the
city's revenue would be that much
curtailed so of course it does not
count one way or the other
All the above figures are averages |
for the past six years. Take the year
from October l. 1908, to October l, 1904, |
and the showing is materially improv
ed. The gross earnings for that year
were SS4,781-26, which is over $4,000
above the average for the past six
years. The report of the receiver con- !
been made by President Street regard |
ing the earning capacity of the plant. |
1t is a gold mine.
Mr. O'Neill's report gives a statement |
of the receipts and disbursements for
each quarter separately, and includes !
all the various items found in such re-
ports 1t has the following explanation |
in the Introductory paragraphs:
THAT attached hereto and made a |
part of this report are statements of !,
the receipts and disbursements in the |
management and operation of the prop |
erty under the control of said receiver |
in said causes from September p. 1898, |
to October IA, 1904, inclusive. That such |
statements are a full, complete and |
moneys thus received and disbursed by !
your petitioner as receiver in the op- |
Grafton and management of the proper |
ty under his control. That such state |
ments are compiled from the books, |
vouchers and accounts of your petit /
toner relating to said receipts and dis |
which books, vouchers and |
,fu I,ar- 70 %F.<al