The Columbus journal., 1904-08-10
CITY OWNERSHIP.

The committee instructed by the
city council last Friday night to con-
suit the city attorney as to the legal
aspect Of the question of voting bonds
to establish an electric light plant
will make . favorable report. City
Attorney Cornelius finds that the law
permits the city to vote bonds not to
exceed 2 ID per csnt OF the city's
assessed valuation for the purpose of
estsblishin9 IN electric light plant.
The assessed valuation Of the city
ie about @60O. 600. Bonds for $l5. 900
may, therefore. be voted. The only
question that remains 10. - Do the tax
payers OF Columbus want to own and
operate their own lighting system 20
Il 70 for tho taxpayers and not the
newspapers OF Columbus to answer
this question. The answer of some of
tho heaviest taxpayers are recorded in
this issue OF the Journal.
Better service for less money: di-
vidends In the pockets of every user
OF the service. rather than in the poc-
ket OF IN individual owner: efficiency
Of service instead Of tho least efficient
service that the publio will stand for
and pay for-these arc some of the
things to be gained BY city owner.
ship.
How much cheaper? Conservative
b1siness men believe that home cap
itslists would snap up tl5. 1000 worth
Of bonds st i've per cent or less. max.
ing tho Interest payable annually not
to exceed $50. Tho employment of
IN electrician would cost not to ex-
ceed $50 year. Those familiar with
conditions here Say that no additional
help would be necessary. as the pres
ent city engineers could handle the
work. Ats cost Of $500 year, with
. little additional for coal, the city
could operate ito own plant. The
present cost to the city Of less than
twenty street lights 10 about 4l7OO o
year. The city could, therefore, save
money for Columbus taxpayers if it
operated . plant simply to furnish
street lights. And il enough lights
were sold to individual users to pay
tho cost OF tho servica. the saving to
taxpayers would be $l7OO . wear. or
to pay for tke plant in less
than ten years. After that, this
would be saved to the indi.
vidual users.
What arc tho legal steps to city
Ownership? First, . petition to the
city council. signed BY ten taxpayere
In each ward, requesting . special
election TO b called for the purpose
II voting on tho question OF bonds.
Second. tho action OF tho council on
this petition, calling the election after
twenty days notice.
Third, . majority Of the votes cast
It this eleotioa determines the ques-
lion Of issaing bonds.
what are other cities doing? Sew.
Nd 10 one Of tho many Nebraska cities |
n the same Glass with COLUMBUS that
'uocessfully own and operate their
'wn plants. Ata cost Of $ll 600 Sew.
nd has . plant that furnishes lights
70 individual users at . rate below the
present Columbus rate. Their plant
. self-s1pporting. clearing about so
month after providing for interest,
expenses and . sinking fund.
While everything seems 20 favor
'tty ownership. the question should
b thorooghly investigated. The
|ooEnal viii give ito space freely for
'iews oo both sides OF the question.
Whatever action IL taken should be
|1tded parsly By principles Of econ-
ny and not by sentiment. II tho city
'oess 10 own its own plant, the me.
'aftA OF tho present plant should be
'ooshs II possible. to ssve . duplica-
Ion OF material and @ . matter OF
ustioo 10 The oWnof.