The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-11-03

they are not, why are they afraid to
After this nameless councilman has
| figured the thing down to the lowest
possible margin after he has subtract
ed the $l4:5O0 a year, which he says the
city would not have to pay for hydrant
rental, he still finds that he has a net
profit on hand of $5.0S611, but he dis
misses this lightly with the remark:
"EvenA granting that you would have
that $5,0S611 after the interest is paid,
does that look like good investment
for the city?'
1t most assuredIy does. Five thou
and the $4,000 hydrant rental means d
total net income of 800 a year This
is an earning of over 715 per cent on
$500, ,0OO President Street told the coun-
Gil that he thought the plant would
earn at least 61z per cent. and when he
said this, Chas. J. Devlin remarked:
The city ought to buy the plant even
if it will pay only per cent on the in
vestment.''
At the present time. with the present
rapidly increasing earnings, it is safe to
say that the plant would pay closer to
10 per cent than it would to 61a.
Isn't it worth while for the city to
save $4,000 a year on hydrant rentals
and get clear income of over $1,000
besides2
The facts are being so woefully dis
torted by the 'eight members of the
city council in their efforts to prove
their case that it is worth while to
To find out what the plant might
have earned during the past six years
under city ownership they first take
the item of $159,000 which was actually
sent back east as cash earnings. To
this they add $32.37264 as cash on i1ands
This is Incorrect; Ito be perfectly
fair" the Journal will state that the
cash on hand at the end of six years
was only $27. .30S.54. They also add $39,-
522.11 which they say the plant has paid
in taxes. ITO be perfectly fair the
State Journal must again suggest that
a portion of this tax, which came into
the city's own treasury, would be lost
if the city should buy the plant. 1t
would help out the showing of the wa
ter plant by $39, 522.11 all right, but the
city's general fund would suffer by per-
haps $4,000 This item should probably
be fixed at about $4,000 Ito be perfect
ly fair
The item of $4,000 water rental judg-
ment against the city is entirely ig
nored, although at least Sc. 500 of this
judgment accrued during the past six
years.
The item of $4,000 for special
Jesse Shaw. manager of the water
company, says: This item includes
expenses which do not come into the
regular or necessary operating ex-
court costs, the donation of $500 to
the food fund, the regular annual
donation of 100 sacks of -four to the
penses when he comes out to inspect
the plant, are all included in the
amount. The city would not be liable
for any of these things if it owned the
plant. 1t should certainly be includ-
ed in the list of charges from which
the city would be exempt.
The State Journal has claimed that
the salary of the receiver, whatever it
is. should be added to the list. No one
thinks that any recei yer would be
necessary If the city owned the plant.
Mr.. O'Nein declines to state the
amount of his salary, but it is known
that the previous receiver got $500
year. 1t is fair to assume that Mr..
O'Nein gets about the same. Mr..
O'Neill states that up to about 1902
his salary was charged to special dis
salary account" Special disburse-
ments having all been eliminated. it'll
would only be necessary to subtract
the receivers salary for the years
1902, 1903 and 1904. which would be.
at the rate of $500 a year, a total
of $1O,SOO.
The estimate, therefore, on what the |
plant might have earned during the |
past six years had it been under city |
ownership should be computed as fol-
lows:
Cash remitted to Street. $3.50. 9.O21.92
Cash on hand ...-... 2l,3O354
Taxes .. -...-- 25,OOO-O0
Special disbursements -..- 41,917.95
Hydrant rental Judgment 6,5O0.0O |
Receivers salary ....... 1O,S00-OO |
Total income per year
which city would have
received during the
past six years. $270, ,543.41 |
This is an average of 5,O90.56 a
year, which is ~ per cent on the in |
vestment of $620.OO0. Out of this
$4,000 the city could pay the interest
charge of s27.500 and have $17.500 |
left either to pay off hydrant rentals !
or something else. The $17,50O would
be the net profit each year to the |
city.
All this is figured. remember, on the
assumption that the earning capacity |
of the plant is only $4,000 gross, !
whereas the year 1904 shows gross
earnings of over $4,000.
The city will never realize the real
financial value of the waterworks |
plant until it actually takes possession
of that property. 1t is the height of
folly to try to prove that the plant |
won't pay Every sensible business
man in Topeka knows it will pay, and
pay big, and the extreme willingness
of J. w. O'NeiI and Charles F. Street
to continue in possession under almost