The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-11-02

Year ending Oct. l, 1904. 62,25S.70
This shows an increase of $4,000
and over in the annual earning capac-
ity of the plant during the past six
years.
Col. Hughes also calls attention to
the fact that under city ownership,
the possible earnings should receive
credit for at least a portion of the
taxes which the plant has been paying.
The water company has been paying
about $1,000 a year tax. OF this
amount about $4,000 comes back into
the city's funds. and of this about ST.
800 gets into the general revenue and
general improvement funds. So while
the city would lose $1,000 a year from
its present general revenue income,
the water plant, under city ownership,
would gain $1,000 a year by exemp-
ton from taxation. This would be
net gain of about $1,000 a year,
which should be added to the $44,40
which is the way the Journal esti-
mated the income.
While Col. Hughes comedies the
taxation point, and also the item of
100000 cash on hand lin estimating
what the city would earn on the plant,
he claims that only about one-half of
the $4,000 judgment held by the
company against the city can properly
be credited to the O'Neill administra-
ton, and the other half accrued prior
to 1893. This would make a differ
ence of only about $1,000 a year, how
ever, for six years.
the whole of the $42 600 charged to
special disbursements should go as q
credit to the CITY," said Colonel Hughes.
Il don't know all that this item in
cludes. understand that about $50, 900
of it is attorneys fees. 1 think the
Whiting judgment is included. We
ought to know more about this item
before we assume that the city would
not be liable for any of it under city
ownership
1t is claimed by some members of
the council, Colonel Hughes among the
number. that the item of $4,000 a year
for hydrant rental which the company
has been collecting should be disre-
garded because when the city buys the
plant, it will no longer have to pay for
water used in its hydrants. 1t really
does not make any difference whether
the city continues to levy a tax of liz
mills to pay the $4,000 a year, or
whether it does not. If it does, the
revenue of the water plant will be
little larger; if it does not, the city will
save $4,000 a year on its tax levy. OF
course the city can't expect to cease
paying $4,000 a year for water, and at
the same time derive the benefit of the
pany has done. This is merely a mat
ter of business policy. Some think
that the finances of the water plant
and of the city should be kept entirely
separate, and that the water plant
should continue to deal with the city
as one of its customers, just as it does
under private ownership. This is the
plan in most municipal ownership
towns.
Yesterday the State journal sub
mitted figures to show what the water
plant would earn under city owner
ship even if the receipts and disburse-
ments did not exceed the average for
the past six years.
There has been some inquiry today
as to what might be expected from
the showing made in the report for
the last year alone. The last year
would be from October 1. 1903. to
october 1. 1904.
In that year, the total receipts were
$S4,7S1.26. This is apparently just
about what the plant might do under
ordinary conditions. There is nothing
to indicate that the receipts were
The disbursements for the year
were $67, 1854, and these were de-
cidedly abnormal, on account of the
flood and other conditions.
The item for repairs and renew
ais was $S,723.14. The year before
the flood it was only $992.27, an excess
of $7,730.S7.
According to the State Journals
idea that the item of special dis
burSementS'' could be practically all
dispensed with under city ownership,
$15,514.49 should be subtracted.
There is also a heavy excess in fuel, |
expense, and several other items
which would aggregate about $4,000
above the average.
The following items should there
fore be subtracted from the $4,000 to |
ascertain what it would have cost the
city to operate the plant, under nor
NAL conditions:
Taxes ........--..-..........$ 2,Iy
Repairs ............-............. 40
Litigation .....-......-.-.- l5'S 90
receiver --..----.-..--..+-...-- osoggV
Other extras 5'eve
Tota! ........S37 , $50 |
Subtract $37, $50 from $67, 124.H leaves 49, !
5s5 IA which would have been the proba- |
BILE cost of operating the plant last year |