The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1909-10-05

Parry in his budget report. COmpet.-
ton with the private plant was one
reason, he said. He advocated a
higher rate so that the plant would
have a working capital and fund
which might be resorted to. in case OF
an emergency. due to some unforeseen
plant He also thought that a fund
should be laid aside to be applied to
the payment of the bond issue by the
city for the construction of the plant.
Mr.. Study answered the argument of
Mr.. Won Pien, saying that the surplus
received from the light plant could not
be applied to the bond issue. He then
could do. The gross receipts last
year were $4,000, and this year are
expected to be $4,000. The same pro-
portion of increase in business is ex-
pected to occur year by year. This
year the city pays $4,000 for stree.
lighting and. deducting this amount,
the city will receive from commercial
lighting of the city, $4,000. Taking
this as the gross receipts of the city
LII LAC lCoCAL COL IL "AAA oAAouhS ~
$4,000 profit as the expenses of the
plant will amount to but $4,000 it is
believed Therefore the city would
not have to pay one cent for the street
lighting and still receive sufficient pro-
fit from the commercial lighting to pay
all expenses. Mr.. Study sees no rea-
son for anticipating some probable ac-
cident and preparing ror some proba-
bility by keeping the street lighting
rate high and consequently keeping the
tax rate at the present figure of $1.1p
per 500 assessed valuation. Mr.. Stu
dy says that in case there was an acci-
dent, the city could make a temporary
loan.
Could Reduce to 95 Cents.
Mr.. Study is booster and he said
that the most effective way of booming
city was to reduce the tax rate. Mr..
Study said that the tax rate could be
with safety reduced to 81 per 500 as
sessed valuation and Mr.. Parry chimei
in with the statement that it could be
reduced to ninety-five cents.
Temporary loans for meeting emer-
gencies did not solve the question 50
far as council was concerned. The
members did not want to increase the
Indebtedness by the issuance of such.
and favored a higher tax rate instead
of continually boosting the bonded in
debtedness of the city.
Councilman Deuker, a member of
the finance committee, said that with
the 81 LOS tax rate recommended. the
light plant would have a surplus of be-
tween $4,000 and $4,000 a year. This
would leave the rate paid for street
lighting at $4S as recommended by Mr..
Parry. He said, however that he had
learned from a number of business
men that they favored a rate of SO or
$50 year per street light. Business
men favor the working capital idea, he
said.
O'Neal on the Plant.
Mr.. O'Neal was called upon by coun-
Gil to state his views of the plant He
spoke of the earnings of the plant.
showing that while it was ito the
good this year, that in the past it had
been ito the bad" and also very near
the brink. However, he believed, the
plant in the future would be winner.
He said that this winter the plant
would be working up to it's capacity,
with 1900 kilowat horsepower being
used in the city. The plants capacity
is 1850 kilowat horsepower. He said
that in three years time the plant
would have to be equipped with an ad-
ditional 1000 kilowat horsepower unit
which would cost in the neighborhood
of $4,000. He said that the city would
and that when the addition was need
ed, surplus OF 5000 year would
not be sufficient to meet the expendi-
ture. He said that it looked to him as
though it would be better to have the
money in a fund instead of having to
make bond issue. He advised against
reducing the tax at the expense OF the
city and it's citizens. He protested
against so small an
amount in the reserve fund as would
accrue from commercial lighting alone.
he had been told by B. B. Johnson, a
member Of the board, that he favored
a rate of S,,5 or $50 per light. He de-
MED being consulted about the budget
by Mr.. Parry.
Parry Gives the Lie.
These rather sharp and pointed rs-
marks against the leaders Of the ad-
were answered by Mr..
Parry Mr.. Parry gave Mr.. ONeal the
lie to or three times in reference to the
latter's statement that he had not been
consulted concerning the budget. He
also said that Mr.. Johnson never IA
vored higher rate than $50 per arc
light. He concluded with Not one
word have heard from you. Mr..
~