The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1909-07-28

works committee of the
City Council, as follows. S17.932 &c
This shows the total ex-
penscs for six months S42, 1854
Subtract actual cash re-
ceipts of ................ 32.24S.19
This leaves loss to tho
waterworks department for
the first six months Of .S10,OS755
This shows that the city water de-
partment actually paid out over Sl0.-
GOO more money than IL received for
water rentals. Where did this Sl0,-
600 come from? An inspection OF the
other reports show that the special
tax levied last fall produced more
money than was needed TO buy the
waterworks. as the following figures
Will show.
Sold city bonds for, ,..,. S45l ,256 %
Net special tax TO buy wat
erWorkS .......... 113,900.6f
Total cash from bonds and
tax collected ........... S565. $3.50
Price paid to old water com
pany for waterworks 500. 400 90
Surplus money collected
from taxpayers ......s 9,756S9
This plainly shows that the city
Haterworks department had almost
$4,000 I'm cash on hand after paying
ioF-ihe waterworks. This shows that
the city collected S9.756S9 more than
was required TO buy the waterworks,
This sum of money was used TO pay
the shortage Of the account as above
stated and If the interest check of
$l0.125.0o, stated as operating ey.
penses paid, was paid before July LIST.
1909. 1t would show a small overdraft
at the waterworks department bank
account
But, in one statement made bv the
committee. ii is claimed there is So
S94,33 balance cash in the bank This
is impossible If the interest check Of
$l0,125,00 was paid before July 1St
as stated by the committee In its
statement OF Operating Expenses
| now offer TO treat the whole water
works committee, Mayor and City
Council, to lunch at the Weber Club
if there was dollar credit in the
bank 10 the watcrworks department
on June both. 1909, with this proviso
that the first six months interest on
the bonds had been paid before July
1st 1909, is represented in the com
mittee'S report of Operating En-
penses" This is not much of a treat
but II | am wrong the committee will
have TO show me their system of Jug
Cling with figures. That Is worth
knowing.
AS above stated. the city admins.
tration made three reports One shows
a S21, ,233.20 profit and the second re-
port shows only $9,S9i.32 In the bank
and the third report, compared with
the other two, shows an overdraft at
the bank. These reports, I confess.
arc unique and ngeniously drawn
You can prove both loss and a profit
You can prove $10,125 interest was
and was not, paid In all my cXper-
ience in public life | have never seen
such a deliberate effort made to mis-
represent actual conditions. have
said nothing of the big cost OF oper-
ating expenses Think Of 1t. it cost
s17.932,56. including interest. to simp,
" operate the Ogden waterworlls for
six months or over S35 400 per year,
and this does not include any extern
sions or permanent improvements or
even office fixtures.
| cannot understand why the Office
fixtures OF the waterworks Office is
not proper charge against the wat
erworks. Why should the people he
taxed extra TO paw that? Why should
the water meters not be charged TO
the waterworkS account? Why should
the reservoir expenses be paid from
any other fund than the watcTworks
fund? Why should the extension and
improvements of $12.574S9 be charged
To anything but expenses of maintain
ing the waterworks2
| ask the waterworks committee to
explain how much money there was
in the waterworkS fund on June 80.
1909. IL the S10,12o interest on the
bonds was paid on or before that day
| am anxious TO treat the whole City
water committee Mayor and City
Councilmen, 10 nice lunch at the
Weber Club If | am wrong In the fore
going statements and | ask nothing
in return if | have properly analyZed
the three reports of the water COM
mittee.
This paper offers free space for the
city to reply to this communication
Why did the Democratic city admin
iStratlon think that | would complain
about It's report? Did they. for mo-
ment, think they could bamboozle the
whole people into believing that they
had a profit OF $2l 600 when they ran
behind over 10000? That water re-
port was intended 10 be a Democratic
campaign document. The whole lot
of them thought they would sneak
back into Office on the misleading re-
port
(Signed) WIN GLASMANN.