The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1912-07-30

A few days ago there was published
in the Richmond newspapers a report
of a Commercial club committee which
has been investigating the water
works contract question. This report
was adopted by the club and the
names of the various members of the
committee were attached TO il. II
appears. however. that f. II. Harris,
one member of the committee, did not
place his signature to the report. be-
ing out of the city at the time, but
his name was attached under the inn
preston that il met with his approx
al Mr.. Harris does not approve of
the report, because OF the section re-
ferring TO plant valuation" but realiz,
es that the committee believed il was
acting with his approval in attaching
his name to il.
In Directing TO the section OF the
report on plant valuation" Mr.. Har.
ris has addressed the following COM
munication to Charles w. Jordan, sec
rotary of the Commercial club:
Mr.. Charles w. Jordan, Secretary,
Richmond Commercial Club.
My dear Mr.. Jordan: Relative to
our conversation yesterday, regarding
the Interpretation of Section Of the
report which the Commercial Club
forwarded TO all of the city officials,
as the recommendations of the Club.
on the matter of a new water supply
for Richmond, l beg to enter a protest
against the wording of part of the
report, as believe it has been misin-
terpreted by a large majority of the
people of Richmond.
And If the wording of the report is
allowed to stand l must insist that my
name be removed from the report as
the report was adopted by the Club
and my name subscribed without my
knowledge.
The Section in question reads as
follows:
2. We desire to recommend that in
the event bids received are unsatisfac-
tory that the valuation of the present
plant shall be determined; also what
the cost of installing a similar plant
would be, so that these values might
be used in determining what rates
would be necessary in order to yield
fair and just per cent of profit on
the investment.
l wish to ask the question, How
are the members of the Club or the
citizens OF Richmond to know whether
or not the bids are satisfactory until
some basis is established for the fix
ing of rates for the city of Rich
mond?" You agree with me that the
Richmond City Water Works company
is selling service and that the cost of
pumping the water into the city, the
pressure is maintained in Richmond,
and the cost of getting the present wa
ter supply, is not the same as in any
other city, therefore, it would be un-
fair to take any other city as a cri-
terion for rates. Then, there is but
one course open for the city to deter
mine when the bids are satisfactory,
and that would be to arrive at a val
uation of the present plant, and then
see whether or not the rate bids
would yield more than a fair and just
return on the valuation. Then and
only then can We say whether or not
the bids received are satisfactory.
On the matter of the valuation, there
are several means of determining that
item. One is on the physical valua-
ton less a reasonable amount for de-
probation. Second, on the cost Of
reproducing the plant new today, and
third on the actual amount of money
invested in the plant to date.
Why the board of public works or
dered Mr.. Maury to prepare his re-
port on the second plan. no reason can
be given, but it is manifestly unfair
to the city. The cost of reproducing
the plant new today, would be far
above what the actual valuation Of the
present plant is. But the city ordered
Mr.. Maury to prepare his report on
the cost of reproducing the plant and
these instructions he followed. Be
cause this method of valuation has
been forced on the people in the Maui
ry report is no reason why that re-
port or method involved should be
taken as a basis for valuation. You