Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1913-11-13

made of the fact that the equipment
removed and placed elsewhere car
ried private as well as public wires,
i. e., wires that were used for lighting
private dwellings and business places,
as we'll as wires which were used to
do city lighting under the terms OF
the contract of October 5, 1907.
In the second place, the city is not
liable for any portion of the up-keep
of the city lighting system, and can
not be charged with the costs OF bet
terment, or replacing old and worn
, out equipment with new. If it is at
tempted to arrive at just apportion-
ment of the item of betterment on
per centage basis, it is contended by
the Council that the figures should
be nearer so than So, as evidenced by
the fact that the depreciation on wire
and poles approXimates that amount,
while the depreciation on other ma
terials comes much closer the 100
per cent limit.
But it is conceived by the Council
that this is not the proper method OF
arriving at the correct amount which
! the city should pay for this removal.
1t must be conceded that it is not
the intention of the contract referred
to that the city should pay for new
equipment in place of the old, when
the Council orders the Company TO
change the location or height OF any
lamp or lamps, poles or masts dur
ing the continuance of this contract,
the city to pay the actual
costs of the same" Read in connec-
ton with the franchise enjoyed by
the Company, contained in the or
finance referred to, the Council con
ceives that the only items in the
above charge for which the city would
be liable in this case, are the items OF
Labor pay roll ...............S 626.97
Board and lodgings. ......... $500
and possibly a small amount for sol
der and tape for mending the neces-
sary cuts in the wires.
And in the present case, the city
would not be liable for the full
amount as above stated, for the rea-
son that the items mentioned cover
the entire expense of labor (the
board and lodgings. item being part
of the labor COST for the removal OF
both the public and private systems.
As to what portion of this cost
should be borne by the city. opinions
are somewhat at variance Some
contend that much the larger portion
of the burden was for private lighting,
Others that the burden was about
equally divided 1t is conceived that
the budren of private lighting was
fully equal to that of the public, and
probably much in excess. If so, the
item of labor mentioned would call
, for so per cent decrease which
would leave the city liable to your
Company in the sum of 1898. Add
$1O.07 for solder and tape and the
grand total would be $350.00.
Wishing to be entirely fair in the
matter of the per cent allowed, the
Council rendered your Company 65
per cent of the above items, or there
abouts, and felt in so doing that they
were conceding much for the purpose
of avoiding further annoyance and
possible litigation.
Even so, the eight lights on the
streets covered by the order of the
Council for the removal of poles and
equipment, have not been removed.
They still remain and no account has
been made of charges for, their re-
n1oval. Let us do little figuring.
The city admits that it should pay
you $4,000 for its just charge for re-
moval of equipment as ordered, for
which it became liable. This would
be at the rate of $43.75 per light of
the streets covered. The city tend
cred you $1,000 per light for its share
of such cost Your bill as presented |
demands payment of $4,000 per light.
This in face of the fact that hereto
fore when lights have been ordered
by the Council removed from one
place to another, the charge made by |
you and paid by the. city has been J
the very reasonable sum of $500 per
light. /
Disseminating Lights on Streets Cow
cred by the Boulevard System.
On December LIST, 1912, the Council
ordered you to discontinue the lights
covered by the new boulevard system
of lights which had been installed.
This contemplated the disseminating
by you of eight lights on State and
Superior streets where a double sys-
tenn would prevail in view of the i'm