The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1913-11-04
DELAY ACTION ON
HYDRANT RENTALS
Council to Take Up Matter
of Alleged Overcharges
At Next Meeting.
BOND GIVES VIEWS
Superintendent of Company
Tells City Officials That
His Stand Is Fair.
BOND GIVES VIEWS

Council delayed action until next
meeting on the resolution recommend
ed by Councilmen VESSEL, Burdsall
and Englebert, that alleged over
charges for hydrant rentals during
the last twenty years, amounting TO
81 ,490, be deducted from the bill pre-
sented for the last six months. The
entire controversy was gone over by
City Attorney Bond and Superinten-
dent Howard Dill of the water COM
pany.
Bond explained that the water COM
pany had been charging $49 for each
500 feet of main extension whether
hydrants were set or not. This, he
said, was not according to the con-
tract
Dill, in giving the attitude and in
depreciation placed on the contract by
the company, said where extensions
were over 500 feet the surplus had
been added together, and when it
equaled 500 the city was notified that
it was Untitled to a hydfant, and
statement sent for hydrant rental.
Report Carefully Prepared.
The amended report of City Attor-
ney Bond on the question and the res
olution providing for the payment of
the present bill after deducting sos,
alleged overcharges on it, and the 81,
400 overcharge for the last twenty
years, were brought back to council
last night by the committee, to which
they were referred at last meeting,
and recommended
The report, Bond said, had been
carefully prepared by him and his re-
suits checked by the city controller.
According to Bond hydrants have
not been set in many instances al
though the city has been paying rent
ais. The company has been charging
the city hydrant rental for each 500
feet of main extension, whether hy-
drant had been set or not.
One Outside Of City.
When figured for the last twenty
years, Mr. Bond said this excess
amounted to $1,490 without interest
and included s166 on hydrant at
Seventh and South n streets set in
1909. This he argued was outside the
city. He says he cannot see any rea-
son why the city should take funds
protect Aproperty ottside. =. --~e-
From the companys last bill
amounting to $7,S6121, he said the
city had been charged with hydrant
rental on 1900 feet of extensions
where there were no hydrants. For
this reason he recommended that $9S
be deducted from the bill first, then
the 81 ,490, and the company given
check for the balance.
Bond said ne had consulted with
the company's attorneys, who had
asked the city to pay the entire bill
and afterward sue for the alleged ov
exchanges. This he refused to do, tell
ing them he was going to take the
matter before council Just as he saw
it, which would be that the city con-
troller be instructed to give the COM
pany warrant for s6,371.21, the
amount after deducting the over
charges.
Discuss RumeIy Hydrants.
Councilman Won Pein asked if the
hydrant at Seventh and South n had
not been ordered by the city to pro-
vide fire protection for the factories.
William H. Bartel, Jr., raised the
question about the hydrant enclosed
on the NJ. Rumely property, saying 1t
had been ordered by the city, when
the street was open.
Bond replied that the hydrant was
boarded in the company's land and
was no longer at the city's use. He
pointed to a similar case in which the
American Seeding Machine company
paid the rent on a hydrant in their
enclosure. which was formerly charg-
ed to the city He said that the
Rumely company would have ade-
quate fire protection if that hydrant
were removed, and he did not think
the city should pay the rental.
Fire Chief Miller said the NJ. Rum
ely company maintained five hydrants
for its protection, in addition TO the
hydrant about which the dispute arose.
Miller said the enclosed hydrant, could
Continued on Page NineO