The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1914-12-23

| X. Dan DAILY, Buffalo.
ment 1929 per capita would pay off
the bonded debts.
AHA! That tells the story, some
commission plan enthusiast may ex-
claim. Most of the cities which changed
to the new plan, did SO in desperation
after they had been plunged deeply in
debt by loose city councils and now
they are paying the interest and prin-
ciple on these debts while the cities
which had escaped and were left In
good financial condition were satisfied
to remain as they were. 1t is not
fair comparison; for the cities most
deeply in debt adopted the commission
meet their debts than the cities which
we're comparatively free from debt and
were satisfied to make no change.
But not SO fast.
The average Kansas municipal bond
bears interest at the rate of 40 per
cities a shade the better of the argu-
ment, assume that the average bond
carries a per cent interest rate. Five
per cent on $56.S7. which is the average
per capita indebtedness of the commits
sion governed cities, gives $2.843 De-
duct this $2.843 from $7.98, the average
amount of taxes per capita in the COM
mission governed cities, and you have
the per capita cost of city government
exclusive of interest on bonds. which
is $5.137. Then figure the interest on
$32.39. the per capita bonded debt of
the council governed cities, at per
cent, and deduct this from the per
capita cost of government in these
cities. The cost Of government. ex-
elusive of interest on bonds. is only
$3.50 as against 5.137 for the same serv-
ice in the commission cities. So it
looks like pretty fair conclusion that
commission government in Kansas is
costing more per capita than does the
old way Of conducting a city's business.
Future Considerations.
But this conclusion should not be ac-
cepted without reservations either. If
it SO happens that commission governed
cities are making levies to pay the
principal on their bonds and are do
ing so to any considerable extent, while
the council governed cities are making
no provision against the day Of pay
ment and intend to issue refunding
bonds. a more favorable showing might
be made for the former cities.
That the small cities do not show up
as we'll as do the larger ones under the
commission plan is again indicated by
charges of the ten larger cities and
then comparing the per capita amounts
levied for city expenses. This gives
the average per capita cost OF city
government in Kansas City. Wichita.
Topeka. Leavenworth, Hutchinson,
Pittsburg, Coffeyville, Lawrence and
Emporia only $5.271 as against $3.50 for
Atchison, the one council governed
city in the first ten.
The smaller cities are the ones that
swell the per capita cost of commission
government in striking an average for
the 1enty-two cities, Hiawatha being
the highest with $13O6 and Independ-
ence next with $10.12. Galena. with
only 81 90, being the most cheaply gov
erned city of any, retains the old coun-
| ell system.
OF the thfrty-two leading cities Of the
state the commission governed are:
Kansas City, Wichita. Topeka, Leaven-
worth, Hutchinson, Pittsburg, Coffey-
willie, Lawrence, Emporia Chanute, In
dependence, lola, Newton. Manhattan.
Junction City, Cherryvale. Dodge City
and Mcpherson.
The council system is retained by
Atchison, Winfield. Ga1ena. Concordia.
Clay Center, Columbus. Beloit, Hia-
watha. Ell Dorado and Burlington.
Bones Statement.
| When told that city government is
mission governed cities than in those
retaining the old council system. Roy
L. Bone, TOpeka's city commissioner OF
finance, said:
| Il have never argued that comm1s-
sion government is more economical
than the old way. As matter Of fact
Topeka is now spending more for city
| government in a year than was spent
| in the same time before the commission
plan was adopted. But I have contend
| ed that commission government is more
| efficient-that a city gets more for a
| dollar spent under the commission plan
| than under the council plan.
while Topeka is spending more now
than formerly, it Is not possible to say
whether or not she is spending more
or less than would be the case had
adopted. 1t costs more to live. The
average family is spending more and
the cost Of conducting any business is
greater now than formerly. I believe
the city is more nearly getting its
moneys worth for every dollar spent
now than was the case under the OLD