Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-12-17
AITACKS CONyJC. OF
CITY ELECTRIC PLANT
s1blfc Service Magazine Says Dad
Business Judgment l.
e. e; Displayed.
mo ALLOWANCE 10" TANMs
SWffi This Advantage Cost OF Pro-
~. duction Is s Mills Against J-Alill
Offer of Local Power Company for
ssls EXCESS Requirements.

General criticism Of tho i1lan undcr
s;saXhich the Richmond municipal cleo
;Etric light plant is operated is expressed
In the current issue OF tho fuhlic
sEService Magazine. OF Chicago. which
sfDarticulari, attacks on the ground of
itbad business iudrmcn' the recent re-
s@jection by the city 9th" offer made
Thy the Virginia Railway and Power
accompany TO supply the city with sur
5{fplus current during tho night. when
sAthc city's plant experiences it's heaviest
4drain for electricity FOR street light
ling. receiving in rc,nrm current dur
ing the hours Of natural light when the
StrRction compauT'S load is greatest.
1.-THE magazine asserts that many bur
9dcps are imposed on tia" taxpayer
Ethrough the municipal plants system
ESof accounting.
las to the offer OF The V,rg ui;, Rail
4May and Power Company, the article
itSrelates that ''reccuily u proposition
lEarose to spend S$"."uc IN exclusions.
FOR for emergency service The city had
i anneXcd Il new territory. which was
Eunlighted, and the suporint,adou; Of
bthe city plant urged q ucw unit Tor
8thiS demand The Virginia Railway
land Power Company. the local private
8concern, formally placed before tho city
Fan offer To- furnish current FOR All city
tpurposes ri mills per kilcvatt hour
Sfcial report shows it: own plants cost
Fat s mills, in round numbers This
tunit was recently authorized hy The
administrative HoIrd.
During the year ending December
631. 1915. the cost OF production at the.
Emunicipal plant was virtually mills
1.-THE writer says. as against mills by
kthe traction con.pauv'S offer, which
Swould result IN a saving. using last
&Scars production as Il basis foi com
Eparison OF $l3.6gl
mo ALLOWANCE MADE
b. ron TANt:s DISPLACED
But In computing the city's cost II
Eproduction, nothing is allowed tor taN"8
6displa ced The plant pays no ti.N"S.
4 but taxes nevertheless arc jusi az,
much a fixed charge l.lins, tn" prom
erty as interest. sinking fund o. do
probation, the Public Service Mul;a-
zine states. for municipal own, ishiu
displaces the tax which the property
would pay if privately owned.
Figuring at 81 tax rat" OF Si.GI p"r
s 500 with the plant valued AT SGt2.ig>.
according TO the last annual report. th"
displaced taxes aggresat $7,"5n, which
added to tho production costs given
bring the total Il SiG2Il for tho year.
Under the offer of tn, traction com
pany the city could have purchased
the same quantity ~ electricity for
&s24,62S, which would have been Il sax.
ing of s2l,Gi2. IT is also asserted hat
no insurance is carried on the plant,
Tor which Si.npl per anuuin would mo-;
n be too large au estimate bringing
the city's cost to j5",27l.
"lncidentally, some prominent Rich
mond taxpayers raise the question
suppose fire struck this plant over
might. with u" insurance. how would
the loss bc made up? Tho answer
OF course. is by another drain upon
the taxpayers general fund" the mag
aaine asserts.
The article reviews the history Of the
~ traction company'S OFFER QuoLiflg Com
Z missioners Beck ami ToDrhn as ia
= roriMs inc inan irurr-I1 business view
3 point, with the other three members
opposing tho proposition and voting for
the city extension plan. Supcrintrt,d
ent Trairord'S statement that 1--WE. de.
tcrmned the matter on the grounds
OF policy. We Cthat IS. he ANA The three
board members voting for his promo
sition) figured that the company WAS
simply schenling /" gct our municipal
plant and We didn't propusc to give
up anything we possessed" is also
given, but 1t * added that contract; IS
say Messrs. BccN and II"bson SHOULD
have been accepted by The city"
MUST FACE PROBLEM
or D!riICtTiu\
The same article also ,,nnt.s Jnhn -
Eas!cy. 81 the t-vic Association. \. hici
is described as 'ouc Of In. l,y,lfrsl
civic organizations ia tie South" san
! ing the association is determined a.
e go 10 the bottom OF this ANA ulI kin
dred matters, ~. fsuSlltrss AIauaper "
y j. babney - ,-aotcd as being YER.
d much opposed q" the project Of cN.
y pending s3o,oOu Tor extending the Strcct
Il plant bcltevinS that The money could
DC spent 10 better advantage The
magazine also touches on the con
q 1emplated survey Of al! the city's af.
tairs, by the Bureau OF Municipal lie.
search. OF New York, which has beer
suggested in certain quarters
But because the city electric plant
erades its interest depreciation AN,
other fixed charges, does no, mean
MI. Taxpayer. tina, YOU cNadc ihom.'
The article states "BondhulGcrs must
{ nave 'heir Jht"f''st You pay it gu;
4 your general tax funds The bond.
mist in time hc redeemed You vii
pay that from Your general tax funds
s The Plant IN time VIII wear out 81
become obsolete You must pay 70,
this depreciation or Replacement on,
OF your tax funds OF from another
bond issue Eui for purely booI. rir
scs. Mr.. rratford charges doc.
pay--Intercst and depreciation"
That the superintendent figures moth
for redemption OF bonds is charged
i that his depreciation rate =.
cents also too low is also said
addition. there is Il tax rate of ;
pole IN The city but the plan
S no tax on its 1000 poles whici
I'D bring the total taN displacement
sl5.s60.
he article appears in the peceu.
,, issue Of The Public Service Ma
azine. and was written by James 1;
Wootan. II is said, after an eNteusi,,
81 investigation into the local plan, AN,
IS conditions
br,-G"ods N",icw.
NEW YORK, December d. Til.