Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1917-03-08

was declared adopted.
1t was moved and seconded that
council adjourtl TO the next reg
ular meeting night, March 6,
1917, at 1880 p. m. Motion car
ried. Council adjourned.
A. EDGEGOMB, Mayor,
John f. Clinkenbeard, City Clerk. I
In Relation to Electric Light
Rates.
To Our Patrons:
For many years the fixed
charge for current for electric
lights in the City of Missouri
Valley has been 5 cents per kilo-
wat hour for the first 20 kilowat
hours, 121a cents per kilowat
hour on the next 10 kilowat
hours, and 10 cents per kilowat
hour on the excess of 80 kilowat
hours per month.
When the present company took
over the properties of the bank
rupt Iowa & Nebraska Public
Service Company, as you will re-
member, the plant was in very
bad condition and you were un-
able to get service anywhere near
approaching satisfaction, al
though you were paying the above
rates. The present company, aft
er acquiring title, expended many
thousand dollars in repairing the
properties and replacing old and
worn out portions and appurten-
ances. During all of this time,
instead of there being a reason
able profit, the company was ac-
tually expanding annually several
thousand dollars in addition to its
receipts. Within the past two
years, having placed the plant in
la condition by which the patrons
received, and are now receiving,
satisfactory service and being
partially relieved of the enormous
annual expense as heretofore, we
|endeavored last year to give our.
lpatrons fair treatment by a pro-
tposed reduction in rates, offering
the patrons, through the City
Council, a rate of t21a cents per
kilowat hour on the first 10 lkilo-
wat hours, and 40 cents per kilo-
wat hour on all in excess of 40
lkilowat hours each month. To be
more specific, and to illustrate, a
Icustomer under the present rate
using 20 lSilowat hours pays $500
per month. Under the proposed
rate he would pay 1925, a reduc-
ton of 25 per cent from the pres
ent charges. A customer using
80 kilowat hours per month under
the present rate, pays 1925. I'm
der the proposed rate he would
pay 1929, a reduction of prac-
ltically 25 per cent. The Council
refused to accept this liberal re-
duction, although it was renewed
and kept good at the time the
council proposed to pass new
ordinance, making still greater
reductions in The rates, and we
were compelled to ask the courts
| TO protect our rights. In view of
1.-THE great advance in cost of OPP
leralions, especially cost of coal,
"copper" and all material used i'm
the operation of the plant, as we'll
as The necessary cost of the labor
lemployed, this would not be a
compensatory rate during the
past year. A majority of the
council, recognizing the reason
Iablcness of our proposition, and
in the spirit of fairness and with
a view Of avoiding controversy
land expense of litigation to the
city, as we'll as to the company,
and with a view of securing con-
ltinuance of the excellent service
the patrons have received, pro-
lposed repeal of the an ordinance
adopted by the council October
Ia, 1916, and the acceptance of
our proposed rates.
On February 90, an ordinance
repeating the ordinance adopted
'EOeteberi 81 1916, was duly adopt
led by majority vote Of the 7coun-
Icil, with the understanding and
upon statement made by the com
|pany officials in open council
THAT for the purpose of adjusting
1.-THE controversy and avoiding
further litigation, the proposed
|rate would be put in force as soon
las the Objectionable ordinance is
properly repealed. A majority OF
the council having adopted the
necessary repeating ordinance, it
lis left to the mayor to approve
the same and cause it to be pub
llished according to law, or, as he
|claims, he may veto the same and
lprevent an adjustment of the
controversy, and thereby con-
tinue the higher rate. The re-
|sponsibility therefore rests with