The Bourbon news. [volume] (Paris, Ky.) 1895-19??, 1918-09-20
MAYOR JANUARY'S VIEWS ON
THE ELECTRIC LIGHT RATE
CONTROVERSY.


from Mayor January has been gwen
out for publication. The article sets
forth the Mayors views in regard to
the controversy between the CITY OF
Paris and the Paris Gas & Electric
Company as to the rates charged by
the latter concern:
That the electric light and power
rates charged by the Paris Gas q
Electric Company to the City and
the people of Paris are and have been
for years palpably unjust and un-
reasonable; that the Company has
conducted it's affairs in an arbitrary
manner in utter disregard of its duties
and obligations are common knowl-
edge. 1t is the duty of this Company
under its franchise to furnish ade-
quate and reliable electric service at
reasonable and just charges to the
City of Paris for lighting its streets
and to the people for lighting and
power. The franchise permits 1T to
charge a maximum rate of IL cents
per kilowatt hour of electricity, but
that does not mean that it may charge
more than the service is worth. The
worth of the service is what it costs
to produce that service included in
which cost is the profit, namely, a
fair return on the fair value of the
property used for the convenience
of the public and an amount sufficient
to replace that property as and when
it wears out in the service or becomes
inadequate or new inventions make 1t
inefficient. The same rule applies to
the worth of the street lighting; how
ever, no price for street lighting was
provided in the franchise.
Aside from the fact that the high
est rate of electricity for lighting and
power is charged by electric light com-
panies in many other fouth class cities
of Kentucky was and now is 10 cents
per XVIII, and as low as 3 cents per
XVIII, with even lower rates for power,
/ have always held the opinion that
the Paris Gas & Electric Company
charged the people of Paris for light
and power and to the City for street
lighting prices that were outrageously
and grossly in excess of the worth of
the service, and l was determined, if
ever / got the opportunity, to get re-
lief for the people, either from the
owned electric light and power plant
managed and operated in the same
manner and along the same lines of
a privately owned plant.
1t so happened that shortly after
assumed the office of Mayor the con-
tract made in 1915 for lighting the
streets, and which attempted to make
a contract for three years (then sup
posed to be a valid contract, since
which time, however, we have learn
ed that it was void) was about to ex-
pire, and following the established
custom, we advertised for proposals
of bids for street lighting. But being
satisfied that the nature and methods
of the Company would not permit it
to restrain its appetite for unjust and
unreasonable rates, and inasmuch as
the Company are experts, | felt that
in dealing with it the City would be
at great disadvantage unless it had
the advice and assistance of an ex-
pert. Accordingly / correspondent
with an Engineer who had made the
valuation of the Paris Water Com.
pany and who know something of the
electric light situation here, and in
vited him to visit us to discuss the
problem. On this visit he declined
to express himself as to the rates and
charges until he could study the
situation-which he was willing to dc
for the City at certain rate per day
He very frankly told us that this
Company was apt to adopt dilatory
tactics to hinder and delay his work
and that such services as he proposed
to render to the City and which were
essential to the successful issue there.
of, required the cordial cooperation
of the Company, and that unless such
cooperation was had the amount OF
his fee at so much per day would in.
crease so rapidly that the City might
become disguised and throw up the
job. And for that reason he declined
to take the employment at fixed
price for the work. However, he made
us a proposition. that he would take
as his fee a certain percentage OF
the saving and benefit that the CITY
and its inhabitants would receive as
the result of his work, meaning that
if we got no reduction he would not
be paid anything. We considered that
a very fair proposition and made the
contract on that basis. AS everybody
knows, Mr.. Weiss predictions as to
the Company's tactics came true.
At the same meeting that approved
the contract with Mr.. Weiss, the Com.
pany submitted bid for street light
ing at $77.50 for the 400 CD and
$4,000 for the 80 cp lamp per year.
an advance over the former prices
of an average of 5 per cent. Action
thereon was deferred until we could
submit the bid to our expert, who
promptly informed us that the prices
were eXorbitant. He thereupon re.
quested certain information from the
Company, which, with the exception
of ascertaining the quantity of the
wire, price of lamp fixtures, and size
of station equipment devoted to street
lighting, was refused. AS a result of
his independent studies, he rendered
a report on March %, showing the
worth of the service of the entire
street lighting to be $4,000 a year
instead of $9,081 as proposed by the
bid last submitted, or instead of
$4,000 year as Heretofore paid un-
der the void contract aforesaid. The
Board of Council adopted the report
of its Engineer and voted not to pay the
Company on account. of said street
lighting service more than 1878 2