The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1918-05-11
ASKS FOR INFORMATION

A friend of ours sent US the follow
ing list of inquiries yesterday, and as
we have no time today to hunt up the
necessary statistics, we print them, in
hopes that folks with more leisure
may supply the required information:
Editor Star: Yesterday in your
paper l noticed short paragraph in
which was stated funds had been
transferred from the light and water
fund to the general fund, and your
apparent assumption of this being the
reason the plants were not showing a
profit.
+ Do you know whether:
The light and water plant was pur,
chased with or charged to general
fund, or earnings from these plants
Is any portion of the city clerk
compensation charged to these plants,
or is it charged only to the general
fund?
Much of the municipal litigation
has been due to OF arisen by reason of
these plants, in one instance special
counsel employed. Did such special
counsel receive his remuneration from
general funds, or from these plants :?
Does not the city levy thousands of
pensation from general funds, or is
any portion charged up to these
plants?
Does not the city levy thousands of
dollars of taxes for interest and sink
ing fund by reason of bonds issued
for these plants? Is this in any way
ever charged against these plants, or
do the taxpayers have to stand for it
absolutely?
These plants are exempt from tax
alton, thereby throwing the amount
which would be received from them il
privately owned on the rest of the
property in the city. Yet, l am in
formed levy is made to pay for
service from these plants to the city.
For the purpose of determining
whether these plants are sef-sustain-
| ing or not, would it not be necessary,
in order to arrive at a true state
ment, to charge them with taxes, if
the taxpayers are levied with taxes
to pay for service to the city?
Does the city managers compen-
sation, Or any portion thereof, COME
out of income from these plants, or
wholly from general fund? Does he
not have some supervision over these
plants also, and is his services not
partly necessary by reason of these
plants?
Is it not true that portion of the
l x1Tnrly oY1 lahn1- Of hn
from having to give some attention to
matters connected with these plants
Is any portion of their compensation
paid from income of these plants, OF
is it all charged to general funds?
If the plants were truly self-sus-
tanning, would the amount of taxes
levied, probably, including licenses
per year, $4,000, be necessary for
sewerage and general purposes?
Assuming sewerage would cost fo1
interest, $4,000, for sinking fund
$4,000, work on streets to be $500 a
month or $4,000, policemen partly paid
from fines, balance say estimated
$500 month, $4,000, fire station, say
$500 month, $4,000, making total
of $4,000. These figures are mere
| ly assumed or guessed at. | have nc
means of knowing if they are approx
| imately correct.
/ This is not intended for publication
but | know taxes are eating me raw
and | cannot believe these plants are
even nearly self-sustaining, anC
would be very glad if some true state.
ment of the real profit or loss from
these plants, based on all proper
charges against them were made. L
would be more satisfying than {
i mere assertion or assumption, baseC
on single phase of the whole situa
ton.