OCR Text |
Show Hafen Protests Against Methods Used By Municipal Power Backers By ORVAL IIAFEX I think is is high time someone had the courage to voice a protest pro-test to the manner in which those who favor a municipal power plant are conducting their campaign. I might say right on the start that I realize certain city officials will attempt to discredit anything I might say, accuse me of distorting distort-ing the facts, of being "bought off" by the Power Company, and perhaps that I have been pid to write this article. However, 1 can assure you that this article is written voluntarily, and without with-out having been suggested by anyone. I can assure you that I have no desire or intention of dealing in anything but facts, and I can assure you, further, that my soul is still my own, and that I am free to vote either for or agpinst a municipal plant, just as I see fit. I can further state that if I am convinced, when the time comes to vote, that a municpal plant is best for the citizens of St. George I will certainly vote for it, and if I am convinced that it is rot the bast thing for the citizens of St. George, I will vote against it. Propaganda Methods Tt seems to me that St. George has never been subjected to anything any-thing as nearly like European propaganda methods as we are now experiencing at the hands of some of those who are sponsoring a municipal power plant. In the last issue of the County News there appeared a call for volunteers signed by the chairman of the "Sponsors' Committee", (although I do not believe he wrote the article). One gets the impression from reading this call that every red-blooded citizen who loves St. George or who has any interest in its welfare should get out and stop these "numerous paid workers" work-ers" who have sold themselves to "WALL STREET"! ! ! regardless of the merits of the matter. I do not believe this is fair. I know the people who are working against the proposed municipal plant, and I know others who are opposed to it. I do not hesitate to say that they would not sell out the interests of the city any quicker than any person who favors fav-ors a municipal plant. I believe they are just as vitally concerned in the welfare of the city. I know that many of the heavy users of electricity in St. George have doubts about the feasibility of a. municipal plant, or are opposed op-posed to it. This call for volunteers tries to create the impression that a municipal mun-icipal plant will keepour money at home, t and another franchise to the power company means paying pay-ing tribute to Wall Street, and, consequently, robbing our own citizens. If we build a municipal plant, where will the $300,000 for bonds and the $122,000 in interest go, if not to Wall Street? Where will the money for the material for the plant go, if not out of St. George? Even the fees for the engineering and legal work will not be kept at home. How many more local employees would we have than if the power company com-pany were given another franchise fran-chise and built its proposed diesel standby plant? About the only chance for Wall Street to be favored fav-ored by another power company franchise over a municipal franchise fran-chise (assuming we forget about the $300,000 in bonds and the $122,000 in interest) would be in the dividends that are paid on the investment. I wonder if the sponsors' committee knows just how much dividends the present power company has paid to Wall Street from sale of power in St. George? If it knows, I would like to see the figures. If it doesn't know, I would like them to get the figures and print them and compare them with the $122,-000 $122,-000 in interest we are going to pay on the proposed municipal bonds. If for any reason the municipal mun-icipal plant was a flop, then who would stand in the gap for the $422,000 Wall Street, or the citizens citi-zens of St. George? Provo Mayor's Letter In the Dixie Reminder for Mar. 25, 1941, there appeared a copy of a purported letter from the mayor of Provo to the mayor of St. George relative to the merits of the municipal steam plant at Provo. I believe citizens should remember that what a steam plant will do for Provo is not the issue at all. The only matter we are concerned about is whether the proposed combination combina-tion diesel-hydro municipal plant is a better thing for St. George than to renew the power company franchise either on the terms it has suggested, or on such other terms as it and the city may! agree on. That is the issue and the only issue. Even so far as the plant at Provo is concerned, it might be well to remember that if we can believe articles which came out in the Salt Lake papers, and if we can believe a great many reputable re-putable citizens of Provo, there is certainly a different side to the picture than that painted by Mayor Anderson, whom, I believe be-lieve all will agree, is biased in favor of municipal ownership. The air gets thicker with finespun fine-spun arguments as we go on. In the Dixie Reminder for April 5, 1941, there appears an article addressed ad-dressed to "Fellow Citizen" and signed "City Council." I do not know what lone citizen this was addressed to, but I believe we are all entitled to know who wrote the article. I have asked a majority of the members of the city council about it, and they have told me that they knew nothing about the article, so apparently ap-parently it was not authorized by the City Council. Extravagant Statements There are several extravagant statements in the article which should not go unchallenged. For instance, the one that we have a more advantageous situation for the operation of a municipally owned plant than any community that we know of. This simply is not true. I wonder if the same argument was made when we tried a municipal plant once before be-fore and failed at it. Another argument being publicly pub-licly urged by those who favor a municipal plant, closely akin to the one just mentioned, is that St. George is unique and specially favored because the heaviest load of electricity is required during the high water season. That is a vital statement. Is it based on actual measurements, or is it guesswork a statement of what the sponsors wish were true ? Mr. Roskelley has checked the power company records and has reported that the heavy load starts about August 1st. Unless I am sadly mistaken, the spring run-off of water is over before then. However, How-ever, it is not a matter of what my opinion is or what the opinion of someone else is. This is something some-thing which can be determined by checking the facts. The sponsors' committee told us in their call for volunteers about all the careful care-ful research they have conducted. Have they conducted any research at all on this question ? If so, what are the actual figures? If not, isn't it only business-like to ask that we have some research before we vote? The city officials have known for years . that the power company franchise would expire in October, 1941. So far as I know, not one solitary thing has been done either . in the way of measuring the actual flow of water for a given period or determining de-termining how long a certain volume continues. It appears they have never even made any measurements meas-urements of the water with reference ref-erence to the proposed municipal plant until they did so recently, as explained hereinafter, in a vain effort to discredit the measurements measure-ments actually taken by an engineer, en-gineer, at the request of the power company. Prejudiced Statement We are also told in the article of April 5, 1941, that the fact that the power company wants a renewal of its franchise should in itself answer any arguments that it may put forth. Isn't that a short-sighted and prejudiced statement? state-ment? Shouldn't the question be decided on its merits? It may be true that the power company could sell power in St. George in connection with its other operations oper-ations at a profit, but it certainly doesn't necessarily follow . that, therefore, the city could operate a municipal plant all by itself for a profit. We are next told that if we" renew the franchise to the power company we will immediately have to raise our tax levy this fall two mills to provide adequate street lights. If I am informed correctly, we won't have to raise the levy at all, if we continue with the present street lights. What additional addi-tional street lights are installed is at the option of the city, and not of the power company. If the city chooses to install a great many more lights, naturally, they will have to pay for them, but that is for the city, and not the power company to decide. The power company has offered a reduced rate on street lights if its franchise fran-chise is renewed. The writer of the article didn't mention that. Neither did he point out that under the proposed franchise to the power company, the city will receive a franchise tax of 2 or a minimum of $900 (which may go much higher than $900), which could be used to pay for extra street lights. Furthermore, even if more lights are installed after a new franchise to the power company would be given next October, we will not raise our levy this fall because the levy that is adopted in August will be to pay for the budget the city council adopted last December. Lower the Levy We have the further statement that if we build a municipal plant, a raise in taxes will be unnecessary unneces-sary and by 1943 we can lower the levy 2,,i mills. Why didn't the writer of the article tell us that the proposed municipal plant ordi-nance ordi-nance requires that the city will , have to pay for every bit of electricity elec-tricity it uses for street lights and any other purpose? Why didn't! he explain that a reserve suffi- j cient to pay bonds and interest some time in advance must be built up before the city can draw any of the profits? Why didn't he tell us that the city doesn't plan to pay off any bonds the first year, if he wanted us to get the true picture? Why didn't he admit that if we don't give the power company a new franchise we will not only lose the taxes we now collect on its property here, but we will also lose taxes we could collect on the new diesel stand-by plant it proposes to build here? I submit that by the' terms of the proposed city ordinance, there is little possibility of lowering the tax levy in 1943 from profits from the proposed municipal plant. This promise of rosy profits right from the start may be just some more wishful thinking, because Mr. Roskelley, Ros-kelley, a reputable engineer who investigated the matter at the request re-quest of the power company estimated esti-mated a loss of $10,000 at the end of the first year of operation of a municipal plant. Doesn't it seem as if we should go into this matter mat-ter a little deeper and get on some firmer ground ? I have also been informed that city councilman Bentley, who seems to have made a more thorough thor-ough study of the matter than any other city official, told the B.-P. W. club that the city might have to levy a 3 mill additional tax if a municipal plan! were built. Further Matters , There are some further matters which should be cleared up. I was present at a meeting of the city council several months ago when someone asked the mayor why the city had signed a contract with an engineer which contract provided that the er.ginrvr who was to make the investigation would be hired as engineer to supervise construction of the plant, if the city decided to build a plant, and be paid 57c commission on the cost of the plant. The mayor promptly denied that such a provision was in the contract. A copy was produced and read to the mayor. He then stated that he did not know such a provision was in the contract, and he would immediately contact the engineer and get the provision cancelled. Councilman Bentley, and other councilmen spoke up and stated that they certainly did not realize there was any such provision in the contract when they authorized the mayor to sign it. But to date, so far as I know, that provision is still in the contract, and at a recent meeting where councilman Bentley was talking about the proposed plant, when asked why ."uch a provision was in the contract, con-tract, he explained that the city had that clause put in there be: cause they felt they would be criticized if they hired an engineer engine-er to make an impartial investigation investi-gation and who would not be obligated or have any responsi-biUty responsi-biUty to go ahead and build the plant, based on his estimates. In the first place, the city council didn't realize they had authorized the signing of such a contract, and in the second place, when they award a contract to build a plant, it won't be to the engineer who made the estimate, but to someone else. The engineer will have no responsibility to see that the plant is built for what he estimated. If the plant is inadequate, inade-quate, it will be the citizens of St. George, and not the engineer, who will' be stuck. Councilman Questioned When one city councilman was recently asked why the city refused re-fused a request signed by 454 St. George citizens that a further investigation in-vestigation be made, he replied that the city had had the engineer whom they contracted with to supervise construction of a plant if one were built, make a survey, and that Mr. Roskelley, another engineer, had made a survey at the request of the power company, that practicallyany engineer who might be hired would be prejudiced preju-diced either for or against a municipal plant, and so nothing could be gained by any further investigation. I submit, Mr. Editor, Edi-tor, that we are in a sorry fix in these United States if an engineer cannot be found who would make an impartial survey and report the facts as he actually found them, for the benefit of the public. I want to further submit one little example of how the two surveys were made. I was present at the meeting when Mr. Roskelley reported his findings. He impressed impress-ed me as being a high-class gentleman, gentle-man, but he was treated as anything any-thing but a gentleman by some of the city officials present. He reported that that day, or the day before, he had measured the Cottonwood Cot-tonwood water, and there was a flow of 1.28 c.f.s., or enough to generate about 75KW of power. This seemed unbelievably low to the council, and his figures were doubted. He invited the city officials to have their engineer go with him next day and check the figures. They refused to do this, but I am informed that they did go up within the next few days and make a measurement of their own, and they got one, at a different dif-ferent place, higher up the ditch, of approximately 1.40 c.f.s. This tended to confirm, rather than repudiate Mr. Roskelley's findings. The point I want to make, however, how-ever, is that the engineer hired by the city had recommended that the city build a hydro plant,' and the city had decided to do so, but neither he nor the city had done such a vital thing as measure the flow of the water. Cottonwood Stream Councilman Bentley has stated that he estimates a flow of TVs c.f.s. in the cottonwood stream for 1 month, 6 e.f.s. for 1 month, then 44 c.f.s. for 1 month, 3 c.f.s. for 1 month, then 2Vz to IV2 for the balance of the year. I believe I am right in saying that this is just a guess,' and is not based on any actual measurements. If the city has actual measurements, they should be made available to the public. If they do not have any measurements, they should get some, because we can't affort to guess on $422,000. It may be true that the city officials have written numerous letters to find out how municipal plants have worked in other cities. You can get plenty of examples where they have succeeded, as well as plenty where they have failed. But isn't what has happened in other cities beside the point? Doesn't it appear that we do not have many of the vital facts which are necessary to any intelligent, decision on whether a municipal plant is a wise thing for us here in St. George? And shouldn't we have them before we vote on whether to obligate ourselves for $422,000? If the sponsors of a municipal plant have any of this vital information as it pertains I to our particular problems here, every citizen should be given an opportunity to see and hear it. If j they do not have these vital facts, I they should frankly say so. Let me say again it is not so simple as merely voting on whether we will send the money to Wall Street or keep it at home. The question is: "Which step will be to the best financial interests of the citizens of St. George" ? And let me say again, that I am just as concerned in getting the right answer to that question as any citizen in St. George. Propaganda Propa-ganda and opinions and hopes are certainly no substitue for facts if we are to make a wise dicision. False Impressions Now, my purpose in going into this much detail is to try and show that a lot of people are getting get-ting impressions which are based on guesswork and wishful thinking, think-ing, rather than on established facts. I do not accuse any person who favors a municipal plant of doing this deliberately. On the contrary, I believe they are sincere sin-cere in their opinions, and I believe be-lieve they feel they are acting in the best interests of the city. On the other hand, is it too much to ask that they should take the same attitude toward taxpayers who have asked for further information, infor-mation, that we should not have a municipal plant at this time? Don't you think it would be a fine thing if every article which comes out from now on is signed by the writer, and if he would give us his authority for his facts and figures, and if they are just guesses, if he would say so? Don't you think it is vitally necessary that we remember that the sole and only issue is whether it is best for the citizens of St. George to proceed at this time to build a municipal plant subject to the approval of the citizens, or whether it is best to give the power company a new franchise, either on the terms it has suggested, suggest-ed, or on such other terms as may be mutually agreed on? Remember, Remem-ber, if the proposed power company com-pany franchise is not acceptable, the city has the right, and has been invited to suggest what kind of a power company franchise it would grant. And, finally, wouldn't it be a tribute to the common sense all of us if we tried to discuss the question on its merits, and not get so enthusiastic that we get sidetracked on extraneous matters and get to accusing each other of improper motives and forgetting just what it is we are trying to decide. Lot's give every taxpayer of St. George who is interesteu io this matter credit for wanting to uo wnat is best for the city, let's !V hear what he has to say, let's flS analyze the facts, let's separate B ot the wheat from the chaff, let's vaV keep the issue in mind, and then let's vote for what is best for poor old John Q. Citizen. Blk own |