Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-02-13

Engine, foundation and freight. ....... $500 90
Boilers and fixtures, with freight 25O 90
Two dynamos set up. up..................... 1000 90
Ground for station. Observation-Disclosures. 1000 90
Well for condenser nser.................. 1000 90
Building Etc 225O 90
Total cost t.......s s14 900 90
RUNNING EXPENSES FOR YEAR:
Three mea to run plant 900 90
Oil. waste, packing and carbons. 500 90
Total cost Of running for year.. $4,000 90
Income of 500 misunderstanding at sOc per
Interest on ssO, 600 bonds at 6 per cent per
annum .........- u ,SUO w
The estimate on first cost and cost of
running the plant are said to be all
high. For instance, the ground for
station. and well, ought not to exceed
one fourth Of the estimated cost, as
the city already has sufficient ground.
$4,000, the difference between the
$14, 900 estimated cost and 500, 900
bonds, would be expected to cover cost
of wiring the city, of power building,
furniture, etc. The cost of running the
plant is probably about right.
On the other hand, it is doubtful if
we could obtain takers for 500 IN
candescent lights at an average cost
of 80 cents per light per month. The
old plant had never more than $50
takers, we are told. According to the
above estimate the city could have so
arc lights for an expense of S400 a year.
Supposing that we could get takers for
but 300 incandescent lights at an
average monthly rental of 80 cents, the
expense to the city, for so arc lights,
would be about $4,000 year, accord
ing to the above estimated cost of run
ming. Again. supposing as many as
$50 incandescent lights should be taken,
at above prices, the plant would be self
supporting.
Fifty arc lights are about 25 more
than we really need in the city, and Il
considerable saying ought to be made
by reducing the number to 25. 1t is.
said, however, that if the city wants
arc lights on the streets. and should
desire to contract with some company
to furnish them, no company would
entertain such proposition for less
than guarantee of So, 500 year, or
sufficient number of arc lights, at $125
erlight at the lowest. Supposing then
that the city should want 25 arc lights,
they would have to pay rental of
So, ,125 per year for that number of
lights at 1925 each; or for so lights
$6 $50 per year. The profits then, of
private company's plant built and run
on the plan of the figures furnished
by Mr.. Pritchard, with a guarantee of
so arc lights from the city and
revenue from 800 incandescent lights
used by private consumers, would be
the difference between $4,000 and
sc, $50, which is So $50 per year. That
would be the net profit yearly, because
interest on the first investment and all
running expenses are figured in the
first estimate.
In our opinion the first thing for the
stand for street lights? Second, how
much risk can we afford to take? Third,
should the city pay from $4,000 up to a
foreign company for Is arc lights or
over? or own the plant and pay $4,000
for so lights or under?
At the meeting Friday night the
balance of sentiment seemed to be in
favor of the home plant. 1t is true
Mr.. A. G. Fair, in a quiet, reserved,
unobtrusive and abashed manner,
opposed any plan of the kind to for
ward the interests of the city and
increase the chances for our ignorant(?)
and unbusiness like(?l city council to
work political handle. He also paid
his respects to the city school board in
carefully selected language, and gave
an interesting lecture on the race
question" Mr.. r. T. Ewalt also had
something to say about the beauties of
Missouri noonshine" and pine knots.
while Geo. Mitchell was coal oil man.
A resolution was passed requesting the
committee of councilmen to postpone
action in the matter for 80 days, and to
thoroughly investigate the proposed
plan. The meeting was good for the
soul though trying on the larynx, and
it was almost the unanimous sentiment
that another meeting Should be called