The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-02-02
PROPOSITION TO SELL
LIGHT PLANT TO CITY
City Officials and Representatives
of Various Companies Hold
a Conference.
VIEW TAKEN BY MAYOR
He Would Like to See the City
Secure Ownership if 1t Can Be
Done Legally.
VIEW TAKEN BY MAYOR

From Q O'Clock until after 5 o'clock yes
terday afternoon the mayor, the Board of
Public Works, the city attorney and the
city engineer were in conference in the Of
flee of the Board of Works with represent
atives Of the local electric lighting COM
panies. concerning the specifications for
the new electric lighting contract, which
have been under consideration by the Board
of Public Works for over a month.
Others present at the conference were
Judge ]. Z. Scott representing the indian
apols Light and Power Company; ]. w.
Fesler, representing the Merchants Heat
and Light Company; Samuel T.. Rauh, rep
resenting the Home Heating and Lighting
Company; Charles G. Perry, representing
the Marion County Heating Company; AL
fred f. Potts and Sol S. Kiser, representing
the Commercial Club, and George f. Fish
er. representing the Fidelity Construction
Company of Detroit.
Although the meeting was of such length,
nothing definite was accomplished, except
in the way of coming TO an understanding
as TO what changes in the specifications the
representatives of the different companies
think should be made. surprise was
sprung i'm the shape of a proposition made
to the city by Mr. Fisher. of Detroit repre-
senting according to his statement, both
foreign and local capital, to build mod
ern municipal lighting plant to operate IL
for ten years, and then TO turn II over 10
the city at a merely nominal cost. TO
make il possible for the city TO accept this
proposition, if ii seemed desirable when all
bids are in, Mr.. Fisher asked that the
Board of Works make certain changes In
the specifications for the lighting contract.
This question will be one of several that
must he considered by the board between
this time and the adoption of the speci-
hcationS.
MR. FISHERS PROPOSITION.
The plan proposed by Mr.. Fisher is TO
build a strictly municipal lighting plant;
TO operate it for the contract period, and, at
the end of that period, TO turn ii over TO
the city for nominal sum. In addition the
city would have the option, at any inter-
mediate period, TO buy In the plant at a
price fixed for that time in the contract
The plant proposed would cost between
100000 and 100000. and would operate a
system of either direct or alternating cur
rent inclosed ares. This would practi-
cally give the CITY," stated Mr.. Fisher last
evening, "a part of the profits that ordinar-
| lily go to the lighting company, and could
| be done because of the uncertainty of the
contract at the end of the ten years when
IL might or might not be renewed. Spring
| field, ILL.,, got possession OF lighting plant
on practically the same plan, and number
| of smaller cities in Indiana have also &C
! quired them. Our company built the plant
! that is now operated by the city of Crane
| Rapids. which cost SlS7,OO0. We are ready t.
make indianapolis a bona fide Offer
| when asked his opinion as TO the feast
| bility of Mr. Fishers plan, Mayor HOltz
man replied that he had serious doubts al
| TO whether IL could be followed legally D.
i the city. "It would be, in effect" sai'
the mayor. "a purchase of the plant b!
| partial payments. and we would agree L
| purchase il before il was built. This w
could not do within the limit of our bonded
| indebtedness at this time. | wish 1t coul'
be done, for l would like to see Indianapo
| lis own it's own lighting plant"
| One point on which representatives o
| the local lighting companies agreed wa
in opposing the clause which the Board o
| Works proposes TO include in the speci
| fications, providing for the readjustmen
| of the maximum rate for commercial light
| ing at the end of ten years by arbitra
| ton committee chosen by the compan
! holding the contract and the city. Severa
| representatives stated that their companie
would not bid on the contract If the boar
insisted upon this clause in the specifica
| tons. The argument of the companies
| representatives on this point was that
| lowering of the rate at the end of ten year
would place the company holding the con
| tract at a disadvantage by compelling
to furnish light at lower rate than othe
companies would be compelled to make, a
the franchise of the other companies con
tain no provision for such an arbitrar
change of rate. II is probable. however
that the city will insist on keeping thi
clause in the specifications.
Judge scott for the Indianapolis L tgh
clause in the specifications which provide
that the company getting the contract sha
pay into the city treasury per cent: of ii
gross receipts. Judge Scott's contentio
was that this would place the compan
at a disadvantage because those companie
now under contract with the city are con
PEELED TO pay but per cent of their II
ceipts for lighting to the city. taking n
account of their income from furnishin
power. No other companies objected I
the per cent clause
The representatives of the Commerce;
| Club were interested listeners and at time
Mr. Potts took an active part in the discu:
sion. He urged that the board insist on III
| clause providing for readjustment of II
maximum rate for commercial lighting
the end of ten years, the improvement
| in the processes of generating electr
power in that time would doubtless be
great as to immensely decrease the Coz
and the city should place itself in positio
| to benefit by this decrease.
At the end Of the conference Presidel
Downing. of the Board of Public Work
| stated that the board would postpone II
adoption of the specifications until ne,
| Monday.