The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-10-02
Attempts to Show Cost PerLight
Is $50 Per Year.
DISREGARD OF FACTS.
Figures High Interest and Ex-
Orbitant Depreciation.
Evidently a Bare Faced Attempt
to Discredit City Lighting.

members of the council as being in
accurate and not a correct statement
j. II. Squires purpOrts TO show the
council that it is costing the city
$s0.72 month for its lamps.
Mr. Squires seems to have colored
his report in a manner which gives It
very suspicious look. He has over
done it.
The councilmen state that the re-
port is disappointing from several
ndpoints-one that it fails to cover
sufficient ground. being just for the
seven years during which Squires has
served as city clerk. Few of the items
IN the report are not open to criticism
Mr.. Squires figures that the city lost
SS3s 91712 in the way Of interest by
figuring the interest rate at 6 per cent
He seems to have lost sight of the fact
that the city issued bonds for per
cent to cover SIS, 900 of betterments
in the plant If the best rate on
money was per cent al the time it is
not probable that the city would have
got more than 5 per cent. Four per
cent is probably nearer what the city
would have got than 8 per cent. The
difference in the two interest charges
amounts to $3.50, and this amount IS
piled up against the city electric Light
plant for fear that it viii make too
good q showing.
Though the report is on a basis Of
seven years. Mr.. SQuires reckOEs that
the total depreciation of the plant has
occurred in that time and accordingly
charges that up in striking at the cost
per lamp The plant has been in
operation eighteen years and the en-
tire depreciation should have been
averaged over that length Of time To
presume that the depreciation in eigh-
teen years amounted to 70.000-mOre
than the entire cost of the plant
would make the amount in seven years
S24.6Oo instead of the $35, 05 which
appears in the report OF the c1tv clerk
The statement is not what Il
should be-. said Councilman s. T.
Howe. who though opposed to the
principle Of municipal ownership be-
Ieve that the report is not giving
proper credit TO the plant. Il wanted
to have an expert accountant make the
report bat was unsuccessful in getting
it through. had hoped that Mr..
Squires' report would have covered
the plant from about the beginning in
stead Of the seven years. Ut was mis-
take to figure in the depreciation and
include it in the seven years when the
depreciation should have covered the
eighteen years. 1t is not what the city
wants"
Il am surprised at the report said
Councilman Nm. Green. The figures
are way beyond anything that any of
the councilmen looked for. There are
several mistakes In it, The interest is
hgured too hight should not have
been put in at per cent. Another
item the taxes are way too high. al
most Two thousand dollars too high.
I am sorry that it doesn't represent
things better.
The CITY council has authorized the
city engineer and the superintendent
of the electric light plant to estimate
the cost of rebuilding the plant and
bring it up to a capacity of 500 lamps
An electrical engineer is to be engaged
in addition.
The Topeka Edison company is
very anxious to secure the city electric
lighting contract at $65 a year per
lamp. They have already the contract
TO light Kansas avenue which will last
until the new electric light company
installs a plant The latter company
under their franchise lights Kansas
avenue free of charge. The city coun-
ell last night paid a bill of S1.2S9.8s to
the Edison company for lighting Kan
sas avenue from January u to Sep
tenber Goth
The anti-city ownership report sub
mitted by the city clerk follows:
Topeka Oct. 1, 1905.
'.To the Mayor and Council, of the
City of Topeka, Kansas:
Centlemer-In compliance with a
resolution that was presented TO the
council and adopted August 20, 1905
instructing the city clerk to make a
report on the original cost of the CITY
electric light plant. The amount for
new construction. The amount for re-
construction. Interest on the invest
ment. Insurance paid. Taxes lost to
the city Depreciation Cost of ma
terfal consumed Salaries and wages.
Sundry expenses. And while I must
admit tn I was somewhat SURPRISED
that one entirely unacquainted with
electrical machinery should be Sc
lected to- place a value on our city
electric light plant as 1t now stands
On this account I requested Mr.. H. K
Goodrich. the superintendent of the
plant, also Mr.. James T. McCabe, citv
engineer, to make an estimate Of what
they considered the plant to be worth
at the present time. Mr.. Goodrich g
estimate wasf $4,000 or an average OF
S45.250. at which amount I have
placed its value at the present time.
with the assistance of the above
named gentlemen on placing a value on
the plant. 1 respectfully submit the fol-
lowing report:
The location for the plant was ac-
quired in 1855 at q cost of S4761 which
amount is included IN the total cost OF
the plant.
7 ind that on the 2sth day of Janu-
sry 1855 the city advertised for the
construction and operation of an cleo
trio light plant. I also find that on the
11th day Of February, 1855 the city did
enter into contract with the Jenney
Electric company of Indianapolis, Ind
to install q plant ready for use of 120
arc lamps OF 200 candle power each. with
the understanding that the Jearey COR
pany was to run the plant for the city
for two years should the city desire the
company to do so.
Fl md that the city paid the Jenney
company 81, 900 for the Improvements
Installed by them. by the issue os bonds
bearing per cent. Said bonds viii be
due July is, 1910. In 1883 60 lamps were
added to the plant.
EFT Is simply impossible to make a