Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1907-04-04
MAYOR EXPLAINS HIS VETO.
Reasons for Disappearing the Elec-
tric Light Ordinance.

Mayor humphrey mas nAvu Wv -
city clerk his veto Of the electric
light ordinance passed by the council
and his reasons therefor. The matter
will come up Friday evening at
council meeting. His reasons are'
| return herewith, without my APP
proval, the ordinance making con-
tract with the Riverside Light and
Power Co. to light the city Of Abilene
for perird Of twenty years.
My first objection to this contract
is the length Of time for which y is
made. The ordinance provides that
the contract shall run ten years ana
II at the end OF that period, the city
shall not buy the plant, the contract
shall be continued for another period
Of ten years, the rates to be fixed by
a board Of three electrical engineers.
For the city to purchase the plant It
would be necessary not only to pur-
chase the wires and poles used for
street lighting, but also the entire
power plant, including the mill-dam'
water wheels, dynamos, engineers
motors in use in the city. and other
property owned by the company at a
cost of anywhere from $6O'ooo 70
$75, 900, depending upon how much
the plant is developed in the next ten
years. 1t would be impossible for
the city to buy this. The law limits
the amount of the bonds that may be
issued for water works, electric lights
and other public utilities to ID per
cent of the assessed, valuation. Our
assessed valuation is now $646,l7l,
Is per cent Of which would be ssS'77o.
As we now have outstanding water
purchase bonds to the amount> oil
$s5, 900, it may readily be seen that
we would not be in position to pur-
chase the electric light and power
plant and we would have a contract
on our hands for twenty years, in
volving an expenditure Of 100000.
1t is not right for this council to tie
up succeeding administrations with
twenty year contract. Lighting
systems may and will change. Natur'
al gas may be piped to Abilene within
three years. Natural gas is dis
placing electric lights in Kansas City
for residence streets and the cost per
light is only s12 per year. The Gas
Co. at Topeka furnishes gas light
equal to 1900 candle power which
cost on a moonlight schedule only $40
per year, including all expense for
maintenance and care Of the lights;
while under the proposed contract
Abilene would pay $94 per year for a
so candle power. junction City was
offered 100 street lights as bonus in
connection with a franchise to sell
manufactured gas at Sl.0O per thous-
and Gu. it. Many towns are using a
gasoline light power which produces
| 1900 c. D. at cost of $50 to 1856 per
year, including maintenance ana
lighting. 1t would certainly be good
business judgment on the part OF the
council to investigate other systems
Of street lighting before making con-
tract which will cost the city $6O,0oo
and certainly no councilman would
enter into a contract for himself in
volving the expenditure Of 100000
without making more investigation
than has been made in this case.
Another reason why this ordinance
should not be approved is that it is
unfair to the water works depart
ment and the water commissioners.
1t is proposed to take the 5000
which we have been paying for
: hydrant rental and spend it for lights
} thus cutting off that amount from
the revenue Of the water works. The
average annual income of the water
works for the past two years has
! been S1OO26.75. The annual cost Of
operation has been s5175.49, leaving
net revenue Of e4S51.26. This
. would pay the interest on the water
purchase bonds, 1926, and leaves q
[ balance Of s1O26.26 for repairs and
improvements. But II the hydrani
I rental OF sSO50 is cut out Of this fund.-
| 1t will leave q net revenue OF only
1891. 26 with which to pay the inter
d est amounting to 1926 and nothing
a for improvements. 1t is better FOL
l the city to succeed on one PROPOSE
b ton than to fail on two. II we put
1 the $50, 900 into the water works w
b would have a valuable property