The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-05-28
WHAT 1T WILL COST.

IN attempting to present a fair
statement of facts and figures concern
ing the street lighting question, the
STATE Journal said yesterday that the
CapltaPs estimate of $4,000 a year for
running the municipal lighting plant
might be too low, whereupon the Capt.
tai doubles its figures and makes the
estimate $4,000 a year on the ground
that the expense in the past has been
$4,000 a year on a moonlight sched-
ule' and will therefore be twice that
figure on an all-night schedule
The State Journal does not wish to
engage IN a newspaper controversy
over this matter. 1t is merely a ques-
ton of good business judgment and it
is on that basis rather than as a news
paper controversy that it should be
considered; but this $4,000 statement
is SO manifestly erroneous and absurd
that it calls for a reply.
AS a matter of fact. the expense of
maintenance will be less than $4,000
a year. exclusive of interest and depre-
cation, If the Sos, 900 plan for a mu-
nicipal plant is accepted. The exact
hgures are given by Mr.. r. M. Free
man, the electrical engineer enploved
Dy the city to make these estimates.
Mr.. Freeman's figures on the ss5. 900
plan show total cost fol. maintenance
ana other expenses of $23,64O, but this
Includes interest and depreciation I'm
ADDITION to running expenses and re-
pairs Mr.. Freeman includes these so
as to show the cost per lamp per wear.
which would be $47.S6.
But in the State Journals figures
yesterday the interest was included
Win the investment, so it should not
agaln De counted in running expenses. |
with interest and depreciation eIimi- |
mated from Mr.. Freeman's estimate |
the actual expense, including superin !
lehoence' labor, fuel. carbons, repairs |
insurance and taxes lost, amounts to |
1I'S4O-fnstead of $4,000.
In arriving at the cost per Iamn
mr. freeman figures the present |
'alue of the old plant at s25. 600 |
"hlcn ne adds to the $4,000 to be in
'ested, making a total value of 800
'VO Tor the new plant. On this total
'aiue he figures five per cent interest
ma eight per cent depreciation TO get
ne cost per lamp per year. so il is
'vfdent that his figures are extremeIx
LIBERAL.
Yet in spite of this very liberal esti-
nate, Mr.. F'reeman's figures show the
ost per lamp per year under the
$4,000 plan to be $47.36, while the
4dlson company proposes to charge
90 per year. This would make
aving to the city of $3.50 a year. or
0o,zoO for the ten years
THESE figures, too, include deprecia-
ION on a $4,000 plant, so that the
lty would have the equivalent of a
So'UoO plant left at the end of ten
ears whereas If it accepts the Edi- !
Oh contract 1t will pay out much !
ioiey ana nave absolutely nothing at IS
ne end of ten years.
The argument that the cit,, OUGHT s
OF to issue $4,000 additional bonds
specious if it can save money SbJ, 81
olng, as 1T evidently can The Edison :
roposltlon contemplates paying that I
ompany almost the amount of the t
ond issue in two years, at the end of e
hlch time the city would have moth I
lg to show for it. l
BY continuing municipal ownership ,
TN new modern plant, using gas e
" 1uel instead of coal, the city will e
ot only get the same service the '
olson company proposes to give it, 6
III II Will have a $4,000 plant at the
Id of ten years-or its equivalent. f
I'D 1t will have saved $500 to apnIv v
i other Indebtedness.
This looks as though the city can Il u
ot afford to do else than issue the | +
onds for the new plant. V
AS stated heretofore. this is simply d
business proposition for the city, to q
considered carefully from every
de, but the more one considers #
lie more advantageous does the con-
nuance of municipal ownership ap-