The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-02-13
less. this figure counting operation,
interest. depreciation and taxes lost.

/
In one of his letters Mr. Myers says:
81 think have submitted all the facts
and figures necessary to convince you
that the city can not AFFORD to. operate
the plant at a cost of over $75-0O per
| lamp per year when it can buy SUI
perfor service at $500 per light"
The false conclusion in the above
statement lies in the fact that Mr..
Myers endeavors to create the impress
sion that because he has shown that it
has cost the city $500 per light that
that is what it is costing the city now,
whereas Mr.. Myers himself shows in
his calculations the $500 cost per
lamp per year is only the average cost
for the past Is years.
A dozen years ago Mr.. Myers would
not have thought of proposing to light
the city for $500 per lamp. nor for
$500 per lamp And indeed the Edison
company has made a previous PROPOSE
ton to the city at $S3.25 per lamp per
1895. 49,
Let US look at Mr.. Myers statement
that the average cost has been $500.
These figures are reached by an err
roneous conclusion and the State Jour-
nal is satisfied that the average will
not exceed $1,000, but we have started
out to accept Mr.. Myers figures and for
that they are correctly adduced. If
the average for the Is years was
$500, let us see what the actual cost
was for the first few years under mu-
nicipal lighting. Eighteen years ago
all lighting of this nature was enor-
mously expensive compared with the
present day machinery and methods.
Mr.. Myers figures in these letters and
before the council show that 1874 lamps
were operated from November 1, 1889,
to December 1, 1892, for $43.705.
This is an average for each of the three
years of $14,56S, or for the 1874 lamps
$79.19 per year.
The city at this time had invested
$4,000. Interest on this at 5 per cent
is $3.50. Divided by 1874 lamps makes
1890 per lamp per year to be added
to the cost to cover the interest This
makes $94.17.
In Mr. Myers calculation he shows
plainly that the depreciation has been
5 per cent on the amount invested from
time to time. Now to cover the deprec-
iation add $500 more, making the cost
per lamp per year $10917 for the aver
age of those early years, as against Mr..
Myers average of $500 on the entire
IL years. The above cost of $4,000 is
somewhat reduced by the fact that the
first years operating expenses of the
plant were only $10.S62, instead of $14,-
56S, the average for the three next
years. This reduces the cost to the city
for the early years for lighting the city
in round numbers to $4,000 per light
per year.
In6re Is an impression that ABOUT
twenty years ago there was a PROPOSE
ton made to the city by the old Brush
Light company for $120 per lamp per
year; but this is not definite. The coun-
ell proceedings of the time however
show that there was a debate in the
council at that time when the city was
discussing the proposed municipal plant
whether the city could produce the light
for less than $120. Mr.. Mulvane who
was present thought not.
Right here it should be noted that
Mr.. Myers states the city plant began
operation November l. 1889, when as q
matter of fact it began July 1, 1888, or
sixteen months prior, and instead of
having been in operation eighteen years
and two months, as Mr.. Myers assumes
in his arguments, the plant has been in
operation nearly twenty years. This
error in Mr.. Myers statement I am
sure is unintentional and would not
materially change his conclusions. ex-li
cept to make them somewhat more
favorable for the city. His error I'M
doubtedly grew from the fact that Mr.
Kingman's report began with opera
lions November 1. 1889, instead of at the
commencement July l, 1888.
But to resume: If the cost to city
over IS years ago, as shown from Mr.
Myers own figures as to operation, in
terest and depreciation was over $4,000,
and his own figures show that the aver
age was $500, it must be conclusive
that the present cost is about $50.00 as
$4,000 for the early years and $4,000 for
the later years would make an average
cost for the whole time of $500. Based
on the facts that there has been a con-
slant general reduction in the cost OF
producing light. although a city to be
sure is not always able to profit by
these conditions, this particular cost of
$1,000 is shown by the method of aver
ages. Later on in this article 1t will
be shown that the actual cost for the
last year was about $4,000.
Mr. Myers set forth by letter and
publicly, and accurately, that the orig
inal cost of the plant was $55,447.00, that
additions to the plant were made from
time to time, bringing the total cost up
to $39, 263. He takes Mr.. BrilFs estimate
made year ago that the present worth
of the plant and real estate Is $4,000. and
shows the depreciation to be the differ
ence, $61, 1888.
He figures the interest on the $4,000
originally invested from Nov. l, 1889, to
January l. 1908, and on the other sums
as they are expended from the time
they were expended to Jan. l. 1908.
making a total interest Of $65.096. He
ing the IS years. s2as.s57. Adding these
total figures for operation, interest, and
depreciation, and dividing by the num-
Der of lamp years, he arrives at his
figure above given, 1881. as the cost
per lamp per year under city opera
ton, including interest and deprecia-
ton.
1t will be noted that the interest and
the depreciation are practically in
round numbers the same. In other
words, that by figuring the depreciation
just as the interest is figured the de-
probation is 5 per cent. This shows
that so far as the Topeka city plant is
concerned, the depreciation has been
trifle under per cent per year for the
entire time.
AS a matter of fact, Mr.. Myers should
know that he has figured a sum entire
ly too large for the interest. In other
words, he has figured the interest at
5 per cent for 1907 on the entire $4,000
put into the plant from the very be-
ginning. when the city, according to his
OWN figures. only had left of its or