The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-02-21

at 8 per cent, we will now look at
present conditions. A year ago Mr.
Myers assumes in his argument that
Topeka had remaining left in its plant
S27,500. The interest on this amount
for 1907 at per cent was $1,375 Mr..
Myers table shows 328 lights used in
January. February and March of last
year. Presenting this was the aver
age and dividing s1,S75 by s2s would
give $4.19 as the proper allowance per
| lamp per year for interest last year.
| The proper allowance for deprecia-
| ton is, as above shown, the same,
per cent, namely, $4.19. The operat-
ing expenses taken from the city rec
ords and shown in Mr.. Myers tables
for 1907, were $14,251.67, which,. di-
vided by 328, the number of lights,
gives the cost of operation per light
| $43.45. Thus we have the cost to the
city for each lamp per year at the
present time as follows:
Operation $500. ..$4S.45
| interest 4.19
| Depreciation -. 4.19
| Total .....- .$51.s3
Adding. If you choose. $4,000 loss
| or 81 per lamp per year, of taxes, which
is ample, we have the present cost So. IS.
1t must be borne in mind that if the
city decides to accept the Edison SIS
proposition, 1t must wreck the present
| city plant. And while the plant may
be worth for operating purposes, I'M
der city management all the 81, 800, it
would have to be sacrificed if the city
goes out of business. Inasmuch as Mr..
| Myers says in one of his letters, that
| while he accents the estimate of $27,-
| 500 as basis for this discussion, he
also says: my own business honest
judgment would put the value OF
this at approximately half of it. but the
result Of all, these figures is going to be
overwhelmingly favorable to my con-
| tention that can afford to yield on this
and use the estimated present value of
! $27. 500.' Thus it appears, quite plain
| ly that if the city is forced to dispose
| of its plant, 1t would probably lose
$4,000 out of the $4,000 Assuming
contract period of five years, the city
would thus lose $4,000 per year d.
| vide this by five hundred lamps it
would make the loss per lamp per year
$500. Therefore, it would not be I'M
fair IN comparing the cost of MI.
loss of $500 to it, making the cost to
the city really $4,000.
Mr.. Myers compared his $500
average with his $1,000 proposition,
now let him compare this s52.S3 ac-
tual cost now with his $500 PROPOSE
ton.
But" say the Edison people, "for
our $500 you get a lamp all night,
instead of by a moonlight schedule
Well, some years ago the Edison
people wanted to charge s83.25 on q
moonlight proposition. The cost of
production has decreased, but il the
city now wants an all night schedule
it will cost it even on the basis of
the high operating expenses for the
present old style plant about $500
per lamp per year additional But II
the city will make one single little
Improvement, namely, put in modern
lamps over the entire system, as they
put in ninety new lamps two years
ago on an experiment, they will save
over the cost of the old {, operation
$3.50 per lamp per year. The Edison
company today trims 613 arc lamps,
which require trimming but two to
four times a month, by the work of
two, boys who together get about $65
per month; while the city, previous
to this recent experiment. of putting in
80 modern lamps, was paying to trim
334 lamps Ave men at $3.50 per
month, or $2S7.50. per month for
what it cost the Edison people SOS
to trim nearly twice the number of
lamps. sf 90
This is thing that commission
in charge of an electric light plant
would not stand for single month.
There are numerous other simple
methods Of economy. The saving in
carbons alone would be over $1,000
year with the modern lamps; that is,
the carbons for 500 modern lamps
would cost at least $1,000 per year less
than the carbons for 32S of the style
now in common use by the city. -
Now let us look at the cost of the
! lamps per year to the city with the
plant modernized and equipped with
| labor saving, fuel saving, carbon saw
| ing, up to date machinery, operating
| five hundred lamps which the city
needs. Mr.. Myers, however uninten-
tionally, has really complimented Mr..
| Goodrich, the present superintendent
| of the electric light plant, who has
been in this position for about nine
years, and has actually paid a tribute
| to municipal ownership when he shows
| that the lights have cost the city only
an average of SIS per lamp per year
4 for the past 18 years. A visit to the
| plant and the writer has made several
show that the city has good substan-
tfal stone building with good roof
over It, that 1t has a splendid Corliss
engine practically as good today as IL
was when it was bought nine years ago
| for $1,000. It will show four genera
| tors or dynamos In. working condition,
but needing reminding for the new ser
vice. The big belts all seem to be as
good as new. There are four boilers
and they are doing very good service
| for three hundred lights, but are not
| economical and are not of value for a
| five hundred light plant. They will
nave TO come out ana new ones 90 IN,
| but it will take a less number of new
| ones than there are old ones. The city
is handicapped byshaving no water
purifier. Every big modern plant has
| this because it keeps the boilers from
scaling, and purified water used in the
| boilers not only saves them, but is a
good economizer of fuel.
The estimate for additional new ma
chinery and new equipment inside and
out, to put the plant in first class con-
dftion for economical management
runs all the way from $4,000 to $685.
O00 Mr.. Freeman, the expert em>
ployed by this city, made last May one
estimate of $45,o00, two Of $4,000 and
| one of SIS, 5000. The $4,000 PROPOSE
ton Included a $4,000 gas engine
which could probably be ignored. as It