The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-02-13

the investment that is on $27,500.
ME- Myers having himself established
the proper percentage of depreciation
at per cent, we will now look at
present conditions. year ago Mr..
Myers assumes in his argument that
Topeka had remaining left in its plant
$27,5OO. The interest on this amount
for 1907 at per cent was $1,375. Mr..
Myers table shows 32s lights used in
January, February and March of last
year. Presuming this was the aver
age ana dividing $1,375 by 1913 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, 5
per cent, namely, s4.19. 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 $685.. the number of lights.
gives the cost of operation per light
$43.46. Thus we have the cost to the
city for each lamp per year at the
present time as follows:
operation ...$43.45
nanreo;.t,. ia
depreciation 4.19
Total $3.50. .$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 $52.83.
1t must be borne in mind that If the
city decided to accept the Edison SIS
proposition, it must take the present
city plant. And while the plant may
be worth for operating purposes un-
der city management all the $27,500, 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 a basis for this discussion, he
also says: my own business honest
management would put the value of
a n a fnIx =, of bJIf W
result of all these figures is going to be
overwhelmingly favorable to my con-
tentton that can afford to yield on this
and use the estimated present value of
$27,50O." Thus it appears, quite plain
ly that if the city was first to dispose
of its plant, 1t would probably lose
$4,000 out of the $27,500. Assuming
contract period of five years, the city
vide this by five hundred lamps 1t
would make the loss per lamp per year
$500. Therefore, it would not be I'M
fair in computing the cost of Mr..
Myers $500 proposition, to add this
loss of $500 to it, making the cost to
the city really $61.0O..
Mr.. Myers compared his $500
average with his $500 proposition,
now let him compare this $52.83 ac-
tual cost now with his $500 PROPOSE
tion
But" say the Edison people, "for
our $500 you get lamp all night,
instead of by a moonlight schedule
Well, some years ago the Edison
people wanted to charge s83.25 on a
moonlight proposition. The cost of
production has decreased, but If 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 if
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
per month; while the city, previous
to this recent experiment Of putting in
90 modern lamps. was paying to trim
334 lamps five men at $3.50 per
month, or $287.50 per month for
what 1t cost the Edison people $65
to trim nearly twice the number of
lamps.
This is thing that a commission
in charge of an electric light plant
would not stand for a single month.
There are numerous other simple
methods of economy The saving In
carbons alone, would be over $1,000 a
year with the modern lamps; that is,
the carbons for 500 modern lamps
would cost at least 81 900 per year less
than the carbons for 1928 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
a m q
needs. Mr.. Myers, however uninten-
tionally, has really complimented Mr..
Goodrich, the present superintendent
of the electric light plant, who has
years, and has actually paid a tribute
to municipal ownership when he shows
that the lights have cost the city only
an average Of $75 per lamp per year
for the past 18 years A visit to the
plant. and the writer has made several
of them within the past few days, will
show that the city has good substan-
tial stone building with good roof
over it; that it has a splendid Corliss
engine practically as good today as ii
was when 1t was bought nine years ago
for $1,000. 1t will show four genera
tors or dynamos in working condition.
but needing rewinding 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
five hundred light plant. They will
have to come out and new ones go in.
but it will take "a less number of new
ones than there are old ones. The city
Is handicapped by having no water
purifier. Every big modern plant has
this because il keeps the boilers from
scaling. and purified water used in the
boilers not only saves them, but is
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-
dition for economical management
runs all the way from $4,000 to $685.
900. Mr.. Freeman, the expert em-
ployed by this city, made last May one
estimate of 5000, two of $50, 900 and
one of $4,000. The $4,000 PROPOSE