The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-03-31
Carbons ...... ....... $1,000
Repairs on plant lines. 1, 10000
Incidentals ...-..-.. 200.oo-s17, 90
s2s.ss5 50

sas.ss5. s.
Cost per lam per year ar---............-SSS 81
OF the two plans outlined. we should
say that plan No. L would give the
best results. The first cost is higher
than plan No. 2 but the operating
expenses of running same make the
cost of producing light less. We take
as basis of making figures on botn
plans, that all machinery for install
ing either system should be entirely
new except the engine now in use.
We also figure depreciation at 5 per
cent which, in our opinion. Is mini
mum figure for this item. We note
that both Mr.. Stewart and Mr.. Free
man, expert engineers, who made the
estimates on the Topeka plant. placed
depreciation at per cent. Basing our
figures on this rate of depreciation, II
would make the lights cost $55.39 eacn'
plan one, and $58.17 each on plan TWO.
We have compiled our figures with
the idea of doing nothing in regard
to erecting a new building. and only
figuring on a small expense for put
ting the present structure that Is useu
for an electric lighting plant in shape
to do the work 1t is our opinion tnat
this building would probably answer
the purpose for a time, at least, put
for a frst-class plant we believe thaI
the premises are not what they
should be, and if new building was
erected it would materially increase
the renewing of but 500 poles. II Is
almost impossible for US to OBTAIN
the present condition OF the poies III
use without examining eacn one How
in place, but from all the Information
we could gather, we should say that
500 would have to be renewed in
very short time, and many more WITH
in a few years.
Ym1r committee visited ST. Joseph,
Missouri and examined the hghting
plant in that city as thoroughly as we
could during the time we were tnere.
Their plant seems to be first class IN
many respects, and from what we
could learn was satisfactory as rar as
lighting the city was concerned, put
the expense of lighting we found TO pe
more than the estimated cost given py
their Superintendent. He made the
cost per lamp s53.37 per year. This IS
taken from the figures that he COM
piled Basing our estimate on the
same figures that were given US, we
made the cost per lamp $57.74 ana the
expert accountants who were WORKING
on the books of the plant at the time
we were there, made the cost per lamp
| s62. 80 per year, and we are inclined to
think that they made the right hgures
| on the same as they had access TO eV.
erything in the way of expense, cost OIL
maintenance, ETC., which we were un-
able to verify except by the statement
| given by their superintendent
| We also think that the price mace
by the Topeka Edison company to the
| city of Topeka of $500 per lamp per
year is low, and any arrangement the
city could make with them on basis
| of this price would certainly relieve
them of all hazard and respensoblilty'
which ought to be worth consldera-
/ ton. Respectfully submitted,
! ROBERT PIERCE,
| GEO. H. MATTHEWS,
GEO. E. MOESER,
| Committee.
Owing to the late hour OF the
| meeting this afternoon comment on
| this report is naturally reserved TIL
| tom nrrOW.