The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-09-11
M DONALD TALKS
ION Light CONTRACT
ALDERMAN FROM THIRD WARD
TELLS or COST TO CITY or
CONTRACT FOR LIGHTING sYs-
TEM--ExRLAINs VOTE AND
coRREcTs ERRORS

TEM--ExRLAlNs VOTE AND
coRREcTs ERRORS
"As one Of the members Of the city
council. who voted to contract with the
Union Light, Heat e. Power Co. to
| light the city for another year and all
low the company to extend their heat
| ing mains to the business property Of
the city OF Fargo" said Sam McDon-
aid, alderman from the Third ward to q
Forum representative this morning, Il
did SO because / consider 1t purely q
business proposition for the city.
II don't know Of any reason why
the owners of the Gardner hotel, the
Martin Hector building on Front street
and the Fowler Banks building on M.
r. should be told that they must put in
heating plant Of their own and that
they cannot buy heat from the Bylles-
by Co.
This company has offered to light
the city for $50 per arc and pay per
cent of their gross income on the gas.
electricity and steam to the city for
the privilege Of extending and use Of
our streets.
sTn round figures we paid $4,000 to
| light our streets last year, and under
| the new contract we will pay the I'm
| ion Light, Heat g. Power Co. about
| $4,000. We have at this time 1877
arcs, 210 SIC. p. lamps and 1872 orna-
mental lamp posts.
THE consumption of 5-32 G. p. lamps
are equal to that of one arc. and an
ornamental post will use two-thirds
as much juice as an arc. Placing the
entire consumption on the arc basis,
Fargo has 267 arcs in use operating
| on the 4,000-hour schedule, annually
| If your net cost is about $4,000, we
are evidently lighting our streets for
about $40 an arc.
Nov / want some of the good citi-
zens who are ever~ready to criticise
the council for using a little horse
sense and business judgment, to show
us city west of the Mississippi rfv-
err where light is being furnished at ar
equal rate.
/ SHOW us one municipal light plant
west of the coal fields of the east
which has no natural water power
that Is doing as well as the city o.
Fargo under this IS11-12 contract
| Again the city Is not giving up any
of its birth rights, but on the othel
hand should this contract terminate
Sept. IL, 1912. the city will be in Elk.
aetly the same position that she was
Sept. 1, 1911, and IL you will take the
time TO look up the city auditors rec
ord Of proceedings, you win find tina
the resolution so states,
For your information ] will SAL
that have the 19O9-10 reports of thu
cost Of operation of the city owned
electric light plant at Grand Forks
from their city auditor, Chas. J. Even
son and Engineer A. J. Roddy. Thil
plant has been in operation about ter
years and ought to be out of the ex
perimental stage by this time.
They are still operating on tn
moonlight schedule OF $500 hours, AM
V Fargo. the all-night or 1000 hou
schedule. Taking their own state
ment, which includes a per cent In
l,terest and s per cent depreciation
charge, ii cost them $72.S7 in 1908 an,
I, $65.69 per arc in 1910, on a $500 hou
schedule, an average cost of $69.0S.
I'VE operate the lights 1900 hour
longer or so per cent addition, and Il
place both operating the same humble
of hours / am adding only the 80 pc
cent Increase Of coal necessary, which
figures 1890, according to the en-
gineer's report as to cost Of fuel which
would make the average cost Of light
in Grand Forks 1928 per arc II the.
run the same number OF hours as W.
do.
From these figures II would seen
that the municipal plant lights Gran'
Forks at cost OF 1929 per arc. ant
that Fargo can contract for their Ugh
and buy 1t for close to sac per arc.
"who would not save that differ
ence In cost In their own business
why not give the city the same co7
sideration that you would persona
purchaser?
Grand Forks lights only her streets
the game as Fargo proposes to do blu
if that city would throw their munic
J ipal plant in the river and get con
tract equal to the one Fargo has ac
cepted they would save her people
lot of money.
J Eff both operated on the sam
schedule and used the same numbe
of lights. Fargo's present contrac
would save $4,000 over the cost Q
) lighting Grand Forks at the price
] they paid in 19O9-10.
II want to say further that this !
} the best lighting proposition that ha
/ ever been made to Fargo or any othe
: city In the Northwest. When 81
Paul andN Minneapolis are paying 81:
Aberdeen. S. D., $96, and Grand Fork
/ | (municipaI) $50, can't see that Farg
J made such a bad deal when the coun
J ell voted to contract at q net rate o
D $40.
/ "The people of Fargo are being mis-
! informed ais to the actual condition
] and after investigating number 9
/ the articles that appeared In TIL
!. Courier News. I found that they wer
not correct. In fact the article O.
| the actual conditions and expense Q
| the Grand Forks plant is all wron
/. lie the information received fror
Grand Forks city officials Is correct.
II have given this proposition
2 enough thought and investigation I
! satisfy myself that ann clear on 1
= and while hear q lot OF loud tai
2 about what Fargo can do and ough
to do, I don't find any OF them ths
: can show the figures.
II voted for the contract to save tn
2 city between $4,000 and $1,000 owe
2 their cost Of lighting last year and wi
: cast my vote again the same wa
;, should 1t be necessary.
: II any citizen can show that m
. information In not correct will
y only too pleased to listen, but the
g have got to show me-"
1 II.