Name/Title
Shall Waupun Have Electric Light?Scope and Content
Newspaper clipping from unknown source and unknown date. After reading the article, came to the conclusion that this was around the late 19th century or early 20th century.
SHALL WAUPUN HAVE ELECTRIC LIGHT?
The Electric Light Question.
In answer to the questions of "A Voter," recently published in the Leader, I give the following as the best information I have at the present time.
1st. Judging from plants in other cities about this size, is the $6,000 thus to be raised sufficient to put in a plant that will have capacity enough to meet the present wants of the city, should lights be freely taken, and provide for probable increase in street lighting in the near future?
No.
2d. If $6,000 is not sufficient, how can we raise the balance required?
3d. If there is any way to raise this money otherwise than by an immediate tax levy, please state the plan.
Can be raised in two ways-leave the excess an open account with contractors, or ........ money to be advanced by citizens, $5,000 has been offered at 5 per cent payable at the convenience of the city.
4th. If there is no other, will not this tax raise our per cent above the legal limit?
No.
5th. Please state the present amount of the bonded indebtedness of the city with rate of interest and annual payments.
At present time $25,000 with interest at 5 per cent payable $2,000 the first of each year.
6th. What is the number of arc lights proposed to be used in lighting the streets.
Forty-eight to fifty.
7th. What increase is necessary to the present waterworks plant to accomo date the required engine and dynamo?
An addition costing from $200 to $300.
8th. What will be the annual expense of running the plant, including repairs and interest on the investment at 5 per cent?
Estimate at from $1,500 to $2,000
9th. Can you give the cost of the plant that is being put in at Columbus, Wis., and the prospect of making a more or less advantageous contract?
Columbus contract is let for $11,700. Their waterworks power house has room for electric light machinery. Do not think we could make a more advantageous contract.
J. S. MORRIS. Mayor.
STILL MORE LIGHT.
It has been suggested by some of the members of the Business Men's Association, that as the association requested the vote on the Electric Light question, some information be given as to cost of plant, proposed service, expense of operation etc. as obtained by members of the association. Taking the questions as propounded by "A Voter" and answered by the Mayor, in last week's Leader, as above.
Would say the following on the subject is as understood by the business men who have looked carefully into the matter, authority being given where figures are made, and where estimated they are the result of careful investigation and calculation. The information on the city matters is from members of the Council past and present, and can be verified by inquiry or the records.
In further reply to Question 1, it has not been expected that the proceeds of $6,000 of bonds would be sufficient to install a suitable plant, the bond issue being of necessity made for that amount to keep within the lawful limit. From careful inquiry based on present prices of material, and contracts recently let it is believed that $9,000 or $10,000 will be sufficient to install a plant, first class in every respect, adequate not only to supply the business center of the city but the entire outlying residence districts for both street and residence lighting purposes.
The Mayor's reply to Questions 2 and 3 show how the balance of the money above that realized from the bond issue may be obtained or provided for, and assuming that the bonds with the premium thereon bring but $6,500 which must be conceded a conservative estimate, and that the cost of the plant is the higher figure before named $10,000, it would leave $3,500 to be provided for in the manner suggested by the Mayor, either by open account on the contract, or accepting the money offered the city to cover this balance, payable at the city's convenience as it may be able. This method of providing funds is not new in the practice of the city, even to amounts as large approximately as above mentioned. While it may be news to many readers, it is nevertheless a fact that in 1896 the city owed at one time in this manner $3,200 over and above any moneys in the treasury available. This sum was paid within three years, and wiped out without any additions to the taxes on account thereof. As a matter of fact the average tax was slightly lowered during the period. But few knew the debt had been incurred and and none realized that it was being wiped out from any increase in the tax during the years it was being done. There is no reason why the same thing cannot be done with a balance of similar size on a light plant. The necessity for this additional money in 1896 was occasioned by the excess cost of the Water Works plant above the amount realized on the bonds and the fact that the Madison street bridge had but shortly before been built at an expense of between $3,000 and $4,000. It may also be noted that during the three years named when this debt was being wiped out the upper town bridge was built and paid for at an expense of some $500, without figuring as a special item in the tax levy. This matter is especially mentioned that it may be realized hat no addition to present rate of taxation would be required to ply off within short time the balance necessary to build the plant, above what is realized from the bond issue. In further reply to question number six, with 48 to 50 arc lights which is the number proposed for street lighting it is expected that the city will be well and thoroughly lighted throughout. We have now in the city but 73 oil street lamps. For the purpose of comparison, if the reader will observe the light afforded by one of the present oil lamps, then take the trouble to see the light thrown by the arc light at the prison gate he can draw a fair inference as to what light would be afforded throughout our city were our 73 oil lamps supplanted by 50 arc lights. Experience will also make it apparent that each one of these arc lights will be doing perfect and equal service on every night when it may be needed, their chimneys will not be smoked, nor oil burned out nor light extinguished, nor will they fail to throw light on nights when the almanac shows the moon should furnish it, but fails to do so, on account of clouds or stormy weather our oil lamps not doing business as the lamp lighter had followed the almanac, experiences we have passed through with our oil lamp lighting.
Further, in reply to question number 7, it is a reasonable assumption that at least by the middle of January next, the funds of the Water Department would be sufficient to pay the expense of what addition might be necessary to the Pumping Station to hold the electric light equipment, and could be so used. thus reducing the expense on account of the light plant to that extent. If such funds were not in hand, it is believed this expense would be covered by the higher figure heretofore named as cost of the light plant.
To question number 8, taking the Mayor's estimate as to annual expense of running the plant, including repairs and interest on the investment at 5 per cent, as $1,500 to $2,000 and taking the mean thereof $1,750, as the probable annual expense, it can be readily seen that we would have to offset this, the saving on our present oil lamp lighting said to be annually about $600, and the income from the private users of lights, with the further gain to every resident of our city of the improvement in the street lighting, and the fact that the streets would be lighted every night of the year when needed. Deducting the present cost of oil lighting say $600 it would leave $1,150 of annual expense to be provided for.
The most doubtful cannot but believe that within a year from the time the plant was installed the income from private users would exceed this per year. With but 500 lights in use at but $250 a year each, it would meet this balance, double this price, (which would probably be nearer a reasonable figure for lights regularly used) or double the number of lights at the price given even, (which is ridiculously low,) and there would be a surplus per year of nearly $1,500 to apply toward paying the cost of the plant, after all expenses of operation were provided for on the basis set forth. The bonds themselves would require no payment (except the interest provided for in the expense item above) for more than a dozen years, as. they will not begin to mature until after the present water works bonds have been entirely paid up. It will also be noted that within three years an amount of water bonds will have been paid equivalent to the proposed issue of Light bonds ($6,000), so that while in our expense calculations we have taken into consideration the interest on the Light bonds for the entire period they are to run, the water bonds will be reduced an equal amount within the three years named, when the out standing bonds all told, will draw no more interest than the present year, and this interest payment be reduced $100 per year thereafter, and it must he apparent that no part of the cost of installing the plant, nor its expense of operation need to be provided for by additional taxation.
To question 9, the contract complete for the Columbus plant the figures being given by the city clerk are as follows; 50 arc lights - $ 841, 265 H. P. Ideal engines - $1995, 2 Westinghouse dynamos - $1975, Switchboard, wiring and poles - $6515; Total - $11326
These prices include the installation of the material leaving same in working order, and include as will be noted a duplicate set of machinery throughout. Mr. Ford who made the specifications for Columbus according to their ideas, stated to the writer that he considered an entire duplicate plant as an unnecessary expense, that very few plants in the state were put in in this way, that in his own city of Madison they did not have same, and to his knowledge they had never been obliged to shut down for any reason for more than 15 minutes at any one time. As stated the specifications at Columbus provide for a duplicate plant throughout as that was the motion of the city. Assuming that Waupun put in a plant similar to that of Columbus using but one engine and two dynamos on the item of an engine there would be an approximate saving of $1000, while
Mr. Ford stated as his opinion that there would be some considerable saving in wiring our city over that of Columbus (note that this item is nearly two thirds of the cost of the Columbus plant) on account of the location of our plant with reference to the district to be served. The engineer at the City Hall at Milwaukee, in talking on the subject of duplicate plants with one of our Alderman, confirmed the opinion expressed by Mr. Ford. The figures herein given and the estimates are believed to be conservative, but it may be further stated that if the vote on issuing the bonds carries, bids should be invited, and it should be found that the cost was to be beyond what the city should now reasonably undertake, the Business Men's Association would not further encourage nor the city council be warranted in going on and installing a plant, nor would the latter be in any way bound so to do, because an issue on bonds had been authorized by vote.
For 10 years we have been endeavoring to obtain a light plant in our city, a franchise was once granted but the panic of 1893 prevented the guarantee from proceeding with the matter, a later request for a franchise was refused because of the general belief that the city should own the plant. We are now in a position to own one, with practically no additional expense to the individual tax payer for many years, and we should not lose the opportunity.
We vote on this question Thursday July 13th.
L. D. HINKLEY, President.
J. E. BRINKERHOFF, Secretary.
Business Men's Association.Acquisition
Accession
2015.0701Source or Donor
Waupun Heritage MuseumAcquisition Method
Donation
