Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-24

by the CITY, makes up yoariy u0n
cheney by payment from the cash fund.
No other city on the Pacific coast has
lower average rates than ours, and most
of them are much higher.
It is noted in the screed referred to-,
in comparison of rates between Denver
City. in Colorado, and the municipal
works in South Denver, that the one, a
private company, collects $35.5S per tap,
while the South company collects only
$1l.SO. Now, South Denver is small
place, and has 4l6 taps only. The
operating expense of the works in 1890
was S37l1. The interest on bonded
water debt was $4,000, total of $13 3.3ll;
amount collected of consumers directly,
$494S. The shortage of $SS6S per year
has to be paid by tax levy.
Prescott, Ariz., is shown as collecting
$11.10 per tap. 1t has 23S taps, and col
lects $265O, leaving deficiency for
operating expenses and interest OF $4l50
to be made up by direct tax on the peo-
pie.
The statistics given above are col
lected by the Engineering News Pub
fishing company, for 1890, and are as
nearly official as it is possible to get.
Many OF these cities collect portion OF
their revenue for water from other city
funds; that is, the fire department is
charged with a certain amount for fire
purposes, the street department for the
amount used for street purposes, the
sewer department for flushing the sew
ers, This reduces the amount collected
from private users, but it is made up in
directly from tax levies. It must be re-
membered that the Los Angeles City
Water company furnishes all the water
for public use, amounting toquite ,OOO,-
600 gallons per day, free. Ii the city
would pay for this amount, the consum-
ers' rate would be largely reduced. As
their rates are now collected, the. prices
average less than those fixed by the city
ordinance; and only in one particular do
they exceed it, and that lie, we make a
minimum rate of 81 per family for small
houses instead OF rs and 80 cents-while
our contract entities US to $2. For all
houses Of five or eix rooms. with closet,
bath and yard, our rates are lower than
any city ordinance yet made by the city
council.
In another lying screed, probably got
ten up by the same anonymous party, it
is stated that the city OF Chicago charges
Sc year for good sized house, with
plenty of lawn, bath and closet, while
per wear. This statement is absolutely
false. In 1890, Chicagos rate was $40
for an ordinary family, and So for
sprinkling the fronts of a city lot, which
average perhaps l0x25 in frontage. For
stables and animals considerable
charge is made. But it should be borne
in mind that Chicago is great city OF
about 100000 people. compactly built,
and is not to be properly compared with
Los Angeles with her many lawns. In
1890 33 of the largest cities in Illinois
averaged $2274 per family per year.
When we consider the large amOnnt OF
water used here for lawn purposes. and
the greater cost of laying down water
plant in both material and wages, the
comparison ia highly favorable to the
Los Angeles City Water company, and
no fair-minded man who will take the
trouble to examine this statement and
look up the authorities we can give him,
can be made to believe that should the
city own it's own water works it can sup
ply water any lower, without making up
the deficiency from some other source.
1t is proposed to expend $526,000 for
the head-works pumping plant and dis
tributing mains over the territory occu-
pied by the Citizens Water company on
the hills. This will require an amount
of $52 600 per year for the inter-
est and sinking fund. Under ordinary
municipal management, it will not be
possible to collect, at the present ordi-
nance rates, sufficient amount to more
than pay the operating expenses of such
plant, which will necessarily be much
greater than the expense of the present
system, both for fuel and for labor. The
interest and sinking fund will have to
be met by he people of the entire city,
in the shape of an increased tax levy.
The auditor, in his statement of money
required for city purposes for the cur
rent year, asks for over $560,00O. OF
this amount, $55, 1886 are required as in
.terest and 1884, 500 for the sinking fund
of the debts already incurred. In addi-
ton, $395,O00 of sewer bonds are just
issued add this to the foregoing, and
you have: Interest. $75,0S5, and for
sinking fund, $l04 300. Add to this
1926 900 of water bonds, to be issued for
the Joint benefit of only one-fifth of the
population, and it will make the enor-
NOUS amount of $101,3S5 interest and
$13O,6 900 sinking fund, or a total of
1921, 1886 as a yearly levy for the landed
debts alone. Are the taxpayers of this
city prepared to stand up for this tax,
in addition to the rapidly increasing