The record-union., 1897-11-09
SEWAGE PUMPING POWER.
MAYOR KUBBARD'S MESSAGE
TO THE TRUSTEES.
He Claims That Attorney Hatfield's
Recent Communication Was
Based on Error.

At last nights session of the City
Trustees the following communication
from Mayor Hubbard was read. 1t is
! in response to the communication re-
Gently flied with that body by Attorney
i. T. Hatfield on behalf of the Sacra-
mento Gas, Electric and Railway Com
pany, regarding the proposition to have
the city erect its own electric plant:
To the Honorable Board of Trustees:
| L. L. Hatneld, the attorney for the Sac
Iamsnto Electric, Gasand Raiyway Com
rany, has addressed a very lengthy COM
munication to your honorable board on
| the subject OF municipal electric plant.
! The article covers three particular
points, viz: First, the cost of street
lighting; secondly, the cost of operating
the waterworks, and thirdly, the cost of
operating the new S-street sewer pump
ing plant. 1 desire, at this time only to
refer TO the last point.
Mr.. Hatfield's statements, regarding
the sewer pumping plant, are very far
from being correct. This plant COM
laenced pumping December 10, 1896,
and the expense for fuel. oil, engineers,
firemen, etc, are all that can be con-
SiuCICo a. Silio lAiilc. NIL StSilCS
that the expense has been IS, ,294 A up
| to October lSt, or an average of SSl3 81
per month. To arrive at these figures
he has included items of improvements
| to the plant, which are no part of the
operating expense. The actual run
ming expenses for the ten months was
SO, 15S r. or $675 50 per month. AT
the present time we are running at a
cost of less than $500 per month.
Mr.. Hatfield states that a contract
was let and good and sufficient bond
filed, agreeing to operate the plant for
S107 per month. The bid was for SS, 145
per year. or S72S 75 per month. On
March 29th l disapproved the contract
for reasons then stated / did not think
it would cost any more, If as much, for
the city to operate it, and / did not think
it was proper to place such property in
the hands of any contractor. The city
should, at all times, have control of the
| plant. The city should contract with
the Sacramento Electric, Gas and Rail-
way Company for electric power, if it
would be advantageous to the city to do
SO, but it should always control and op-
crate the plant. My message on this
subject placed the matter clearly be-
fore your honorable board, and you
wisely concluded not to pass it over my
veto.
You will remember that for the first
three months this plant was operated
we labored under many disadvantages,
which caused the expense account to
! figure up very high. and it should not
| be taken into consideration as a COM
| parison of average expense. AT that
time heavy storms were causing much
flood water to accumulate in the south
ern part of the city, and we wished to
avoid repetition Of the previous years
| foods in that part of the city south Of
7. street. We did not stop to consider
the expense. Our object was to protect
our citizens from being damaged, and
we did it, as all the people living in that
portion of the city will testify. But,
even including the time of heavy storms
and much rainfall up to the present, we
have operated the plant at less cost
than was offered in the contract which
Mr.. Hatfield mentioned.
The city is now paying his company
! $500 per month for 1o-horse power, with
which to operate the pump. This pow
| er is only a substitute for coal. We
have to use it only seven or eight hours
per day. We can operate the plant
much cheaper, at this time, with coal,
! as we would not be required to run one
| of the large pumps more than four or
! five hours Der day at an expense OF
about $50 per month for coal. But as
soon as the rains come and require more
hours of pumping, we shall be able to
bring the average up to $500 or more.
! II we should require electric power TO
run these pumps to their full capacity
| and had to pay at the present rates
$500 for 1J-horse power-it would cost
the city over 81 900 per month One OBJ
| iect in keeping the control of this plant
in the hands of the city was to ascertain
lust what would be the expense of op-
Grating it for year, and believe, after
everything is in good condition at the
plant, the city can operate it, on an ay-
erage, for about 5000 per month
| If Mr. Hatied's calculations regard
ing street lighting and the waterworks
| rlant are as far from being correct as
they are regarding the sewer pumping
plant, his lengthy article will be of little
value | am more convinced now than
ever that this plant should never be
placed in the hands of a contractor
Respectfully submitted.
c. H. HUBBARD, Mayor.