The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-28

II the rates were left the same as at present.
and If we sumo an increase of say 900 in the
number OF ratepayers during the next fiscal
year, the increase from private ratepayers
during the year 1928 would be scant
revenue from the 900 from private con-
sumers to the $63 900 assumed by DR.. Clinton
means would have to be found 10 raise the
necessary $45, 900 from the City; but you can
only count on the above increase of S1S, 600
by leaving the private rates as they are now.
During the five years from 1892 to 1896 in
elusive the Spring Valley Water Works spent
81, S4S, 749 so for new construction to meet
the growing wants of the City and the large
require ments OF the Fire Depar tment. The
annual additional interest paid by the COM
pany on stock especially sold for the purpose
OF raising the shove sum OF 81 S4S.749 80
amounts to $4,000 per annum
In 1892 the City paid to the Spring Valley
Water Works for fire hydran is and other bills
the sum OF $50 ,9SS ID, and to this extent the
private bills received the benefit. Since that
year about 1850 new hydrants have been set
and seventy-tive and half miles OF large ana
extra heavy pipes were laid in the City OF San
Francisco.
In order to make up to the Spring Valley
Water Works the requisite income the City ia
creased tine MIGRANT rate 10 So per
month, SO that in 1886 the total amount
OF money received from the City was $213-
917 73. which sum is 1927, 929 60 more than
received in 1892.
Deducting from this la tier sum the amount
of $110, 900 of additional annual interest paid
on ne W construction, you have balance of
the above loss, IN private bills since 1892, OF
SIS, 459 IA.
Even if your committee would agree to fur
nish for 1S97-98 the above sum of $45, 900
additional from the City it would require lat
the rate OF So per month per hydranU the set
ting o. 1900 new MIGRANTS at the rate OF 125
per month, commencing June !, 1897.
The main difficulty In the way of setting
such q large mum Der of MIGRANTS would be the
enormous outlay for additional large pipes, on
which also additional interest would have to
be paid.
In TACT, unless the proper additional income
for addltiona. hydrants were allowed by the
City we could not afford 10 go to the great ex-
pense of increasing the length and sizes OF our
pipe system in order 10 place thereon even the
| 500 additional hydrants that have been
| talked about by the committee.
In DR.. C!iDton's report he also states: mo
| in yestigation is needed to convince the great
mai ority of the ratepavers OF San francisco
that they are paying excessive rates lot water.
| There is no satisfactory reason why TINS CITY
| should have to pay so much higher rates Tor
water than any other city of its size in the
| United States"
Dr. Clinton in his report, for reasons best
| known to himself, refrains from saying, as
| proven in this investigation. that this City is
much more billy than any OF the larger East
ern cities; that water here is furnished to
much higher levels; that it is scarcer and
more difficult and expensive TO obtain here;
| that coal is three times as dear here; that
wages, machinery and pipes are much higher
| here than in the East, and IN addition, both
Dr. Clinton and Mayor Phelan should know
that in this City the ratepayers pay about
SeYen-eights of the entire annual cost OF the
water supply and the City pays only one
eighth, while in most Eastern cities with mu-
nicipal ownership the city bears the burden OF
the entire cost of construction and most of the
interest on the same. while the consumers pay
only the running expenses.
All OF this information. which in all fairness
belongs in the report, you have kept out of ii,
and by such omission any prejudice that may
be existing against this company is likely to
| be still more increased.
Without full consideration of the ABOVE
| facts and OF all the information furnished tn
your committee you propose rates which, If
carried out, would be unfair 10 the consumers
as they favor one class at the expense OF an
other and which would be unjust to the COM
pany, because they are not based on the facts
brought out in your investigation.
! Our Alameda Creek water works have been
pronounced by some mem berS OF the Water
Committee as an unnecessary adjunct TO the
/ com pany's works and should therefore be
| thrown out and no interest allowed on the
| cost of its property and works. Now, the Ala
media Greek water works were purchased ana
! the water brought to this City long before the
| completion of the large Crystal Springs reser-
| voIr, the Alameda Creek works being built for
| the purpose II avert1ng threa tened water
| famine
! The water of Alameda Creek having been
| brought to San Francisco an urgent neces-
sity, as was recognized by the decisions of the
| courts OF Alameda County, its necessity being
| proven before your committee. as before other
| Boards of Supervisors, and this water having
been supplied to San Francisco prior to the
water from the large Crystal Springs reser-
| voir, you have no right TO exclude it,
Much has been said too about watering the
! stock of the company by the consolidation of
the old Spring Valley water works and the
| San Francisco water works in 1865. The fact
| is that prior to that time there were two water
| companie each with complete works, sepa-
rate offices and separate arrangements, each
| company being Incorporated Tor $4,000 .Oo0
| and each supplying about 100000 gallons
| OF water per day.
Upon the two old companies coming to-
gether the new or present Spring Valley
Water Works wss incorporated for 90 600
| shares of 800 EACH thereby not increasing
! or watering their stock. But, by the conso IL
dation. they very largely reduced the running
! and office expenses, one sc of employees and
one Office sufticed, where formerly they b ad
| TWO. The current rate OF interest at that time
| was about IL per cent per month ana over;
still, for nearly ten years, until May, 1874. the
| shareholders received only per cent per
mum on their stock, putting the balance of
their earnings, which were large las can be
easily seen in the reports OF the Gigs ex-
perts), back into the works, thereby increas-
Ing the cost and value of the works to fully
| the par value OF the stock.
If the Water Committee is DESTROYS to reduce
| the cost OF water 10 the consumer, it will have
| to be done at the expense of the taxpayer, as
| is done in most Eastern cities, where the mu-
| nicpality owns the water works and charges
the bulk of the cost and of the interes charges
! to the property, and often only the running
| expenses 10 the consumers.
In the case OF the Spring Valley Water Works
| the running expenses are less than one-four tn
| of Our entire annual receipts
! If the City of San Franci CO should decide to
own is own water works, whether 1t builds
new ones purchases those OF the Spring
Valley, interest oil the cost OF such works, the
! annual contribution to the sinking fund, as
required by law, and the taxes in counties
outside of San Francisco, would require an
| increase the tax rate of from so 10 90 cents
| on each one hundred dollars of the as
sessed valuation. This would leave only the
running expenses OF, say from 20 10 % per
! cent of the total annual cost of water to be
| paid by the consumer, thereby reducing his
water rate 10 about one-fourth of what it is
now.
The bulk of the burden would thus be shifted
on TO the property-owner, but where at presen {
q landlord whose house is empty has his
| entire water rate RENTED in the case of the
| City's ownership he would have TO pay 10 the
! Tax Collector his entire annual water tax of
say so or 90 cents On each 500 valuation
| whether the house is empty or not
| The great uncertainty regarding the final
action OF your Water Committee has been the
! direct cause OF throwing from 140 to $50
| laboring men out OF our employ. on most of
whom a family depends and their enforced
idleness having now las ted for several mo this,
| owing to delayed action OF your committee
and the doubt as to your final decision, great
hardship has resulted 10 those who can least
| afford it.
| During your Investigations no fault was
! found with the nterest which we have to pay
| on our bonded debt and overdrafts nor with
| the taxes, which are determined by the ely
and the various county governments; nor
with the running expenses, especially when it
was shown that, in spite OF a largely increased