The record-union., 1897-06-08

| furnish their lights at a low price, be-
cause the price of coal is very cheap
at the points named but / may, with
reason, ask what power can be cheaper
| than that furnished by this company
| If coal We're furnished without cost
| to the companies in the cities above
| named, which operate with steam pow
er, they could not produce electric pow
er as cheaply as this company is now
doing. Again, this company claims that
the price demanded is not too high;
that its income at the present rate
will not pay a fair rate of interest on
| their stock and bonds; but when it
| is understood taht this corporation has
capitalized its plant for two or three
| times its actual value its contention
in this respect is untenable, for it can
not expect this city to pay interest at
the usual rate on this over-capitaliZa-
| ton.
After carefully considering the adj
vantages under which this corporation
! is producing electric power and the
| benefits it is enjoying under franchises
| from the city, and the prices charged
by other companies which are gener-
a.ting electric current by water power,
l think a fair charge would be from
50 to So per lamp per month.
L have still other information regard
! ing the cost of electric lighting in cities
on this coast, which will, l think, con-
vince you that my position is correct.
| The city of Alameda owns its lighting
| plant, which is run by steam power,
and it operates 103 1000 candle-power
arc lamps at a cost of ST per month.
| The city of Santa Cruz also owns a
plant operated by steam power, and II
is estimated that its 1000 candle-power
arc lamps alta cost of 81 each per month.
wood City has run a small lighting
plant in connection with a pumping
plant, and it is estimated that its lamps
cost less than 81 per month The city
of Riverside owns its sub-station, trans
formers, pole lines, lamps, etc, and pur-
| chaSeS it's power from the Redlands
Electric Company, and the estimated
cost of operating 1000 candle-power
arc lamps is about 81 70 each per
month. Santa Rosa pays So per month
per lamp under contract with local
company.
One of the latest reports on electrical
plants is from Spokane, Wash. The
City Council passed an ordinance a few
weeks ago providing for an issue of
$4,000 of bonds for the purpose of
installing a plant, competent engineers
having reported that the city could pro-
duce its own electric lights with water
power) at an expense of So each per
month, for which the city had been
paying So
Considering the prices quoted, it does
| hi Sacramento
City, with all the advantages of water
power, should be asked to pay $40 %
per month for each and every lamp.
The agents of the Sacramento Elec-
tric. Gas and Railway Company have
in your meetings repeatedly stated that
I'they could furnish electric power 40
per cent cheaper than the city can
produce steam power The experts who
recently reported upon this subject
stated that the city could procure a
| lighting plant at a cost of S63, UUo,
which would pay all expenses, 4 per
cent. interest on the bonds and AZ per
cent. depreciation in the plant, and
furnish the same lights at 81 81. If
the company, as its agents have stated,
can furnish electric lights produced by
water power 40 per cent. cheaper than
they can be produced by steam power
the cost to the city per lamp would
be about 81 II per month.
L desire particularly to call your at
tention TO the great difference charged
the city over and above prices charged
/ private customers for electric lighting.
For commercial lights the price for
1000 candle power arc lamps running
until II O'Clock, or say an average of
five hours per night, is 81 per month.
| The rate charged for lamps burning
until l O'Clock, or an average of seven
hours, is but So per month; and the
rate on adj and every night lamps, burn
ing an average of ten hours each night,
is but So per month.
The city is asked to pay SO % per
month for lamps that burn on an av-
eIage nine hours per night, and as the
contract called for a mixed moonlight
| schedule there would be four nights in
every month on which there would be
no lights. and applying this reduction
! to the commercial lights, which run
! on an average of ten hours on each and
| every night it will be seen that street
lighting costs at least 30 per cent. more
than commercial lighting. Besides,
this corporation makes special contracts
! in which prices are made even lower
/ than those already quoted to parties
requiring a large number of lights.
The above are some of the reasons
! which have prompted me to veto this
claim 1 fully realize that my action
in thus vetoing this demand may in
duce the company to discontinue light
hing our streets, but should it see fit
to do so the consequences must rest
with the company. Respectfully sub
mitted c. H HUBBARD, Mayor.
L. T. Hatfield said that since the ac-
ton of the board last Monday night he
| had investigated the law on the ques-
ton and thought the board had done all
it can, and the only resource left is liti-
CATION. The Mayor had refused to en-
terrain the proposition made to the
board in relation to giving bonds for re-
bate.
The company, he said is giving en-
ployment to several hundred people and
has lowered the expense Of lights to the
city as a return for its franchises and
other privileges. AS to refusing to light
the city, the company has no intention
of doing so. 1t win continue to light
the city and present its bills and try to
collect them in the courts.
The Mayors message was ordered
placed on file.
Eruif ShiDr,enfS