Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1909-07-23
CITY COULD HAVE
SAVED 81, 9O7
SO Says PreSt. Walker In
Discussing Report
Analyses Figures Given
In Water Works
Report
Communicated

| Communicated
To the Public:
The annual report of the city wa
| terworks for the year ending July
lst, 1909, was submitted to Council
by Assistant Supt. Jeter on Wednes-
| day evening
This report is such an unanswer-
able argument in favor of ali this
Company has contended for, against
municipal ownership and in support
OF the contract made with us for
the pumping of the water and the
/ lighting of the City streets that we
would respectfully urge every citizen
and taxpayer of Americas to read il
carefully and then consider the fol-
lowing facts and figures:
Amount OF water pumped, as
shown by report =. 103 ,07S, 4SO gal.
Total operating expenses, as
SHOWN by report :. :. :. $11,514S7
Average cost of pumping, per
1000 gallons :. =. IL 17-1O0 cts.
Cost of pumping under Dod-
son contract, maximum per
1000 gallons O35O
Saving per 1000 gallons I'M
der Dodson contract 49,. .O767
Cost of pumping 03,07S,4S0
gallons under Dodson CON
tract !. $3,6O7.75
Saving per year under price
IN Dodson contract =. -. $79O712
Cost of maintenance, Gas
SHOWN by report :. :. $5,10613
A private corporation would
add this amount to the cost
of operation, making.
Cost of operating and main
tenance, !: !. $16,621 90
Cost OF operating and main
tenance per 1000 gals -. 1912
Under the caption Credits due the
Water Works appears an item of
S7546.23 for free water furnished
for City Hydrants." In the List
of free water furnished by the CITY
Water works as credited to this re-
port the various items shown amount
to total of $8,50623. The differ
ence $4,000 is not explained nor is
the method by which they arrived at
credit of $22625 for AZ sprinklers
in cemetery; $401.SS for "Artesian
Well'; $4,000 for Public Horse
Troughs or 1876 gals per day.
Sewer System" and $4,000 for Street
Sprinkling" We have never known
city to be charged more than 10
cents per 1000 gallons for water to
be used for any of these purposes, and
at that rate the City would have used
2,262,5OO gallons for "4S sprinklers in
Cemetery or 6,19S gals per day.
4,018,SOO gallons for "Artesian
Well'' or 11,010 gals per day.
5,430,000 gals for Public Horse
Trougs, or 1876 gals per day.
13,250,000 gallons for FLUSHING
Sewer Systems" or 36,304 gals per
day.
5,420,O00 gallons for Street Sprink-
ling or 14,S49 gals per day.
This amount of water used in
Street Sprinkling" would mean that
the City's $50 gallon Tank wagon
would be filled and emptied 33 times
per day, every day in the year.
This amount of water used in
Public Horse Trough" would give
900 horses 30 gallons of water each
per day and the amount allowed for
"Artesian Well would give every
lnhabitant of Americas, black and
white, man, woman and child, one gal
lon of water per day in the public
Square. Allowing zoe per 1000 gal
IONS, which is the maximum rate
charged private consumers, would
only cut these figures in half. Can
anyone think these figures are cor
rect, and that the city is entitled to
such credits?
The Water Works take credit for
lO1 fire hydrants at $4,000 each or
100000. 1t charges but $25 for pri-
vate fire hydrants and yet credits
itself, in order to show profit with
$50 additional per hydrant, a total
of $1,515.00.
1t takes credit for $314.64 material
and supplies on hand" and $1,253.OO
Bills Receivable for Pipe, Meters.
ETC.. How about the charge against
this for Material and Supplies on
Hand at the beginning of the Fiscal
Year and the Bills" Payable for
Pipe, Meters, etc." at the end of that
year Is it not probable that the bal
ance of this account is really on the
other side
There is very considerable amount
of money invested in the Water
plant, that money is worth at least
per cent. and there is property de-
probation of at least 3 per cent more.
Ought not per cent of the value of
the property be charged against it
somewhere in order that the people
might see just what they really were
getting for their money.
We are not dissecting this report
for the purpose of criticising the
management of the Water works. nor
40 we say or even mean to suggest
that the water plant is being mis-
managed, but we are simply attempt
ing TO snow the people what it is
costing to operate now and how
much the City would save by carrv
ing out the contract upon which we
relied when we made our invest
ment.
Here Are the Figures Again
City spent in operation for
last fiscal year without any
charge for maintenance $11,514.S7
Same amount of pumping
would have cost under the
Dodson contract :. =. =. 3,6O7.75
City would have saved under
Dodson Contract S79O712
This saving would have been suf1-
Gent to have given you 100 street
lights of the very latest type, as
provided in our contract, and still
leave balance
QUERY-If the City had really
made $6,692.63 net profit as shown
by the report. operating as it did
how much would it have made had the
water plant been operated under the
Dodson contract?
QUER4-Had you not rather sec a
net profit in the reduction of cash ex