Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1904-06-29

Ctutu do liiOnCy NCh oPCnb. lhC
sewer on Prince street, with branches
on Fairfax and Lee streets, was bnilt
that year by the city under the super
vision of its Engineer at cost of
1851, or saving TO the city of 1867
over the lowest bidder. There was
other work, small in it's way, which
is referred to by Mr. Dunn in his re-
port for that year, but the four items
named aggregate nearly $4,000.
The year ending May 81, 1898, was
not withoutsome work. WHAT'S known
as the Patrick street sewer, between
King and Cameron streets, and the
Reliance engine house sewer was
built at a cost of 81, 900; also small
sewer on Prince street, connecting
with the Hook and Ladder house
at a cost of of $3.50 Day labor
was employed. The first named
sewer was finished at a cost of
S412 less than the lowest bid.
There was also considerable work
done on gravel streets that year,
81, 700 being expended. No great
amount was spent on either streets or
sewers between 1898 and 1900, yet
more than $4,000 were expended on
sewers during those years and about
the same amount on streets. SO from
the figures here presented, taken from
official records, not including mauy
small items, in less than fifteen ysarg,
all previous to June, 1901, the city ex-
pended on sewers -$42, 900 and on
streets $4,000.
About four years ago October 1900
Council appropriated $500 for the
King street Improvement from Royal
to Fairfax, which was completed in
June, 1901, at a cost of 81, 1896.
On June II, 1901, a petition, which
had been circulated by Mr.. W. II.
May. was presented to Council signed
by large number of property owners
on King street to the Potomac river,
asking for n vitrified brick roadway;
residents and property owners on AL
fred street also signed petition ask
ing similar improvements on that
street. The cost of the last two was
approximately s13, 125 and that por-
ton of cost assessed against property
owners has been settled.
Sewers were first laid on these
streets and the cost of this work, as
shown by city reports, was paid out Of
the yearly revenues, Notwithstanding
$50, 900 of bonds matured in July, 1902,
their payment provided for, and no
increase in tax rate or license tax, and
no bond issue.
In 1901-02 it was apparent to
every one that the gas works wo1ld
have to be rebuilt, and the i'm
provement of King street west from
Royal to Fayette was agitated, in
deed it is stated-urged, by some
who afterwards failed to follow
the good example set by Alfred and
lower King street owners, and paid
under protest, and few as yet have
made no settlement.
1t was also knowni in 1902 that not less
than $40, 900 would be necessary 10 do
this work and that amount could not
be taken from the yearly revenues,
so bonds were suggested. | sup
ported the bond issue as not only FEAST
BILE, but desirable. The time whether
we must either go ahead, stand still
or retrograde had been reached.
The people voted loan by ma
iority so large as to be surprising.
Bonds were prepared, limited to
$50, 900, sold at premium. OF course,
they must be paid off gradually and
one is in reason in saying the loan
was made at the right time and that
the results are obvious.
There is, however, one cloud and
that is the threat made by some to test
the matter of paying their assessment
The tax collector reports that among
the number who paid under protest
many said they did so mot with any
desire to evade payment, but only in
the event should others test the consti-
nationality of the assessment, they also
could recover" all this is to be regret
ted. Should the city win in defending
the assessment it will even then be
costly in fees, etc. Should it lose
equity would suggest that those who
paid without protest should be re-
warded for their good citizenship.
Probably $50, 600 would be required
to adjust these claims and when the
amount has to be provided for in a
revenueb bill, no one need be surprised
when tax payers owning property
on other streets demand, in justice
to themselves, that the assessment on
property along these improved streets
be increased. l, for one, will not
blame them.
The committee on finance and streets
reported in favor of taking the sewer
built by the Sisters OF st. Mary's Acad-
emy so far as the same is outside the
building line at 90 cents per foot, being
about $97.
Mr. Brill moved that the report be
adoL ted and it was unanimously agreed
TO.
B. Wheatley's application for leave TO
make frame improvement within the
fire limits was granted.
The resolution directing the City En-
gineer to furnish plans for a sewer On
Washington and Pendleton streets was
reported on, the committee advising q
sewer at 81, 500 from Pitt on Princess
street west to Washington, then on
Washington street with some connections
with Columbus street. This Mr. Lead
beaten also said would be the most eco
nomical way of making sewer service in
that section.
The Chair asked if an ordinance to
effect this purpose should not be drawn.
Mr.. Leadbeater saw no objection to the
preparation of an ordinance.
Mr.. Snowden asked if this was the
report of the joint committee.
Mr.. Leadbeater responded that it had
been considered by both committees and
this was their report.
Mr.. Snowden said all he wanted was
to be assured that the money now asked
for would be sufficient to do the work