Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-04-29


definite appropriations, 50 tax levy
would be necessary"
Sketches Growing Cost.
Donovan also sketched the growing
cost of operating the municipal govern
ment in recent years as well as the in
creaSing cost of ordinary annual I'M
provements. In 1929, he said. ordinary
annual improvements cost $500 900,
whereas in 1881 on the basis Of the
House bill, the figure would amount to
$4,000, 900 exclusive of the appropria-
ton for the municipal center.
THUS the $4,000 900 lump-Sum con-
tribution of the Federal Government"
he declared, els only sufficient to meet
annual recurring improvements. What
is the result?
"The $1.7O tax rate will not raise SUI
f1cient revenue to pay the rising ex-
contribution Of the Federal Government
is not sufficient to provide the normal
annual improvements. 1t is self evident
that by 1882 II the standards established
In the 1881 House bill are to be main
tanned, an increase in the tax rate ap-
pears to be inevitable.
Raise Depends on Budget.
1.-THE amount of the increase, Of
course, depends entirely upon the 1882
budget approved by the Commissioners,
the action Of the Budget Bureau and
the amount finally approved by Con-
gress. or course, it is problematical
whether it will be necessary to submit
budget in 1882 as large as the amount
In the 1881 House bill.
"An increase from $170 to 81 80 in
the tax rate during the five years be-
ginning In 1882, it is estimated, will
M yf,,ao fn1r q
over current revenues or about $43, 000,-
600 year, including the Federal con-
tribution Of 100000. That amount
Is only SUFFICIENT to pay the total of the
amount chargeable against the general
revenues as carried In the 1881 bill
passed by the House.
$50 all the District can do on a 81. 80
tax rate in the next five years is to
maintain the standard Of total appro-
priations established by the 1881 ap-
preparation bill as passed by the House"
The bill, as reported out by the Sen
ate appropriations committee, reduces
the total appropriations chargeable to
the general revenues nearly 81 500, 900
permitting that amount to remain in
the surplus revenues. To this would
be added the $4,000, 900 increase in the
Federal contribution, providing a sur
plus of more than $4,000 900 at the
sCarC OF the 1857 nScal year.
Water Rates Are Rejected.
The higher water rentals, which the
Senate committee turned down follow
ing discussion of the subject in the ex-
ecutive hearings On the bill, were:
For metered service, affecting about
10000 consumers, from $685. to $s.7s;
for unmetered service, from S7.03 TO
1885, and for business places not re-
quired to have meters, an increase Of
approximately 40 per cent.
The Senate committee at the same
time struck out the accompanying In
crease from 81 to 50 per linear foot In
the assessment for laying new water
mains.
The complete text Of the executive
hearings conducted by the Senate sub
committee reveals that Senator Robert
b. Howell, Republican, of Nebraska,
who was at one time water commits
sioner Of Omaha, went before the sub
committee and opposed raising the rates
to consumers of water and recommend
ed instead that part Of the water sys-
tenn needs be met by charging property
owners for fire protection.
The subcommittee took no action on
Senator Howell's new proposition, the
hearings indicating that the members
regarded 1t as legislation that would
be subject to point Of order They
did, however, follow his recommends
ton Of dropping from the bill the In
creased rates on consumers.
Howell States Position.
Senator Howell took the position that
a water plant performs two distinct
functions; 1, to supply water for con-
sumption, for which he felt the con-
sumner should pay; 2, to supply water
for FIRE purposes, for which, he believes,
property should pay.
Other members Of the subcommittee
debated with Senator Howell the wis
dom of attempting to allocate to prop
erty the cost of water for fire protec-
ton.
Senator Kendrick, Democrat, of Wy
oming, asked:
consumer, as you refer to him, and the
man receiving the fire protection, Is one
and the same person, do you not2"
mo, that Is not true" Senator Howell
argued. "A great building down in this
city ought to contribute 81 600 year
for fire protection, and it Is contributing
nothing; whereas, If you levied tax for
fire protection the consumer living IN
five-room house that cost $4,000 might,
as in the case Of the city OF Omaha,
have to pay go cents year"
els not the consumer in the big build
ing using an enormous amount OF water
for which he Is paying?" Senator Ken
drick came back. Probably he also has
a residence which is served by the city
water, and he pays on that. 1t would
Just be q charge Of the same amount
under another name. 1t seems to me-"
Senator Glass, Democrat, Of Virginia,
pointed out that there would be a great
variety Of factors to be considered under
such q proposal.
Vacant Lots Are Bought Up.
For instance" he said, there Is
man who has fireproof building. He
does not need any fire protection. Here
is a man who owns fire trap"
Senator Bingham suggested as a fur
ther complication, the question OF Wnat
would be done with regard to the own
ers of vacant lots.
Senator Phipps, Republican Of Colo
RADIO, and former chairman Of the Dis
trict subcommittee, pointed out that
owners of residences not only pay water
rent for the number Of rooms in the
house, but also for the water used IN
sprinkling lawns.
Nov you propose to tax him . sec
ond time for irrigating his lawn" said
Senator Phipps. Senator Howell dis
agreed with this saying he was contend
ing against raising the rates for irri-
eating lawns.
Senator Glass observed that water
ought to be the freest thing In the world
except air."
"Why do you not give consideration
to the Federal Government, with its
consumption Of water, which pays no
return whatever" Senator Phipps in
quired, and Senator Glass added that
the Federal Government has IRE pro-
lection for its public buildings.