Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir; we do that. That is, we sometimes make the initial expenditure on behalf of the garbage service from the streetcleaning service, and then we reimburse the street-cleaning appropriation by transfer of funds. And we not only do that in the shops, but Mr. SISSON (interposing). In other words, a tinner might be used on any job in any of these various duties which these departments perform? Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir. They are all combined under a single head; and when the horses are not needed for the collection of ashes-and very few of them are needed for the collection of ashes in the summer-they are put on the garbage service, because many more are required there. And there are certain seasons of the year in which we have more horses in this department than we need, and then we turn them over to the surface division, or the street department, and charge the street department appropriation with the cost. Mr. DAVIS. I see you have 217 white wing laborers, and pay them $2.48 a day? Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. DAVIS. Are those all colored people? Col. KUTZ. Practically all colored. Mr. SISSON. This per diem labor that you have-do you use the per diem labor generally throughout the year? What I mean by that is, that I see in this item a man who works as a blacksmith; does he usually work the 310 days? Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir; mechanics are employed practically continuously throughout the year-shop employees. The men in the streets are laid off when the weather conditions are such that we can not use them. Mr. SISSON. So you use your blacksmiths and auto mechanics and carpenters and harnessmakers pretty generally throughout the year? Col. KUTZ. We can use them almost continuously throughout the year. But when the weather is such that the white wings can not work, they are laid off; and they lose as much as 60 days, probably, in a normal winter; in some years more. Mr. DAVIS. These harness makers simply repair harness; they do not make any harness, do they? Col. KUTZ. They do not make any; no, sir. But in the four different departments-street cleaning, ash, trash, and garbage—we have about 900 employees. That is the largest single department, and it is the department that has the greatest number of animals. It is the largest of our municipally conducted activities. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STABLE. Mr. DAVIS. On page 76 you have a new item for construction and erection of a new stable on property owned by the District of Columbia, $60,000. Have you got that site already located? Col. KUTZ. We are proposing to use for that purpose a part of the site that was originally acquired for a municipal hospital near the present site of the Tuberculosis Hospital. Adjoining the southern boundary of this publicly owned tract a stable has recently been erected, and an ice plant has existed there for a number of years, both 23323-20 -9 of them being for commercial or industrial uses which are fixed; so that we feel that the erection of a stable on the adjoining Districtowned property will not be objectionable. That is, it will be merely a slight extension of an existing industrial area. And it is very centrally located with respect to a rapidly developing community. Our intention in connection with the garbage service is to collect by means of horse-drawn vehicles and then transfer from horsedrawn to motor-driven vehicles at a transfer station, so that we can use the motor-driven vehicle for the long haul to the railroad transfer station, which is on New Jersey Avenue SE. We waste a great deal of time and a great deal of money in transporting garbage by wagon for this long distance. Mr. SISSON. Well, how many horses will you keep in this stable? Col. KUTZ. This stable is intended to have a capacity of 75 horses. Mr. DAVIS. How many stables have you now? Col. KUTZ. We have two street-cleaning stables, one ash stable, and one trash stable; four altogether. Mr. DAVIS. Four stables? Col. KUTZ. But only two of them are municipally owned. When we took over the ash-collection service we took over the stable that the ash contractor was using. We did not buy it. It is a mere shell of a building, and is not a suitable place for housing horses, and should be replaced in the near future. Mr. SISSON. It is not necessarily a stable for horses alone; you expect to keep some feed in it, do you not? It does not necessarily mean only a stable for 75 horses, does it? Col. KUTZ. No, sir; it will be a storehouse for vehicles as well, and also a transfer station. Mr. DAVIS. Do you not think $60,000 is a good deal of money for housing 75 horses, especially when you consider the value of the land in addition? Col. KUTZ. That is based on the cost of a stable comparable to the one we would like to have in that same part of the District. Mr. DAVIS. What are you building it out of-marble? Col. KUTZ. No, sir; brick. Mr. BUCHANAN. What are you doing now with the horses that you expect to put in this stable? Col. KUTZ. We are renting a stable at Second and N Streets. Col. KUTZ. I do not think the rental is very much; but the stable is a disgrace to the District; it is not in any way suitable. Mr. Hendrick can tell you about it. Mr. HENDRICK. It is in very bad shape. It is about ready to fall down, and it is a regular fire trap. If you had a fire there, there would be no chance for the horses to get out; they would be burned to death. They could only get out through one narrow gate. Col. KUTZ. And it is badly located; it is not in the center of our collection district. Mr. SISSON. How far is it from the center of the use of your horses? Col. KUTZ. At least 2 miles. Mr. BUCHANAN. How far is it from that stable to the lot on which you speak of erecting one? Col. KUTZ. At least 2 miles. Mr. HENDRICK. More than that. Mr. SISSON. In other words, you would save an average of 4 miles a day of service there-2 miles each way? Col. KUTZ. I think so. Mr. DAVIS. What is the size of this stable? Col. KUTZ. It will be a 75-stall stable and occupy an area of 20,000 square feet. Mr. SISSON. I think for a stable for 75 horses it is too large; but you may have to store a good many vehicles in it which I do not know about, and there may be a good deal of store room there for forage, and that sort of thing. Col. KUTZ. We are contemplating only a one-story structure. The rest of the site will be used for storage of wagons, etc. Mr. BUCHANAN. Do the commissioners in passing on such a project as this take into consideration the importance of not constructing any more buildings than are absolutely necessary until the cost of material and labor, etc., goes down? Do they take that into consideration? Col. KUTZ. Yes; we feel that it is a wise policy to postpone projects that are not urgently needed. But this is an item that we believe is justified notwithstanding the present high cost of construction. Mr. DAVIS. Could not that be constructed of concrete cheaper than of brick? Col. KUTZ. It depends on whether we use the bricks made at Occoquan or buy bricks. If we have to buy bricks at the present price, which is $21 a thousand, the concrete building will be cheaper. The price at which we are using the Occoquan brick is about $12 a thousand; and at that price brick is cheaper than concrete. It may be that it should be built of concrete, because there is such a demand for the Occoquan brick for the building of schoolhouses that we can not supply the demand. DISPOSAL OF CITY REFUSE. Mr. DAVIS. If that is all about the stable, the next is the disposal of city refuse, on page 76. And I notice down below the middle of the page that you have stricken out a lot of the language there, beginning" Provided, That any proceeds received from the disposal of city refuse or garbage shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the United States and the District of Columbia in equal parts." Why do you want that stricken out? Col. KUTZ. I think that is a mistake. We intended to strike out the second proviso there, which repeals section 9 of the act of May 6, 1918; but I did not know of any intention to strike out the first proviso. In fact, the commissioners have no intention of suggesting any other disposition of those moneys. Mr. DAVIS. I thought that was quite an important item when we put it in there. Col. KUTZ. I think it is a typographical error; and that it is only the second proviso that should be stricken out. Mr. DAVIS. I think we had better leave that as it is. Col. KUTZ. Well, there is no need for the second part, is there? Mr. DAVIS. Beginning with "Provided further " Col. KUTZ. Yes; that section 9 is repealed; that is an accomplished fact. Mr. DAVIS. Yes; then down to that second proviso we will leave that omitted language in there. RELIEF ASKED FOR CONTRACTORS IN THE HANDLING OF NIGHT SOIL AND DEAD ANIMALS. Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir. This appropriation covers five different services the collection and disposal of garbage, the collection and disposal of ashes, the collection and disposal of miscellaneous trash, the collection and disposal of dead animals, and the collection and disposal of night soil. The first three activities are now being performed by the District itself with its own employees; the last two are being performed under contract. Mr. DAVIS. Who are the contractors? Col. KUTZ. Mr. Warren Stutler is the contractor for the collection and disposal of night soil, and Mr. Robert E. Mann is the contractor for the collection and disposal of dead animals. Mr. DAVIS. When does that contract expire? Col. KUTZ. Mr. Stutler's contract covers a five-year period beginning July 1, 1918, and running to June 30, 1923; and the contract for dead animals covers the same period. Both of these contractors have petitioned the commissioners for relief. These contracts not only date from the 1st of July, 1918, but they were based on prices submitted a year before that. In other words, the commissioners advertised in the spring of 1917 for bids for these services, to cover a period beginning a year hence. We have taken no steps as yet to ask Congress to grant relief to these two contractors, because we felt that we could not properly do so until 1 their losses had been more fully determined. But that they are suffering losses I think is evident to anyone who considers the conditions that existed in 1917 and the conditions existing to-day. The contract for the collection and disposal of night soil amounts to $17,500 a year, and I think the contractor is suffering a loss, even if he makes no allowances whatever for his own services in connection with the work of the contract. Mr. DAVIS. How much of a loss? Col. KUTZ. That is rather difficult to say; I would not like to say, Mr. Chairman. In the case of the other contractor, for the collection and disposal of dead animals, we asked the auditor to examine his books and ascertain as nearly as he could the state of his contract, so that we might have information for presentation to Congress at the appropriate time. Mr. BUCHANAN. About how high will that contract run? Col. KUTZ. About $3,000 a year; of course, that is a comparatively small one. The other is more important. This committee gave relief to the ash collector a year or so ago, on the principle of assuming responsibility for half of his approximate loss; and I think that if these two contractors are to be granted relief it might well be granted on a similar basis. Mr. SISSON. Are they asking for relief now? Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir; they have both written to the commissioners. I have a letter of recent date from Mr. Stutler which I would be glad to have incorporated in the record. Mr. DAVIS. Perhaps you had better incorporate it in the record. Col. C. W. KUTZ, WASHINGTON, D. C., December 3, 1920. Commissioner, District of Columbia. DEAR SIR: I respectfully invite your attention to the increased cost, due to war prices, to perform my contract with the District for the collection and disposal of night soil for the five-year period, beginning July 1, 1918, and ending July 1, 1923, for the price of $17,500 per annum. This contract was entered into September 25, 1917, the same time that the James A. Bean ash contract was made, which was for a period of one year, and I submit the matter at this time with the hope that some action may be taken during the hearings on the District of Columbia appropriation bill which will authorize the commissioners to readjust this contract and thereby save me from the loss that I have and will sustain during the life of the contract. When I made this contract with the District I was paying the following prices for the same work under a former contract: Labor, $16 per week, now $32. Barrels, $1 apiece, now $3. Gas, 15 cents per gallon, now 31 cents. Truck-repair work, 75 cents per hour, now $1.25. Tug hire, $9 per trip, now $20. Oil, 50 cents per gallon, now $1. The trucks purchased to perform the contract cost me $8,000 and had to be replaced at the expiration of the second year. My loss for the first year was, in round numbers, $1,500, and for the second year $2,500, the increased amount being principally due to repair of trucks during the second year. At the present time, with new trucks, I am losing on an average of $125 per Laonth, and notwithstanding the loss that I have sustained I have rendered the service, I believe, to the full satisfaction of the street cleaning division, which comes under your supervision. The figures herewith submitted do not include anything for my time, which is most all given to the supervision of the work of this contract. May I hope that the honorable commissioners and the House committee having in charge the District bill may find some way to adjust this matter so I will not have to carry this loss, which I figure will be at least $2,000 per annum during the life of the contract? Very respectfully, WARNER STUTLER, Contractor. Mr. DAVIS. He does not ask to be relieved from the contract, does he? Col. KUTZ. Well, I think he would be glad to be relieved if the contract can not be adjusted. In the case of the ash contract, the commissioners were authorized to make an adjustment, and a certain limitation was placed on their power to adjust. Mr. DAVIS. Well, I understand you cut the loss in two? Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir; we estimated his loss at $40,000, and Congress authorized a settlement at not exceeding $20,000. He claimed a loss of $60,000. I thought it would be $40,000. Mr. DAVIS. Well, did you not investigate that? Col. KUTZ. We did; we had the auditor make an examination of his books. But it was very difficult to secure results that were reliable because in connection with his District of Columbia contract he conducted a general livery and hauling business, and the two were so woven together and his books were so badly kept that we could not be certain of our result. |