RATE OF TAXATION. (See p. 6.) Mr. DONOVAN. I can now answer your question as to the rate of taxation. To raise, approximately, $16,000,000 would require a tax rate of $2.29 plus on the estimated real estate assessment for 1922, and the estimated assessment of tangible personal property for the same year. Mr. BUCHANAN. Please put down there the distinction between tangible and intangible property. TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY. DESCRIPTION. 1. Goods, wares, and merchandise, or any other stock in trade, at 2. Fixtures, implements, tools, machinery, instruments, office furniture, supplies, etc., 3. Household and other belongings not held for sale (return only amount above), at 4. Horses, mules, cattle, swine, sheep, dogs, poultry, and live stock of all kinds, 5. Automobiles, locomotives, cars, carriages, wagons, carts, and vehicles of every description, 6. Harness, robes, blankets, stable and automobile supplies of all kinds, 7. Vessels, ships, boats, and other water craft, INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY. (Taxable at three-tenths of 1 per cent, based on fair cash value.) 1. Moneys in possession, 2. Moneys in banks and trust companies subject to check, 3. Savings deposits in banks, trust companies, and building associations, not subject to check, in excess of $500, 4. Other credits (including moneys loaned, invested, and bills receivable), (a) Notes (including certificates of indebtedness, temporary receipts, interim certificates), (b) Mortgages (deeds of trust, or loans secured on real estate), (c) Chattel mortgages, or loans secured on personal property, 5. Stocks, 6. Bonds, Mr. DONOVAN. In fixing the tax rate at $2.29 I am allowing $1,000,000 for collections from the tax on intangible property; $1,250,000 from gross earnings of public utilities, banks, etc.; and $1,385,000 from miscellaneous sources, such as licenses, insurance taxes, etc. These three items make a total of $3,635,000, leaving $12,365,000 to be raised on real estate and tangible personal property to make up the $16,000,000 necessary to meet the District's proportion of 60 per cent of $27,000,000 of appropriations. The estimated assessed value of real estate for the fiscal year 1922 is $461,660,000 and the estimated assessed value of tangible personal property during that year is $77,000,000. On the basis of the total of these two assessed values it would require a tax rate of $2.29 plus to produce sufficient revenues to meet the District's proportion of 60 per cent of appropriations totaling $27,000,000. Mr. BUCHANAN. I wanted the difference between the tangible and intangible property. Mr. DONOVAN. Intangible property consists of stocks, money in banks, credits, choses in action, etc., on which the law taxes three tenths of 1 per cent; and tangible property includes automobiles, household furnishings, etc. Mr. BUCHANAN. How much on deed of trust notes? Mr. DONOVAN. That would come under intangible property. Mr. SISSON. It includes all choses in action? Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BUCHANAN. Have you got any valuation for the intangible property of the District? Mr. DONOVAN. The estimated assessed value for 1922 is $343,300,000. Mr. BUCHANAN. Very nearly as much as the real estate? Mr. DONOVAN. But intangible property only pays a tax of threetenths of 1 per cent. Mr. DAVIS. What was the rate that you used in your estimate of the amount that could be raised from the valuation of this realty? Mr. DONOVAN. $1.95 for the present fiscal year. Mr. BUCHANAN. Now, Mr. Commissioner, will you prepare and put in the record when you read the hearings over a statement to make the intangible property bear its just proportion; assuming you are raising $16,000,000 for the District, put a rate on the intangible property, and on the real estate, and on the personal property, and show the proportion of their assessed valuation in order to raise the $16,000,000. In other words, the intangible property must bear its just proportion under this question, as well as the real estate and personal property. Commissioner HENDRICK. Using $1.50 for the purpose of determining the increase on real estate Mr. BUCHANAN (interposing). No; you have an assessed valuation of so many dollars on real estate, and so many dollars on personal property, and so many dollars on intangible property. Now put in, in answer to this question, the rate and share of each, all based on an equitable valuation. Mr. DONOVAN. Yes; I did not quite catch the drift of your statement when you first made it. I will do that, Mr. Buchanan, and insert it in the record. Assuming that intangible personal property should bear a like rate of tax as real estate and tangible personal property, the information requested by Mr. Buchanan is presented in the following form: Total estimated assessment of real estate for the fiscal year 1922 $461, 660,000 77, 000, 000 Total estimated valuation of intangible personal property for the fiscal year 1922.. 343, 300,000 Grand total..... 881, 960, 000 On the basis of appropriations for all purposes for the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 1922, totaling $27,000,000, 60 per cent thereof payable by the District of Columbia, would amount to $16,200,000. Of this sum approximately $1,250,000 will be raised from the tax on gross earnings of public utilities, etc., and $1,385,000 from miscellaneous sources, leaving $13,565,000 to be derived from taxes on real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property. Assuming a principal of $881,960,000, the total estimated assessments of the three properties named, real estate would have to produce 52.3448 per cent of this amount; tangible personal property, 8.7305 per cent; intangible personal property, 38.9247 per cent. On this basis the amount to be collected on real estate would be $7,100,572; on tangible personal property, $1,184,292: and on intangible personal property, $5,280,136; the three making up the total of $13,556,000 referred to. For the fiscal year 1921 the rate of tax on real estate is $1.95 per $100; on tangible personal property, $1.95 per $100, and on intangible personal property, three-tenths of 1 per cent, or $0.30 per $100. Using as a principal sum the $881,960,000, and applying a $1.95 rate, the revenue produced on this basis would amount to $17,198,220, or $3,633,220 more than required by the District to meet 60 per cent of total appropriations of $27,000,000. Using appropriations totaling $27,000,000, the District paying 60 per cent, or $16,200,000, and applying a similar tax rate on intangible personal property as on real estate and tangible personal property, on the basis of the estimated total assessments for all three purposes, a tax rate of $1.54 during the fiscal year 1922 would produce revenue amounting to $13,582,184, or an amount slightly in excess of the $13,565,000 required. Mr. SISSON. I wish you would also put in the record following that, how much money would be raised on the real and personal property if the intangible personal property bore the same rate? Commissioner HENDRICK. That would show up as a part of this statement. Mr. SISSON. At the present rate of taxation Mr. Buchanan wanted to raise the $16,000,000, less the sum of this intangible personal property. Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes; without an increase of taxation. Mr. SISSON. That is, you would reduce the rate of taxation. I want to know how much money would be raised if you taxed the real estate and the visible personal property and the intangible personal property-that is, chooses in action, and so on, at the present rate that you tax the real estate. Mr. DAVIS. In other words, tax all property alike? Mr. SISSON. Yes. Mr. CRAMTON. How long has your present secretary been with the commission? Col. KUTZ. He has been in the service 30 years; he has been secretary about two years. Mr. CRAMTON. Before that assistant secretary? Col. KUTZ. No, prior to that he was chief clerk of the Engineer Department. Mr. CRAMTON. He has then a general experience in this work, and in the city business? Col. KUTZ. A very wide experience. VETERINARY SURGEON. Mr. DAVIS. I notice you have an increase of salary for your veterinary surgeon of from $1,400 to $1,600? Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. BUCHANAN. Does that take all his time? Col. KUTZ. No, sir; but he has a veterinary hospital, and provides hospital facilities for the sick horses of the District requiring it, without additional compensation. Mr. DAVIS. On the question of the salaries, I will say, Mr. Commissioner, that we go over all these very hastily, and the committee as a whole will decide on some basis to fix all of them; hence we will pay little attention to the salaries here now, after your general statement to begin on. PURCHASING DIVISION. On page 4, under "Purchasing division" I notice you have "specification clerk;" that is a new place. What are the duties of that place? Commissioner HENDRICK. The duties of this clerk would be to make a study of and yearly revise the general supplies schedule; keeping them abreast with the changes in practices necessary to remove the obsolete, and insert new descriptions of supplies and materials which are constantly changing, and to include in the schedule such descriptions as to avoid possibility of doubt as to what is desired. Departments know what they want in the way of supplies, but their requests, therefore, are often ambiguous; it is necessary that they be whipped into shape, so that all who may be requested to bid place the same interpretation thereon. One to do this must have knowledge of many lines of business and thorough knowledge of trade practices. It would also be the duty of this employee to have general supervision over the scheduling of bids and to make initial recommendations relative to awards, executive functions for the District government analogous to those performed by the General Supply Committee, of 12 or more employees, of the Federal Government. Mr. DAVIS. What have you done heretofore, in the absence of that man? Commissioner HENDRICK. Somebody else has done the work. Mr. DAVIS. Now you want to concentrate that in one individual and call him "Specification clerk." Commissioner HENDRICK. Yes, sir. Mr. BUCHANAN. As to the duties of this specification clerk, suppose the head of a division would want certain articles, would he have the discretion to refuse them if he did not think they were necessary? Commissioner HENDRICK. The head of a division? Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes, or his deputy, or purchasing officer, who might send an order that he wanted a certain thing; would he have any authority to refuse to buy that? Commissioner HENDRICK. Oh, he would not buy them; he would make up the specifications. Mr. BUCHANAN. He would O. K. them? Commissioner HENDRICK. He is a detail clerk for the purchasing officer. Col. KUTZ. I think I understand the purpose of your question. Mr. BUCHANAN. Is he the supervisor over the purchasing division? Col. KUTZ. Yes, within certain limits the purchasing officer, and his deputy as well. That is, if they feel that the requisition of some head of a division represents extravagance or uneconomy by reason of the rigidity of the specifications, he brings the matter to the attention of the head of the division. Mr. BUCHANAN. He brings it to the attention of the department, and the purchasing officer brings it to the commissioners? Col. KUTZ. Yes; he has not the authority to refuse, but he holds it up until he can get a decision. Mr. BUCHANAN. In other words, he is merely an assistant to the purchasing officer an assistant to the purchasing officer to look 23323-20 -2 over these things, and talk somewhat about them and criticize them or commend them as the facts may justify? Col. KUTZ. Yes; they have not the power to substitute their judgment for the judgment of any department as to the necessity for any articles. Mr. DAVIS. The amount you had last year under this division was $40,490; has that all been expended? Commissioner HENDRICK. For salaries; yes, sir. Mr. DAVIS. You ask this year for $52,090; how much of that is composed of increases of salaries? Commissioner HENDRICK. All except the $2,000. Commissioner HENDRICK. Yes, sir. Mr. DAVIS. There are no additional clerks except that? Col. KUTZ. No, sir; considering only the personnel, the salary increases average 22.2 per cent in that office. Mr. DAVIS. Just one additional clerk, a "specification clerk," and the balance, the difference between $40,490 and $52,090, is increases of salaries? Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir. BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION, ZONING SYSTEM. (See p. 79.) Mr. DAVIS. In the building inspection division, how many additional clerks have you there? Col. KUTZ. Three additional employees asked for there; one additional assistant building inspector, one additional clerk, and one draftsman. Two of those employees are, in our judgment, needed to carry out and administer the zoning law for the District of Columbia. Mr. DAVIS. Will you explain for this record what you mean by the zoning system? Col. KUTZ. On March 1 last year Congress passed an act creating a zoning commission. The personnel of that commission is made up of the three commissioners of the District of Columbia, the officer in charge of public buildings and grounds, Col. Ridley; and the Superintendent of the Capitol Building and Grounds, Mr. Elliott Woods. This commission of five was directed to make an investigation and divide the District of Columbia into building zones, regulating the use that could be made of buildings hereafter erected, the height to which they could be raised, and the area of the lot that they could occupy. The legislation is very similar to legislation that has been enacted in many other cities of the country. New York City was zoned in 1916; St. Louis was zoned in 1918; Portland, Oreg., was zoned in 1919; and there are 30 or more large cities that have been zoned or are being zoned. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Detroit are now being zoned, and so is Cleveland. This commission was required to do its work in a period of six months, and there was an appropriation of $5,000 made for the purpose of that work. In addition we were authorized to use the District of Columbia employees. We called on the District employees and had 12 or 15 of them engaged during a period of four or five months this summer. The regulations were concluded and promulgated under date of August 30, and they are now in force, and every new building that is erected must comply with the zoning regu |