990133

65 B Rebate on Water Rates N F Beverly Unfavorable L B Steeks J P Suneney

Seattle Dec 11th 1893 To the Honorable board of Alderman. Gentlemen Please allow me to State to you for you consideration and correction what I deem to be an erroneous construction by the Supt of the Water Works upon a section clause in the City ordinance regulating the use of City water etc. Among other things the ordinance says for family use. Eight persons or less. (Meaning of course in the same house and using water from the same service) One dollar per month and for each person over eight ten cents. At the time this ordinance was passed there was another clause in the same ordinance requiring each person who owned more than one house to put in separate services for each house. and having two small two storey houses both on the same lot and both supplied by one water service. I was obliged to put in separate services to each house at a cost of about $40.00, and with the express understanding that I would not be charged only for the number of persons using water from the same service I went to work and put water upstairs in both

my houses so I could rent them to better advantage whereupon the Supt charged me one dollar extra for the water upstairs in each house thereby taking just one fifth of the my rents. and this because each house was supplied by two separate familys Now why should a man be charged twice as much for five persons occupying the same house and using water from the same service, as he would be for eight persons occupying the same house and using water from the same service simply because in the one case those occupying one room are known by the name Jones, and those occupying another room in the same house are known by the name of Brown, and in the other case all answer to the same name. Now I have not had a many as eight persons in either of my houses for more that a year past, but have been obliged to pay on each house the full rate for 18 persons. Now in all candure I do think that this sort of thing should not be allowed to go any longer, and I do think that I should be allowed a rebate on my water rent equal to the amount erronously collected. which is $16.00 being $2.00 per month (one dollar each house)

from may first 1893 to Jany first 1894 To all of which I respectfully ask your Earliest consideration Yours Respectfully N F Beverly

Hotel Diller}