above sea level and the highest point is 13 feet about sea level, and you can drill down to 18 feet and hit fresh water.

Senator RANDOLPH. Well, then, your problem is compounded, is it not, with reference to sewage from the standpoint of the need, not for septic tanks of yesterday, but for sewers and the most modern treatment plants of today?

Mr. REESE. Our problem is very important, because we are indirectly contaminating our own drinking water with the utilization of septic tanks, because germs breed in the septic tanks and are bound to get into the fresh water. We have an abundance of water at the present time, but it has been projected that if we continue the way we are we will contaminate our drinking water, that we will not be able to use it from this particular source or wells source after the year, I think, of 1980, if we continue the use of septic tanks.

Senator Moss. I just want to clarify this question. Do you say that 65 percent of the city now has sewers?

Mr. REESE. Sanitary sewers.

Senator Moss. 65 percent of the city has sanitary sewers?
Mr. REESE. Yes.

Senator Moss. And you have 35 percent that is still using septic tanks or other means of disposal?

Mr. REESE. That is right.

Senator Moss. And the population of Miami now is what?
Mr. REESE. 300,000 people.

Senator Moss. Thank you. That would be roughly 100,000 people who were still using septic tanks or other means of disposal of their sewage?

Mr. REESE. Yes; and we are also showing a growth of 12,000 people a year in the city proper at the present time.

Senator RANDOLPH. Senator Moss and Senator Fong, perhaps the newer cities of the country are able to be better sewered than the older cities of the country. And we would classify Miami as a newer city. Mr. REESE. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. Perhaps your rate of progress has been more rapid than in certain other older cities of the country. It seems to me that we have had testimony before us as to that conclusion in our hearings in the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.

Mr. REESE. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. And I want to bring out here--not indicating that you have not gone far enough and fast enough, but that as a new city, a relatively new city, you have seen the need for this type of, let us say, health insurance.

Mr. REESE. It is almost a question of absolute survival to have fresh water in southern Florida, and we cannot contaminate it with sewage. Senator RANDOLPH. Are your sanitary sewers separated from your storm sewers?

Mr. REESE. Definitely, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH. In all instances?

Mr. REESE. Yes, sir; with one correction-we have one piece of sewer pipe that has not been converted as yet, but it is to be converted. The job is to be finished in January on the conversion of pulling the storm sewer out of the sanitary sewer. All others have been done.

NW. First Avenue at 23d Street-After completion of project.

Looking south on NW. First Avenue from just south of NW. 23d Street-Before implementations of public works program.

Senator FONG. You say that you have a population of 300,000 now? Mr. REESE. Yes, sir; in the city of Miami.

Senator FONG. What is your unemployment rate in the city?

Mr. REESE. Our unemployment rate at the present time is just under 8 percent.

Senator FONG. How does it compare with the State of Florida then? Mr. REESE. I think if I remember correctly that the State of Florida's unemployment rate is 6 percent.

Senator FONG. So that you have approximately 24,000 people unemployed. How many people have you unemployed in the city, approximately?

Mr. REESE. At the present time I would say around 25,000, based on the State unemployment figures.

Senator FONG. So that in the accelerated public works program, by the expenditure of approximately $1 million, you have actually put about 83 persons to work for a year, is that correct?

Mr. REESE. Directly, yes, sir.

Senator FONG. If you divide the man-days it approximates about 83-not talking about the indirect person who would be benefited. Mr. REESE. That is correct.

Senator FONG. And that might be 1.5 or 1.6 percent.

Mr. REESE. Also, Senator, by the completion of these libraries we create permanent jobs; at the Coconut Grove Library, we have added three people as fulltime employees. At the Allapattah Library we added two people; and the Grapeland Heights Library will add five

people. Now these are full-time new employees in the area that the completed structures have afforded.

Senator RANDOLPH. They are permanent employees?

Mr. REESE. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. Following the construction by the part-time workers and those who are unemployed?

Mr. REESE. Yes, sir; so that these projects give a continuous benefit of employment.

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes.

Senator FONG. You have 24,000 people unemployed. The expenditures did not even give you a 1-percent decrease in the unemployed people. If you were to decrease it by 1 percent, it would be 240 people; Would it not?

Mr. REESE. Also if we did not have these jobs we would have had that added unemployment impact.

Senator FONG. I am not arguing with you. I am just trying to bring out the picture as to how much of the unemployment problem we are now cutting into by the accelerated public works program. Mr. REESE. Sir, these projects are completed.

Senator FONG. They have been completed?

Mr. REESE. Yes.

Senator FONG. And you say that with the expenditure of $1 million, in round numbers, by the Federal Government, we have not been able to dissipate the unemployment rate by even 1 percent of the city's total number of unemployed.

Senator RANDOLPH. I want to point out, Senator Fong, and I am sure that you are aware of this fact, that in the request of the late President, Mr. Kennedy, with reference to the need for a public works program he used the expression, "to become better places to live and work," and we must not overlook this fact. And that applies to Miami, too.

Mr. REESE. I would like to bring to the Senator's attention that I do not think that it can be measured in terms of 1, 2, or 10 public works programs solving the unemployment problem, but I feel that this program is a very strong supporting service to assist in helping to solve it. Again, coming back to the city of Miami, in certain areas where we put in sanitary sewage it indirectly caused other building to take effect. Other activities to follow.

Senator FONG. I am not arguing with you on the good things that will come out of the program. I am just saying how much are we solving the unemployment problem-how much are we dissipating it. It seems to me that this program is not doing too much percentagewise from the standpoint of cutting down the unemployment problem. It does give us a lot of very fine construction which is of great benefit to the people. Such as the sewage systems which are indispensable to the health of the community, but in the overall picture it seems that is not going to be the answer, although it is a help in a small way— it helps to alleviate some problems, but to a very, very small extent. The great problem that we have confronting us, that is confronting the Nation today, is unemployment.

Mr. REESE. I do not think that there is any one answer for the unemployment problem, sir.

Senator FONG. I am trying to bring out that point as to how far the money has gone and what we really have to do to tackle this big question of unemployment. It seems that there must be much more that has to be done to try to solve it.

Mr. REESE. Yes, sir, but I feel that this is one of the vital elements in the overall program.

I brought along some charts that to me mean something, consisting of the accumulative figures of 1960 to 1964 and up to the present period, pertaining to construction evaluation in the city. Now, this is based on building permits, on dollars. Private enterprise comes into our building department to get a building permit. And they estimate the finished structures to represent so many dollars. Throughout the growth of the city of Miami the financial pattern was built on a growth of about $35,000 a year added to the tax rolls. It is now down and it has been for the last 3 years at the rate of about $18 million. And when I say $18 million it takes a lot of sharp pencil work to try to evaluate where that growth exists.

We are a community that has been built on tourism. We are also a community that represents a large number of the building trades, and a large part of the people who participate in the building industry. This is a large part of our total industrial activity. The community is growing. The people are moving in there. It has to be kept up to a given standard.

So with the assistance through the accelerated public works program, as well as local effort, we are going to maintain and help to alleviate some of the hardships that would be brought about if we did not have the assistance of this program.

I can pass this around to the committee, if you would like to review it, but I think it is very elementary and very self-explanatory as to the trend in the building industry and Florida.

Senator FONG. Do you have many older people there?

Mr. REESE. Presently in the city of Miami it is less than the national average for elderly people.

Senator FONG. What is your tax rate?

Mr. REESE. The tax rate in the city of Miami was 20.1 mills last year, and this year we were able to reduce it to 18.5 mills. If you want to transpose the mills into dollars it represents approximately $180 per $1,000.

Senator RANDOLPH. How does that compare with Jacksonville? Mr. REESE. Senator, I am under the impression that we are less than Jacksonville, but each community has its own method of financing. It is very difficult to make a mathematical comparison

of them.

Senator RANDOLPH. How about Tampa?

Mr. REESE. The city of Miami is less than Tampa-less than Jacksonville, but now then, in addition to the city taxes you have the county taxes that apply, and that is where I cannot make a true comparison for you.

Senator FONG. The other day one of the witnesses stated that he had a very high tax rate of over $10 per $100. It developed that the assessed value of the land was taken at 10 percent. So that figure does not mean much. So if I ask you now as to how do you assess your land for tax purposes, would you say $180 per $1,000