The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-08-10
PLANS FOR PAYMENT.
An Argument Against Bonds
for Sewers.
EXPERIENCE OF OTHER CITIES.
Benezette Williams Considers the Local
Improvement District Fund
the Best System.

Mr.. Benezette Williams accompanies his
report to the board Of public works with a
reply TO request for information as to
the usual practice with regard to payment
for sewers in large cities. Mr. Williams
letter contains considerable information
on the subject. He says:
At the special request Of the board the follow
ing statement regarding the manner of progid
ing funds for building sewers is made:
In raising money for building sewers it has
generally been found most feasible ana salts
factory 70 do so by special assessment agaius,
the property directly benefited. Occasionally
there ara cases which have come to my kncwl
edge whore cities build sewers by the issue oil
bonds. These cases, however, are rare, and still
more rare 10 ii for cities to do 1t out OF general
fund appropriation. Chicago began by issuing
bonds, and continued the work for many years
by yearly appropriations but within few years
this practice has been given up and the CITY now
relies wholly on special assessments for the ex-
tension OF sewers So that in this state the
special assessment method may be said to bs
practically universal
This has been found 20 be the most eatsfac-
factory method for several reasons.
First-The property benefited bears the ex-
pense Of its Improvement more equitsbly than
In any other way. vacant lot is benefited as
much or more than an improved one by the
construction of a sewerage system, aud by the
system of special assessments as generally
applied IL has TO bear an equal share of the
expense OF sewerage with an improved one. By
a system OF general taxation the improved lot
pays far out Of proportion 70 its benefits, while
q vacant one pays too little.
second-lf built from general fund there 10
always a strife as to where the small amount OF
money at the command of the city shall be
spent: and the amount being generally made
Ff.
territory as possible and to satisfy as many con-
hicting interests as can be done, is apt TO lead
TO se.ers being built in a fragmentary manner
and of insufficient size, without reference to
any well-digested general plan.
Third-Nith the limitations with reference to
incurring debt and the laying OF taxes usually
thrown about municipalities by the modern
state constitution, there are few cities that can
raise sufficient revenue from general sources TO
meet other necessary municipal expenses, and
build sewers in an adequate manner rapidly
as the demand therefor rises
Allthese reasons conspire to make the special
assessment method preferable in every case,
and to render it absolutely obligatory in a largo
majority OF cases.
To apply the special assessment method to
the construction OF q sewerage system In an
equitable manner requires good general I'M
derstanding Of the system itself, its cost, scope
and what 1t is to accomplish.
1t 10 evident that property that is in no wise
affected directly or indirectly by the construc-
tion of a particular sewer is not benefited
thereby, and should not be assessed to pay its
cost. But if, though not directly brought in
contact with the sewer, it is indirectly, by rea-
son OF ultimately having TO drain through the
sewer, the property is benefited to that extent,
and should contribute proper share OF the cost
OF construction.
In harmony with this, in beginning the con-
structlon OF a sewerage system for special dis
trict, the boundaries of which have been deter
mined, property outside of the district should
not be assessed, but all within 1t should be 10
pay for the main outfall sewer, and in like man.
ner sab-mains should be assessed against the
territory drained by them. ,
To illustrate, if nothing had been done to-
ward the drainage of the Lake Union district as
laid out, and the work were TO be done BY
special assessment, but in instalmeuts, the first
thing would be to determine the cost OF the tun-
nel-and as 1t IL being built to remove the sew
age equally of all parts OF the distrct-to spread
its cost assessment uniformity over the
whole district
The same reasoning would apply TO one of the
main sewers leading TO the tunnel. except that
as these main sewers are laid in streets aud are
accessible to abutting property, their cost
should be spread uniforrnally over the whole
district. The abutting property should be
assessed its full pro rata OF the entire cost OF the
completed system aud tho difference between
the amount of this assessment and the cost of
the main should be spread over the remaining
portion of the district
There are two ways of arriving at substantial
justice In such cases. II the entire cost of n
system for certain district has been carefully
ascertained, and also the cost OF the part of the
system to be built, the problem is very simple
II consists of ascertaning what the pro rata rate
oil the entire system Is and OF applying this rate
20 the property abutting upon the sewers to be
built, the amout thus obtained being taken
from the total amount OF the assessment. the
difference being spread over the remaining Dor.
tions OF the district.
IL the entire cost Of system for certain dis
trict has not, or cannot, be ascertained. owing
TO the plans being incomplete, the closest an
Proclamation to justice can be ascertained by
aseertaining the average cost per foot front of
the minimum sized sewer to be used in the svs-
ten-in this case an eieht-inch sewer-and by
applying this rate to all the property AUDITING
on the sewers To be assessed for; the differences
between the sum thus obtained and the total
amount OF the assessment being spread over the
entire district including the abutting propertv
have assumed that the assessments would he
made by frontage, which is usually the gimplest
ana most satisfactory way. II such is taken as
the standards the manner OF, dealing with corner
lots where sewers are TO be built on both the
side and the front OF the lot presents some cues
tions for consideration. Il would obviously not
be iair to assess corner on both side and 'front.'
while on the other hand il would not be eauit-
able, II the lot is deep long on one street, not
t. assess 1t higher than inside lot of the same
dimensions. To arrive at substantial Justice it
is well IN such a case after assessing the lot in
fuu on It's narrow frontage to allow saw 100
feet on It's long frontage To pass without an adj
ditionI assessment, but 10 amply the regular
rate to the long frontage in excess OF 100 feet.
That is, corner lots should be assessed in full on
their narrow front aud in full on their long
front in excess Of 100 feet
AS special cases frequently modify general
ones, ii is not intended that 100 feet lie always
the proper part OF the side frontage to be ex-
oluded. sometimes il should be more and some
times less, according TO the purposes 10 which
the property is likely to be put
such questions must always be settled by
those charged with making the assessment, &C
cording TO their best Judgment So with refer
ence to many other questions that arise
SAW THE SEA LIONS.