Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-11-26
---=t--
COST or NEW SEHERS.
All Properties are Taxed Alike for City
Sewer Advantages--The Apparent In
equality Explained.

All Properties are Taxed Alike for city
Sewer Advantages Apparent In
equality Explained.
The officials of the Street and Sewer De-
partment have been seen in regard to,
the statements made Saturday implying
that the board is making a profit on its
new sewerage engineering work now being
prosecuted in various parts of the city.
4. Chalkley Hatton, engineer in charge
OF sewers, ascrlbes the statements to O mis-
conception of the facts in the case and of
the assessment as it must be necessarily
made IN order to meet the costs of the
work.
The cost of the undertaking is based
upon most careful calculation. The
| assessment on properties has been made
out exactly according to law. The depart
ment. has no fear whatever of any legal
question arising. The misconception in
certain directions cannot be laid against
the Legislature nor to the press, for the
question was fully ventilated ut the time
the law was pending, and every one had 4.
time to read the papers and inform them !
selves upon ii.
A calculation was made of the entire
cost OF the system. Then two-iifths of that
cost were apportioned to the approprin-
tion OF the Board of Directors OF the Street
and Sewer Department. The area and
frontage of the properties in an entira dis
trict were calculated and the remaining
three-liiths were apportioned to Ihoss
properties equally. In that calculation it
was found that in order to meet property
owners three-iifths cost q charge oi one
cent per square foot in area and 10 cents a
foot frontage would cover the total cost.
In illustration the outlet Of CleiArnts
run sewer at Beech street, will cost s37.74
per lineal foot frontage, three-iitths of
which if apportioned to abutting proper
ties would be about S2l The lateral
branch, for instance, on Maryland avenue
would cost 81 per liheal foot. which ii ap-
psortioned to abutting properties would 6e
Si.2u per foot Hence II smanifest, added
MIR. Hatton, il this system were adhered
to- as suggested in Saturdays Ncigs, the
property owner ON Beech street sewer
would have to pay the difference between
81 and Sl.2O in order that the property
owner on Maryland avenue might obtain
an outlet for his sewage, or in other
words gain opportunity Tor participating
i'll the advantages Of the new city sewerage
system.
The same might be said of Market street
sewer, which was quoted this morning as
costing Sl.S0 per foot. 1t empties into q
sewer which cost S9.43 per foot. Hence it
is reasonable to suppose that the Market
street owners of abuitng properly should
pay Their proportionatc share for carrying
their sewage entirely beyond the proper
ties Of those below them
The claim put in this morning
y II general sense equivalent to
the idea that property whose frontage
abuts on some small or obscure
lateral branch should not pay as much
for sewer privileges as She property
abutting on the main sewer. Now the law
is that all pay an equable share of the
total cost of the work ON the property as
scssment And this whether they enter
or use the sewer or not. 4 vacant lot is
chargeable under the assessment lust as
much as property in active use Of sewer
advantages. The property is benefited TO
the extent of the sewer construction.
In regard to the story Of the Street ans
Sewer Department making profit on any
or all of the sewerage system, tnat is i'm
possible, as the total cost of the work is
exactly plotted out on each property and
the figures based upon the charges author
lied by law.
As an instance in point to rcfute tho
assertion that the department is making
profit on the assessment, it may be stated
that the Clements run sewer. which will
cost from SIS to 50 per foot, will not secure
more than IS to $3.50 per foot on assess
ment and the Jackson and Van Buren,
street sewer, which costs about S. will not
secure probably more than from $3.50 to
81 per foot assessment. Of the sewer work
accomplished this season, these latter two
cost from S35,000 to $4,000.
The system of assessment as adopted and
which equally taxes all properties alike is
in vogue in Providence, K. l.. New Haven,
Conn, st. Paul, Mimi, and elsewhere and
IS found TO be Just and practicable.