The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1895-05-24
A VILLAGE SEWERAGE SYSTEM.
HOW 1T CAN BE HAD WITHOUT INCREAs.
ING TAXES
WHAT FIGURES TELL

l for Bradford village is objected to becauS
it is thought the Indebtedness of tn
village is already large enough and tn
taxes consequently already high enough
The debt is, III round numbers $4,000, an(
, the taxes $40 on each $1,000 of valuation
, have been asked to discuss these Objec
tions in the columns of the OPINION, an(
have agreed to do so the more readily be-
cause of the light that | should get, as {
voter, from an investigation OF the subjec
at time when so many of our citizens art
interested in it and talking about it.
1t may safely be taken for granted thai
we all want. to vote rightly on questions
which concern the interest OF our fair vii
J lage. TO do this we must vote intelligent
ly and to vote intelIgently we must give
some thought to public questions as they
arise; because they are not all so simple as
they appear on their face to be.
The question will be cleared of much diff
ticulty for those Of us who oppose a sewer
age system at this time. if we note how
very little the present debt of the village
has to do with the taxes.
The village owed by the last report, $780,
400, all practically for the water works,
and the water works last year were nearly
self-sustaining. In other words the amount
received by the village treasurer from wa
ter takers and the rental of hydrantS p>id
the entire interest on the water debt to
within $29.S3.
| Our Indebtedness and our taxes have,
| therefore. next to no connection for the pur.
| - Il
| practically takes care of itself now. 1t
| would no doubt continue to do this even af
ter we have stood TIE additional cost of SIS 900
more or less, OF sinking the wafer pipes be-
You'd the reach OF the trOsts of the severeSt
winter weather. And an important point to
be noted in this connection is that sewerage
system would tend strongly to increase the
7 number of water takers, so that within a
few years, or months, perhaps, there would
be something left over and above the in
terest on the water bonds and the expense
OF caring for the water system, to a ply to
sinking fund for eventually eXtinguish-
ing the water debt.
it is objected that the annual cost of
$50 for hydrants is tax, the answer is
that this cost is more than offset by the adj
ditiOnal fire protection and the reduction in
fire insurance premiums. Abolish the ny
drantS and premiums would at once be adj
yanced at least twenty-five per cent and
ing villages which are without the prOtec-
ton aft )rded by water system. Insurance
rates at New6ury, for example, are from
twenty to thirty per cent higher than they
are in our village.
A saving of twenty-five per cent in pre-
miums amounts to about $1,000 annually to
property owners in Bradford village. The
veteran fire insurance agents Of this Sec
ton, Mess:s. Stearns 81 Jones, are my
authority for these figures, and no one will
question their accuracy.
SO much for the effect of the village in
debtedneSs upon the annual tax levy.
Now, as to the tax rate, do not believe
there are dozen voters in the village who
would have opposed sewerage system at
the recent village meeting If they had not
thought the expense of it would have carried
taxes above 500 on the $1,000 of valuationlI
Nor do believe that corpOrafs guard
could be got together to defend it fthe result
was TO be tax rate of more than $50 on the
$1,000.
A tax OF over 800 should not be allowed
except under extraordinary conditions that
could not have been foreseen and avoided
In community like ours where rents and
income from local investments are So low.
where wages are so small and where the |
great majority works hard for every dollar !
that is made. a tax of $50 on the $1,000 of |
valuation should be the extreme limit, it |
seems to me, and all improvements that |
ought to be deferred until the time when
they can be.
The sober, second thought of those few |
who seem to be in favor of sewerage sys |
TEN at this time, at any cost, will without |
doubt agree to such limit.
If, then, those who favor sewerage svs-
tenn will accept this limit, and those who |
recently opposed it will favor it if it can be |
done within this limit, there will be no |
ground for contention between the two |
parties, for nearly all agree that system
for the better disposal of the village sew
eTage is very much needed.
No one with whom L have talked regard
ing this proposed Improvement would be
likely to oppose it if ii could be made with
out appreciably increasing the present rate
OF taxation.
Figures are dry reading, for the most part,
but 1t will not take many of them to show
how near we may reasonably expect to
come to doing this
If figures tell the truth we can not only
have a sewerage system without increasing
the taxes, but we can complete our water
works and make them safe from frests keep
our highways and sidewalks repaired, hold
our schools and teachers up to a high stand
ard of efficiency ana all the while be forging
ahead generally, as live village.
Last year the taxes WERE Sl.g0 on each
dollar of the grand list AT the close of
the year the village treasurer had in cash on
|
the year in this item of Sl,329 81 During
the year there was expended on sidewalks
81, 2lO79 or at least $1,000 more than will be-
required in any one year for some time to
come.
If the tax rate remains the same this year
as last. (maklng due allowance for the
In the grand list and we expend
the same amount as last year on highways
schools and all other departments, except
the sidewalks, and spend $1,000 less on the
sidewalks, there will be in the village
treasury, about $1,000, at the close of the
present year.
Continue this rate, and in six years it
would yield the comfortable sum of S15,-
600, an amount that should be sufficient TO I
pay for sewerage system, repair the wa
ter works, build the new primary school
house already projected, and pay the viii
lagos share of the present school deb.
All this is to be done with the tax rate
81 below the limit.
From this showing there does not seem
To be anything in the financial condition of
the village to alarm conservative tax paw
ers or TO deter voters from favorlng such
improvements as appear TO be needed at
this time.
Being small tax payer myself l should
hesitate to vote for large expenditures that
would have to be met out of the pockets of
property owners who pay the bulk OF the
taxes. But property owners themselves are