Waterbury Democrat., 1902-05-21
BUSINESS MEMS ASSOCIATION.
Report on standpipe Question Sub
 mitted to Meeting Last Night.

Report on Standpipe Question Sub
 mitted to Meeting Last Night. At the monthly meeting of the Bus | mess Mems association last night, the | committee to whom was referred the matter of Investigating the standpipe question submitted a report which was adopted and copies of same or dered transmitted to the aldermen. The report is as follows:
 To the Directors of the Waterbury Business Mems Association:
 The committee on lighting and water | facilities to whom was referred for in yestigation question of the taxation or ! [standpipes and automatic sprinklers installed in buildings as protection from fire, submit the following report of the result of their investigation.
 The city of Waterbury at the present l time makes a minimum charge for au- tomatic sprinkler heads of $1O per an mum. and a further charge of 50 per hundred in excess of 100 heads or a fraction thereof.
 For inside hose fixtures used for ire purposes only $1 for each fixture of two inches or under, and $2 for each fixture larger than two inches per an mum.
 Your committee is informed that the present rates of taxation on automatic sprinklers and other fixtures used for fire purposes only were adopted by the city authorities several years ago, the present rates being considerably less than those that formerly prevailed.
 The reductions were obtained at that time by an agitation carried on by some of the citizens of Waterbury who desired to protect their properties from fire by these appliances. On investiga- tion made at that time by the city au- thorities it was found that of about fifteen cities from which information was received but a small per cent of the fifteen charged property owners for 1 the use of standpipes and inside hose fixtures for fire purposes only. Water bury at that time was found to be one of the few cities with public water sup plies where property owners were so taxed.
 l This committed Communicated with the authorities in Hartford, New Ha- | ven, Bridgeport, Springfield and Wor- 7 cester to ascertain as to the charges. ii 3 any, made for such appliances in those : cities where the conditions are so sim ? 11dl lO luOSc III w NdleIDuTY dS to 10TH p a fair basis for comparison. in the opin. f ion ofsthe committee. Replies were re s ceived from Hartford. Springfield and
 Worcester, where the water works arc l controlled by the municipalities, tha1 I none of these cities taxed standpipes
 and other fixtures used for fire pur l poses only further than to charge the n owner the entire cost of pipe. materia s and labor installing the same
 No replies were received by the com
 mittee from New Haven and Bridge
 port, where it is understood the cit, f water works are under private control
 In the cities where these appliance. |. are not taxed it appears to be the in V tention of the municipal authorities t.
 encourage cooperation on the part Q, f property owners with the city in guard
 ing against fires. It appears to be gen h eraly recognized that these fire appli v ances are of advantage both to th, q city and to the property owners. Tn, 1t city IS largely benefited by having it @ ire department supplemented by thes, q private appliances which may be re }. garded as water savers rather thai r water consumers. The property Owne a- nnds or should find these appliances f q his pecuniary advantage in the reduc ton in the rate of insurance he is abl T. to secure thereby.
 l. Your committee has conferred witt 'f several insurance men as to this las q point and finds them in agreement a IT to the deduction in insurance rates SC Il cured by these appliances. The amour
 of this deduction necessarily depend
 on the nature of the buildings in whicl E. the appliances are used, but it reache $ 11s per cent in some cases.
 Respectfully submitted,
 n w. EASTON SMITH, s. lt. D. PIERPONT,
 Committee.