The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-02-17

This is The Plea Made by
 Him to The Tax Board to
 Secure Renewal of lnstru-
 ment For Another Year
 Citizens Should Read it
 Carefully-Represents The
 Best Water Monopoly Has
 To Offer in Attenuation of
 Instrument Which Has
 Greatly Damaged, Pockets,
 Morals and Populations. The Farmer Will Answer MT.
 Keating's Argument, in its
 Issue Friday Evening, Feb.
 IS.
 Following is City Auditor Keating's $ address before the Board of Appor-
 
 on Friday evening, Feb. II, 1909:
 "I did not come here this evening intending to speak on this subject, but as you request it, shall not shirk the responsibility, and will make use of some notes prepared for my own in formation, to enable me to answer questions asked by members of this board, at various times.
 "I may say at the outset that I am not a stockhOlder in the Bridgeport Hydraulic company, nor am I a reja- tive to any stOckhOlder in said cOm- pany. I have never received, nor dO ever expect to receive any favor from any officer of such company.
 But IS l was at member. of the committee appointed in 1905 to con fer with the representatives of the company, for the purpose of ascer- taining, on what tams a new con- tract, to replace the one of 1896 (which was a ten-year contract) could be made.
 "I will endeavor to explain the dc ticn of the committee and the nature of the new contract. In the first place the committee did not make the con- tract, it had no such authority. 1t simply reported back to the Common Council, the best terms for a propos- ed new contract and coupled with tEal report was recommendation that the proposed contract be not immedi- ately ratified, but that the committed s report and the proposed contract De published, with the council proceed ings and continued to the next meet ing of the council, so as to enable all who desired an opportunity to become ia miliar> with the subject This re- commendation was adopted and tEe full report and proposed contract We're ,I~1; ;rI,o I Ill for, e1al distribution.
 There was, therefore, no nasty &C., tion, so far as the committee was con- cerned, and the desire of the commit tee was that there should be no nasty action on this important matter.
 "I have frequently stated that, i'll my judgment, the so-called infamous and iniQuitous' water contract of 1906, was and is the best contract ever made by the city, with the Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.,, from the city's standpoint, and I am prepared to prove that assertion. Let us com pare for few months the provisions of the ten-year contract of 1896 with those of the twenty-year contract of 1906.
 'I will not enter into discussion of the contracts previous to 1896, be- cause the claim can be justly made that the assessments of property, es- pecially of personal property, for pur- poses of taxation, at the times of making all such previous contracts were not on the basis of full vaIl- atiOn, and that comparison with the present contract of 1906, would not be fair.
 'But no such claim can be made relative to the contract of 1896. Pro- perty was then, and had been for several years previously, listed at full vol Inc iC 0do
 'I will, therefore, make a compari- son with that contract.
 Contract of 1896.
 'tIn 1896 the city entered into a contract with the Bridgeport Hydrau- lie company for water supply, for all city purposes (eXcept street sprink- ling) for a period of ten years. This contract continued in force until June 1st, 1906.
 At the date when said contract was made the city of Bridgeport had a population estimated at 6O,OOO.
 ''The terms of this contract were as follows: The city to pay the lily draulic company for water for city purposes, as aforesaid, the sum of $15, 100000 each year.
 '"The company was to pay to the city taxes on an assessment of $2OO.- 900 in the First district, and $500, GOO in the Second district, which amounts were not to be added to during the ten-year period of the contract. Figured on the basis of a tax rate of 16 mills, as recommended by the auditor, this year, that is: 2-1O mills in the First district and 8-1O mills in the Second district, the state ment of account between the city and the company under this contract of 1896 would be as follows: Taxes Paid to City by Company.
 "On $20O,OO0 at 2-1O mills, $1,- 44O.OO; on $3OO,OOO at 16 mills, $4, 8OO.OO. Total amount of taxes paid by company to city, $6,240.00. Amount paid by city to the company for wa ter supply under the terms of said ! contract, $15,000.00.
 ''Net cost to city each year, for wa ter used, over and above taxes, paid by company to city, $S,760.OO. ''ThiS contract was satisfactory to the people of the city-at least, nc very great amount of criticism was ever made so far as I am aware of the unfairness of it's terms from tlle city's standpoint.
 Mote the fact that the assessment of the company's property for taxa ton purposes, remained stationary during the entire ten-year term of the contract. What 1t was in 1896, it re- niained until 1906.
 ''The city was not entitled to re- ceive according to the provisions o1 the contract any increased revenue from the betterments of the company during that entire period. Contract of 19O6