New Britain herald., 1919-05-01


cial committee appointed to study
the re-assGssment of the city prop
erty, the common council at an ad-
journed meeting held last evening,
considered the adoption of a system
of land valuation in this city based
upon the front foot as a unit and
on the square foot basis for back lots
Other recommendation including Il
graded or cless system on the cubical
contents of buildings was adopted
Because Of the absence of Mayor
Quigloy Alderman Curtis, president
pro tenn of the council presided
Considerable discussion followed
Councilman Gorbach's suggestion TO
table the report of the committee
until the next meeting. lie said that
he was greatly interested in the re-
assessor ent Of the city property, but
he wished to study the report. He
believed that the reports should be
printed and sent to each member of
the council for further scrutiny.
Paonessa Takes Issue.
Alderman Paoncssa took issue with
Councilman Gorbach and favored i'm
mediate action. He said that this
matter had been started six years
ago and something ought to be done
at once. Alderman Curtis favored
the adoption of the committees re-
port saying that the assessors must
begin their work by May l.
George I. Kimball, a member of
the committee appointed by the
mayor to Investigate the necessity of
re-valuation, explained the operation
of the system. He said that the
ambridge system, recommended for
use in this city, had been adopted
with much success by the town OF
Attleboro, Mass. There would be
cost for exnert advise. The installa-
ton of the system would involve the
greatest cost, he stated.
Parker Explains System.
Clayton A. Parker, another mem
Der of the committee, said that the
system was in vogue in West Hart
ford This town, he added, has a
commission and employs an expert
Property owners, although the
amounts were increased showed no
objection. Mr.. Parker believed that
the cost of the maintenance of the
system in Now Britain would not be
large.
! Alderman Paonessa as to the cost of
! expert assistance, Mr.. Parker stated
| that the services of an expert would
I be more than is paid to the asses
| sors.
! Corporation Counsel J. r. Cooper
| favored the adoption of the system
! of re-valuation. The system in New
| Britain now he said, is based on
| opinion. The statutes, he said called
| for a re-valuation and now is the
| proper time to adopt the system here.
! Curtis Makes Statement.
Alderman Curtis called Council
! man Kcrwin to the chair. He said
| that he has visited numerous cities
! and has inquired into the methods
EN- ployed. New Britain was low in
the method used. He pointed out in
stances of inequalities in the method
| in vogue here now. The adoption of
| the committees report will avoid q
! great deal of criticism he said. The
public, he added, demands a change.
! The amount paid for assessing in
| New Britain is only $4,000, while
| Hartford expends $4,000 and Bridge
| port pays $4,000.
For reasons which he declined to
state, Councilman Gorbach favored
the mayor will have the power to
appoint the expert instead of the
| board of assessors.
| The report was adopted as follows:
! To His Honor the Mayor and the
| Common Council of the City of
| New Britain:
Your special committee on methods
| of property assessment begs leave to
| report as follows:
We have made an investigation of
the systems of assessing property in
use in some of the larger cities in
| Connecticut and in adjoining states.
some of which appear to be moro
| practical and give greater satisfaction
| than the method employed by our
| board of assessors.
An examination of the grand list of
! New Britain, recently prepared by or
! der of the common council shows
! many inequalities; many reductions,
| as we'll as increases, for the past two
years are apparent, although mark ct
| values have almost invariably increased
materially; for example, on Main
street land values stated are much less
than the price which would be accept
ed by the holders, and this condition
has prevailed for many years.
In fairness to the assessors it must
be said that they have continued the
methods and procedure of their pred
ecessors in office In many cases the
variations in value are justified by
reasons which do not appear to the
casual observer. They have been ma
terially underpaid for the work ex-
pected of them and not allowed sufTi-
! Cient competent assistance.
These methods have not proven too
| & n G. he
and it had not appeared that any
change in procedure would result in
material benefit to the public.