The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-14

not opposing the bill but Lhoueht it was only fair that the senate have sufficient time to study the bill. He could see no good reason to rush 1t through.
 Whereupon Senator Culhane said, There is certain pressure being put on to kill this bill. A certain in- dividual in Waterbury, whom can't name, wrote to my colleague, asking that the bill be recommitted. The hearing on this bill was held more than month ago and everyon has had plenty of time to study it"
 MayOralty Leader Backs Downes
 Senator Culhane then asked Sem ator Downes to withdraw his motion to defer action, but Senator An- thony Rich, Republican Majority Leader, of Bristol, supported the Democratic Leaders motion that the bill go over.
 Senator Mccarthy again took the floor to say that at the previous two sessions he had seen legislation passed granting special favors to 8 few cities and towns. He said, If this bill is good for Waterbury, let all cities have it. I'd like to study this bill and if it seems good legis- lation, I'll put in similar bill for Ansonia."
 Senator Downes then referred to the fact that only last week Sena- tor Culhane himself had requested that action on a pending measure be deferred and there had been no objection from the Senate.
 Senator James P. Geelan of New Haven asked if copies of the bill were available and Senator Culhane replied that he doubted if there were 35 copies of any bill the New Haven legislator had intro duced floating around. It was then Senator Culhane said he could not attend the Wednesday session of the Legislature and faced with joint opposition from Republican and Democratic members of the Senate requested the bill be held over to Thursday.
 On motion of Senator Frank A. Murphy of Hartford it was voted that copies of the bill be printed, all though Senator Culhane claimed that his purpose in asking suspen- sion of the rules was to eliminate cost of printing the bill.
 There are no jokers in this bill" he said, "as you'll find out when you read it."
 Attorney Scully's Letter
 Attorney Scullys letter to Senator Egan and Rep. Mahaney pointed out that while the bill might be justi- fled, in view of the financial burden on the city the committee should study it further. He said that he had been informed by Finance Con- missioner Major Judge that passage of the bill would cause serious damage to the financial structure of the City of Waterbury for the present year."
 His letter also pointed out that sewer assessments have been levied since the first of the year with the general understanding they would be paid within 12O days. The re- volving fund into which. such as- sessments go is now practically de- pleted, the letter said, and if pay mentS were now postponed no new sewer work could be started and between 600 and 700 men might lose their jobs and may become relief charges of the City of Waterbury"
 The writer asked that the bill be recommitted to allow further study of it in view of the grave financial consequences to Waterbury which the committee might not have been aware of when it first considered it.
 "This is not political matter" the letter said. Everybody is desir- ous of extending as much relief as possible to property owners"
 Engineer Roots Letter
 City Engineer Roots letter dealt with the technical features of sewer construction and he said in part: "It would be quite unfair to lower the standard assessment as to front age and thereby require an increase in the tax rate to those who have previously paid the standard rate" The rate is $2.50 per front foot.
 Due to exemptions and uncol- lectable frontage the city only col lects a portion of the $2.50 assess ment, MT. Root explained. The average collected is $1.75. In Feb ruary assessments on ten streets for total of $9,500 feet of sewer, were $34,931 a per foot return of $3.7O or $1.85 per front foot.
 In regards to the claims that WPA aid makes the city's share of sewer construction costs less than the assessment levied. MT. Root said the opposite is true. In 1888 there were 5,716 feet of sewers constructed, but at a cost to the city of $157, ,042, an average cost of $40 per foot. He also cited WPA Project 2695, involv- ing the laying of 15,598 feet of sewer. It cost the city $99,839.85, an aver age cost of $6.40 per foot, and aver age assessment received being $3.13.
 He further pointed out that the cost of sewer construction in Wa terbury was higher than in other cities owing to the rocky nature of the soil. The cost of maintaining ditches and replacing pavements, which should be charged to the pro- ject was assumed by the street de- partment and not figured in the ultimate cost.
 The city engineer concluded his letter by offering to furnish any fur ther information or facts to the committee at any time desired. pITRTTc HEARING