7. By assessing the adjoining property in proportion to the value of each lot. 8. By assessing a certain part of the cost on the adjoining property in proportion to the frontage (or area, or value) and raising the remainder by a general tax. 9. By assessing a certain uniform amount per foot front on adjoining property and paying the remainder by a general tax. The method of assessing the cost of a sewer upon “the property benefited" gives rise to perplexing questions. The judgment of different individuals will differ widely as to the limits of the districts benefited, the proportion of benefit derived by each lot owner and the relative value of the lots. In assessing the cost of sewers in any section on the abutting property a difficulty arises from the fact that some parts of any system will be much more expensive than others, and the extra cost will not be justly chargeable to the adjoining property. In designing any system of sewers, the sewage of a whole town, and the convenience of all the citizens, will require the construction of mains costing from two to four times as much as the laterals, and the conformation of the ground may necessitate much deeper cuts in some localities than in others. To compel the owners of the lots adjoining the mains and deep cuts to pay all the cost of them, when the extra cost is incurred to benefit distant territory, is a manifest injustice. The burden of the expense may be more nearly equalized, either by paying for the whole system by a general tax or by assessing upon the lots a uniform amount per foot front (or in proportion to area, etc.), and paying for the remainder by a general tax. To charge for connecting private sewers with the public sewers, more than a nominal fee to pay for inspection, is not advisable. The policy should be to encourage the citizens to use the sewers and abandon the objectionable methods for the disposal of sewage which are employed where sewers are not used. The most advisable method of sewer assessment to adopt in any place will depend upon the conditions. Among the most important considerations are the following: Whether the whole system of sewers is to be built at once or by piecemeal, whether there is to be one outlet or several— that is, whether there are distinct sewer districts, the cost of the sewers and the financial ability of the citizens. It is evidently impossible by any of the above methods to distribute the cost of sewers with absolute justice. The method of general taxation discriminates against outlying property adjoining which no sewers are built. It is applicable to districts the whole of which are tributary to one system where the system is all constructed at once so that all property is benefited. The method of assessing in proportion to frontage discriminates against shallow lots and vacant property. The method of assessing according to area discriminates against deep lots and vacant areas. The method of assessing according to valuation, especially where the tax is all spread in one payment, discriminates against improved property as against vacant property which may possibly be improved the following year. According to information gathered by Cambridge, Mass., it appears that out of 66 cities 13 paid the cost of sewers by a general tax and 53 assessed benefits. Of the 53 assessing benefits, 14 assessed the whole cost, 15 assessed three-fourths of the cost, 10 assessed threefourths of the cost according to foot frontage, 12 assessed one-half to three-fourths the cost and 2 assessed less than one-half the cost. The prevailing rule among those who clearly state their practice is to divide the cost according to frontage. The City of Providence has given considerable attention to this question and assesses according to frontage for a certain depth from the street, and for a certain depth farther assesses according to area. This combination of the methods of area and frontage tends to correct and equalize the discriminations of either method used singly. Whatever method of assessing benefits be adopted there will be a proportion of property owners that will be distressed if the whole of their assessments be levied for collection in one payment as is almost universally the custom in the United States. In many cases it means to the owners of such property practically a forced sale of the property. This seems to be a proper field for the application of the principles of the Building and Loan Association, or in other words a massing of capital and an association of interests for the purpose of distributing costs over a series of years and obtaining money in comparatively large amounts at correspondingly low rates. The application of this method to special assessments, whichever of the above mentioned methods of determining the proportion to be assessed be adopted, is not at all intricate as will be shown later. The municipality is not less interested in so distributing the cost than is the individual. Statistics show that a very small proportion of cities "pay as they go." Almost without exception they borrow in large amounts on long time and usually at low rates. This is unavoidable in a wise policy of public improvements and sound finance. Otherwise public works would necessarily be constructed piecemeal at a greatly increased cost, and a great loss of efficiency, or on the other hand, if the proper amount of capital were massed at one time for the economical and efficient construction of a system of sewers, water works or other public works of corresponding magnitude the variations in the percentage of taxes levied from year to year would be appalling and undoubtedly there would be an exodus of the population. Let us assume, for the purpose of illustrating, that it is proposed to construct a system of sewers for a certain district, which is entire within itself (whether converging to a single outlet or not does not matter so long as a like proportion of the cost may properly be distributed equally over the territory in question). Let us assume also that the cost of the system complete, including general and extraordinary expenses is $1.00 per lineal foot and that private property is deemed to be benefited to the extent of $.40 per lineal foot on the frontage plan on each side of the street and that the balance of the cost, which will be somewhat in excess of $.20 per lineal foot, by reason of street intersections and the rebates which it will be necessary to allow in order to equalize the assessments on corner lots and triangular pieces, be borne by the city. We will assume also that this amount borne by the municipality is equal to one-third of the total cost for the purpose of simplifying the problem, and that it is desired to distribute the cost of the sewers over the term of 10 years, principal and interest to be met by 10 equal, annual payments. In the case of a property owner having an ordinary lot of 50 feet frontage the total assessment will be $20.00. In Table XXXVI will be found the amount of equal annual payments, of principal and interest combined, necessary to cancel a loan of $100.00 at various rates, and maturing in any number of years, from one to fifty. |