USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Chelmsford > Town annual report of Chelmsford 1930 > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15
Westlands. No change would be made in this district at present. When the increase in building is sufficient, a 250,000-gal. standpipe should be erected in the highest part of the district.
PROJECT III.
ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING FIRE DISTRICTS
This project is a modification of the two preceding and includes the enlargement of both the North Chelmsford Fire District and the Chelmsford Center Water District. The village of West Chelmsford would be supplied from a new source at North Chelmsford and the villages of East Chelms- ford and South Chelmsford connected with the Chelmsford Center District. In other respects the connecting piping and storage provided would be the same as for Project II.
North Chelmsford. This project would involve the construction of a new source of supply at or near the Lowell test well field as previously
140
described under Project I except that the new motor-driven triplex pump and gasoline engine standby unit each would have a capacity of 330 g.p.m.
East Chelmsford. A 6-in. pipe line would be laid from the East Chelmsford system at Billerica Road, to a new standpipe to be erected near Carlisle Street, as shown on Fig. 2. In addition, pipes as previously de- scribed under Project II would be laid connecting the standpipe with the various parts of the village.
South Chelmsford. Under this project the village would be supplied by a 10-in. pipe leading from the Chelmsford Center standpipe, as in Projects I and II.
West Chelmsford. The supply for West Chelmsford would be obtained from North Chelmsford, a new 6-in. supply pipe leading from the distribution system at Newfield Street and Groton Road, passing along Main Street to the edge of the village, where the size would be increased to 8 in. in diameter, and a 10-in. pipe carried along School Street and up High Street to the proposed 250,000-gal. standpipe. In addition, an 8-in. pipe will be laid on Main Street, leading to the Westford town line as in Project II.
Chelmsford Center. This district would be supplied in the same manner as at present. Based on a 12-hour schedule of operation, the existing pumps are of sufficient capacity to furnish a supply for the enlarged district for many years to come. In the future additional wells may be driven as required, to meet the increasing demand for water from this source.
Westlands. No change would be made in this district at present. When the increase in building is sufficient to warrant the expense, a 250,000 gal. standpipe should be erected in the highest part of the district.
ESTIMATES OF COSTS
The estimates of cost included herewith are based upon current prices for labor and materials representing average 1929-1930 construction con- ditions. Estimates of the extent of rock excavation are based on field in- spection only. Estimates are based on the use of cement or bituminous enamel-lined cast iron pipe. No allowance has been made in the estimates for the purchase of land for the well fields and standpipes or for rights of way from the street to the well fields and standpipes. A reasonable allow- ance has been made to cover contingencies and the cost of engineering. A summary of the estimated cost of the various projects is given in Table 8.
The cost of Project III is the lowest at $229,000; that of Project I is next at $231,000, while that of Project II is highest at $235,000.
COMPARISON OF PROJECTS
The difference in cost between the highest and the lowest estimates is seen to be $6,000, or less than 3 per cent. Such a small variation is within the limits of error of a preliminary estimate of this sort, so that decision between the projects should be made on the merits of the case and not on the basis of such a slight saving in cost.
141
FIG. 4
METCALF L' EDDY ENGINEERS
SEPT. 1950
CHELMSFORD , MASS. TABLE 8-ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF WATERWORKS IMPROVEMENTS
DISTRICT
ITEM
UNIT
UNIT COST
QUANTITY
COST
QUANTITY
COST
QUANTITY
COST
Wells € Pump Sta
17,700
NORTH CHELMSFORD
Force Main - 8 inch
2.25
290gpm 2,000 100
4,500 700
$ 2,800
100
700.
C. 1 Pipe - 8 inch
2.25
24,100
Hydrants € Branches
125.00
1,300
$ 21,700
$28,200
$ 22,900
Wells ø Pump Sta C.1 Pipe - 10 inch -
Lin. Ft
2.75
3,400 5,000
9,400
3,400 5,000
9,400
EAST CHELMSFORD
6 -
1.75
9,000
15,800
11,400
20,000
Same as Project II
Rock Excavation
Cu.Ydg Each
7.00
11,900
1,800
12.600
Hydrants & Branches
3,100
26.
3,200
Standpipe
8,000
Foundations
2,000
៛73,000
$66,500
$66,500.
C. 1. Pipe - 10 inch
Lin Ft
2.75
8,500
23,400
8
-
:
1
2.25
2,000
4,500
6
1.75
1,000
1,800
Same as Project II
Cu Yds
7.00
1,000
7,000
Each
125.00
14
1,800
$38,500
$ 38,500
* 38,500
Wells € Pump Sta Force Main - 6 inch
Lin.Ft
1.75
1,000
1,800
C. I. Pipe - 10
..
..
..
..
..
2.25
5,000
11,700
5,200
11,700
WEST CHELMSFORD
6 ..
1.75
1,000
1,800
8,100
14,200
Same as Project II
Rock Excavation
Cu. Yds
7.00
300
2,100
300
2,100
Hydrants € Branches
Each
125.00
13
1,600
19
2,400
Standpipe
8,000
8,000
Foundations
2,000
2,000
.
$42,000
$ 45,400
៛45,400.
C. 1. Pipe - 8 inch
2.25
CO00
13,500
6,000
13,500
CHELMSFORD CENTER
Rock Excavation Hydrants & Branches
Lin Ft. Cu. Yds Each
125.00
12
1,500
12
1, 500
$ 17,100
$ 17,100
$ 17.100
Sub Total Eng € Cont. 20 %
192,300
195,700
190,400
38,700
39,300
38.600
Grand Total
231,000
· 235,000
$ 229.000
..
-
2.25
11, 300
11,300
:
SOUTH CHELMSFORD
Connect with Chelmsford Center same as Project II
60gp.m
8,000
2.75
1,800
5,000
1,800
5,000
Same as Project II
7 00
300
2,100
300
2.100
4,500
Rock Excavation
Lin Ft Cu. Yds Lin. Ft Each
7.00
400 10,700 10
330 gpm 2000
PROJECT III EXTEND FIRE DISTRICTS
PROJECT I PROJECT II SEPARATE SUPPLIES MUNICIPAL SUPPLIES
$ 16,500
8,000 2,000
125.00
1,700 25
Rock Excavation Hydrants c Branches
8
8
142
In the case of Projects I and III there are four and two pumping stations, respectively, which require daily attention, while in the case of Project II there is only one station. Thus the operation problems are some- what simpler in Project II. Further advantages of a single, municipally owned supply, in addition to the simplicity of operation just mentioned, are several: The maintenance of the distribution system, installation of new services and reading of meters can be carried on under the direction of one superintendent ; the reservoirs or standpipes in all parts of the Town are interconnected and are therefore available at all times to serve all other parts for fire protection and by equalizing the pressure; isolated property adjacent to the long connecting pipe lines has both water service and fire protection ; the fire departments may be consolidated and the operation simplified and made more effective under municipal management; it will be possible to charge the same rates for water in all parts of the Town; the problem of financing the water works for the entire Town will be some- what simpler than that for several small fire districts. The Town is fortunate in having an abundant supply of excellent portable water in the Chelmsford Center Water District.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of these studies we are of the opinion that the most ad- vantageous method of securing a water supply for the various villages of Chelmsford is by the adoption of Project II, which is a project for a unified system for the entire Town derived from a single source.
The estimated cost for construction of new main pipe lines, standpipes and hydrants is $235,000.
PROGRAM FOR CONSTRUCTION
Construction can be carried out all at one time or can be spread over a period of years as finances and demand for service dictate. The cost of each item can be found in Table 8. To the figures in the table must be added the allowance of 20 per cent for contingencies and engineering.
The principal items of construction for Project II are summarized briefly as follows :
1. Erection of new standpipes, having a capacity of 250,000 gals. each, in East Chelmsford and West Chelmsford.
2. Connecting the various parts of the Town with the Chelmsford Center supply by laying mains as follows :
From
To
Length ft.
Diameter in.
Chelmsford Center
North Chelmsford
10,700
8
Chelmsford Center
East Chelmsford
11,400
6
Chelmsford Center
South Chelmsford
8,500
10
North Chelmsford
West Chelmsford
7,100
6
143
3. Laying the following pipes as a part of the distribution system in cach of the villages. These may be constructed as finances permit.
Street
From
To
Length-ft. 6-in. 8-in. 10-in.
East Chelmsford Carlisle St.
Gorham St.
Riverneck Rd.
3,400
Gorham St.
Sprague Ave.
Lowell
5,000
city line
South Chelmsford Proctor Rd.
Lowell Rd.
2,000 ft.
1,000
1,000
east
Proctor Rd.
R.R. Sta
1,000
Maple Rd. W'est Chelmsford Main St.
Westford Line
5,200 ft. north
5,200
School St.
Main
Crooked
1,000
1,000
800
High St.
School St.
Standpipe
1,000
Center Chelmsford South St. and Mill Rd.
Putnam St.
6,000 ft.
6,000
east
A Temporary Expedient. If finances necessitate, it would be practicable to defer the expenditure of $33,800 by adopting Project II but continuing the North Chelmsford wells and pumps in service and postponing for a few years the construction of the connecting pipe line between North Chelms- ford and the Center. Under this plan the West Chelmsford construction would be identical with that of Project II and the North Chelmsford daily pumping would continue a few hours longer than at present. Thus the initial expenditure to provide water in all parts of Town would be reduced to about $201,000.
In any event as long as these wells are continued in service, the water therefrom should be disinfected continuously by means of chlorination apparatus. Such apparatus can be purchased and installed at a cost of $600 to $1,200, depending upon the type of equipment selected. Liquified chlorine gas can be purchased in steel cylinders of about 100-lb. capacity. The cost of chlorine will approximate 30c to 50c per million gallons treated.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Insurance Rates. An official examination of the fire protection facili- ties with hydrant flow tests has not been made in the two districts for some time. It is therefore suggested that your Committee request the New England Insurance Exchange by letter to make another examination of the districts, with flow tests together with a statement of their requirements without deficiencies for the systems. This examination and rating, together with the program of construction outlined in this report will give a good idea of the probable future rating of the Town after the construction is completed.
Payment for Existing Works. The estimates in this report are for the cost of new construction only and do not include any allowance for taking
144
Spring Rd.
over any part of the works of the North Chelmsford Fire District or of the Chelmsford Center Water District. It is our understanding that each of the districts has retired a substantial part of the bonds originally issued for the construction of their systems.
If Project II is adopted, presumably the Town will take over all out- standing obligations of the two districts and assume the operation of the plant and maintenance of the distribution system.
While compensating the fire districts for their property is a legal rather than an engineering question, there appears to be no equitable method of distribution among the individual residents of the districts. A portion, at least, of the retired bonds has been paid off from revenue received from water rates and to this extent the participants have received value in water service for their investment to date. Furthermore, for years their property has enjoyed a higher value due both to the benefits of running water and fire protection.
The Determination of Water Rates to Insure Maintenance of the System and to Finance Necessary Extensions. To meet the cost of the construction considered in this report it will be necessary to raise, either through water rates or by taxation, considerably larger sums of money than has been customary recently in the water districts. Money obtained from taxes for the benefit of the water works should be appropriated either as hydrant rental or as direct appropriations for construction. The former is pre- ferable as a general rule, but in either case it should be borne in mind that the greater valuations which the assessors will unquestionably find for property benefited by the water works will generally result in obtaining the full amount of money so appropriated, if not more, from the parties benefited and not from those in outlying sections of the Town not served by the water works. In order that the properties benefited shall be the ones to pay for the water works, their owners must be content to pay not only the water rates but also, through the medium of their taxes, larger sums than other citizens not directly benefited by the water works.
For hydrant rental $50 per hydrant per year is customary, including not only public hydrants but also those on mill property, the private hydrant rental being paid by the owners of the property.
As was suggested by your Water Committee of 1922, the whole cost of construction may be met by direct taxation, an expenditure of $200,000 at that time necessitating an increase in the tax rate of $3.25 per thousand. Such a burden on the tax payers is too great, especially when the direct benefit cannot be shared by all. A more equitable plan would be for the . Town to appropriate only such amounts as may be needed to help retire bonds for a few years until the increase in number of water takers is suffi- cient to allow such retirement by water receipts and hydrant rental.
The Extension of Main Pipes After the Initial Construction is Com- pleted. In many towns it is customary for the town to refuse to make ex- tensions of main pipes unless the party desiring such extension will guar- antee to the town 10 per cent of the cost annually for a period of ten years, or otherwise contribute substantially to the cost. We believe this
145
policy may well be adopted by Chelmsford with the understanding that such guaranty shall be based on the cost of a 6-in. pipe and that if a larger pipe is required in accordance with the general plan adopted by the Town for ex- pansion of the works, the whole of the additional cost should be met by the Town. It would also be well for the Town to make extensions of main pipes at its discretion, without guaranty and wholly at the expense of the Town in cases where it is necessary for the benefit of the system as a whole. This policy would apply to minor cross-connections and loops in the system.
Frequently extensions of main pipes are requested either by one or a few individuals who have been or are building houses at some distance be- yond the end of the existing mains or by real estate promoters developing a subdivision. In the former case a guaranty of revenue for ten years will generally be found to meet the situation most advantageously. In the latter case the immediate payment of a sum equivalent to the present worth of the construction cost might prove more advantageous. The method of financing extensions is often restricted by the By-laws of the Town. Any petitioner for an extension should be privileged to make a single payment rather than ten, if he prefers, and the Town should be entitled to demand it if it appears necessary.
Any such requirement is bound to result in conditions which are not altogether equitable as between original petitioners and later water takers in the same extension. The only practicable way to administer such a require- ment is to consider that the original petitioners guarantee certain annual amounts and to credit against them any revenue received at regular rates from subsequent water takers on the same extension, but this credit should not be carried so far as to let any water taker have water at less than the established rates.
Capacity of Standpipes. The amount of storage required in the various parts of the Town is based upon the requirements of the New England In- surance Exchange for similar districts. In general, in the villages it should be possible to concentrate 1,000 g.p.m. at any point in the thickly settled areas, while 750 g.p.m. is the least desirable quantity which should be avail- able in any part of the village. A 250,000-gal. standpipe would maintain a 1,000-g.p.m. flow for about 4 hours. It would be possible to reduce the size of these individual standpipes to 180,000 gal. as a minimum, but this pro- cedure is not recommended. The saving in the construction of the smaller standpipes would probably not exceed $2,000.
Acknowledgments. In closing this report we wish to acknowledge the service rendered by Superintendent McMahon and Superintendent Wright in furnishing data on the water works systems of North and Center Chelmsford. We are also indebted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and to the New England Insurance Exchange for such in- formation as they had available.
Respectfully submitted, HARRISON C. EDDY METCALF & EDDY
146
Report of State Audit As of July 7, 1930
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
December 31, 1930
TO THE CITIZENS OF CHELMSFORD, MASS .--
The following is a report of an audit as submitted by the Department of Corporations and Taxation, Division of Accounts, made as of July 7, 1930.
Very truly yours,
ELIPHALET G. BROWN FRANK J. LUPIEN ROYAL SHAWCROSS Selectmen of Chelmsford, Mass.
August 29, 1930
TO THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN :
Mr. Eliphalet G. Brown, Chairman, Chelmsford, Massachusetts.
Gentlemen :-
' I submit herewith my report of an audit of the accounts of the Town of Chelmsford for the period from January 1, 1929 to July 7, 1930, made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 44 of the General Laws. This report is in the form of a report made to me by Mr. Edward H. Fenton, Chief Accountant of this Division.
Very truly yours, THEODORE N. WADDELL, Director of Accounts.
147
MR. THEODORE N. WADDELL, Director of Accounts
Department of Corporations and Taxation State House, Boston.
Sir :
As directed by you, I have made an audit of the books and accounts of the Town of Chelmsford for the period from January 1, 1929 to July 7, 1930, the following report being submitted thereon :
The financial transactions of the Town, as recorded on the books of the several departments collecting or disbursing money for the Town or com- mitting bills for collection, were examined and checked with the records of the Town Accountant.
In checking the accounts of the Town Treasurer and Tax Collector, cash discrepancies were disclosed aggregating $9,206.12. In addition claims have been made that taxes have been paid, which, when substantiated by proof of payment, will increase the shortage correspondingly.
The books and accounts of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, as Treas- urer, were examined and checked in detail. The recorded receipts were analyzed and compared with the records of the departments making pay- ments to the Treasurer, with the other sources from which money is paid into the Town treasury, and with the reports and records in the Town Accountant's office, while the payments were compared with the Selectmen's warrants authorizing the Treasurer to disburse Town funds and with the original vouchers and pay-rolls on file.
As noted in the course of the previous audits, it is apparent that the Treasurer made no effort to effect an accurate reconciliation of the cash book balance with the amount of cash actually on hand and on deposit in the bank. The check book records were found to be incomplete, it being evident that the Treasurer did not reconcile the bank account with state- ments furnished by the bank in which Town funds are deposited.
A reconciliation of the bank account on July 7, 1930, was made, and it was found that although the balance on deposit in the bank on the above date was $3,163.13, there were outstanding checks against it in the amount of $8,827.10, showing an overdraft in the bank account of $5,663.97. The actual cash and checks in the Treasurer's possession on July 7, 1930, aggre- gated $1,765.81, which sum, applied against the overdraft in the bank, would reduce the Treasurer's bank overdraft to $3,898.16. However, the Treasurer's cash book on July 7, 1930, called for a cash balance of $2,796.82, which amount, added to the overdraft of $3,898.16 in the bank account, disclosed a total discrepancy in the accounts of the Treasurer and Collector, as Treasurer, aggregating $6,694.98.
Appended to this report are tables showing a reconciliation of the Treasurer's cash.
The books and accounts of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, as Tax Collector, were examined and checked in detail. The commitments of poll and property taxes for the levies of 1926 to 1929, inclusive, and of motor vehicle excise taxes of 1929, were added and reconciled with the Assessors' warrants committing the taxes and assessments for collection. The col-
148
lections, as recorded on the cash books, were checked to the postings on the commitment books and it was found that numerous items were posted on the commitment books as paid which were not entered on the Collector's cash books. The collection of these items was verified by sending letters to the tax-payers whose accounts were marked on the commitment books as paid, and the Collector was charged with the amounts thus collected which were not entered on the cash book and hence not paid over to the Treasurer. The abatements, as recorded on the commitment books, were checked with the Assessors' records of abatements granted, and the outstanding accounts were listed.
A verification of the outstanding accounts as shown on the commit- ment books was made by mailing notices to all persons whose names appeared on the books as owing money to the Town, and replies were received from a large number of taxpayers who made claim that their taxes had been paid. These claims were investigated personally and proof of payment was obtained and collections charged to the Collector as follows : Levy of 1926, $868.10; levy of 1927, $1,171.04; levy of 1928, $492.18; and levy of 1929, $423.58. In addition, as previously stated, a number of claims of payment have been made which have not been substantiated by presenta- tion of receipted tax bills or cancelled checks and which were included in the list of outstanding taxes.
The outstanding lists of taxes were subsequently corrected, and after the necessary adjustments of the numerous errors and omissions of the Collector had been made, the levies charged to him were reconciled, with the result that a net discrepancy of $2,511.14 was found in the accounts of the Treasurer and Collector, as Collector.
Toward the completion of the audit, the Treasurer and Collector was informed of the discrepancies in his accounts, and on August 23, 1930, he deposited in the Town Treasury the sum of $10,000 to cover the total cash discrepancy of $9,206.12 existing as of July 7, 1930, leaving a balance of $793.88 to his credit. This amount, however, should be reserved pending the investigation of additional claims made by tax-payers that their taxes have been paid and not credited by the Collector, said claims being in excess of $500.
The accounts of the Collector and Treasurer were kept in an extremely careless and unbusinesslike manner, necessitating an enormous amount of detailed checking, which materially increased the length and cost of the audit.
The accounts of the Collector, as Collector of taxes for the North Chelmsford Fire District and the Chelmsford Water District were examined and checked in detail. Overpayments of $11.94 to the Treasurer of the North Chelmsford Fire District and of $216.28 to the Chelmsford Water District are apparently due to collections made and not entered on the cash books or commitment books. Claims of payment by tax-payers, when substantiated by presentation of receipted bills or cancelled checks, should be charged to the amounts so overpaid to the district treasurers ..
Appended herewith are tables showing a summary of the several tax levies and a reconciliation of the cash accounts.
The books and accounts in the Town Accountant's office were examined
149
and checked. The recorded receipts were compared with the Treasurer's records, and the disbursements, as recorded, were checked with the warrants and with the books of the Treasurer. The appropriation accounts were checked with the Town meeting records of appropriations and transfers voted, the ledger accounts were analyzed, the necessary adjusting entries were made, and a balance sheet, showing the financial condition of the Town on July 7, 1930, was prepared and is appended to this report.
This balance sheet shows that while the surplus revenue of the Town is of a substantial amount, it is, nevertheless, not available, since it is represented entirely by uncollected taxes of 1929 and prior years. It is therefore recommended that immediate action be taken toward the collection of these taxes.
It was noted that the library appropriation has been turned over to the Treasurer of the library trustees for disbursement by him. It is recom- mended that the library trustees present to the Town Accountant approved, detailed vouchers properly chargeable to the library appropriation, and that these vouchers be placed on a warrant for payment by the Town Treasurer. Attention in this connection is called to Sections 35 and 56, Chapter 41, General Laws.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.