June 1942] Agricultural Experiment Station 23 



road, was made on the assumption that towns receiving increased aid 

 will spend the same total amount for maintenance of their Class V 

 mileage that they spent in 1940, and that the additional aid will be 

 used entirely for the reduction of their town road tax rate" Under 

 the proposed Duncan aid formula, the average road tax rate for the 

 29 towns under $10,000 would be reduced to $1.01 on the $100 valua- 

 tion, as compared to an average road tax rate of $1.48 under the old 

 Duncan aid and $1.27 under the new Duncan aid."" The average road 

 tax rate of the 60 towns with an assessed valuation of from $10,000 

 to $20,000 per mile would be reduced to 77 cents on the $100 valuation, 

 as compared to 84 cents under the new Duncan aid and 94 cents under 

 the old Duncan aid. The 115 towns with a valuation of $20,000 and 

 over per mile of Class V road have not received any Duncan aid under 

 the "old" or "new" formulae, nor will they receive aid under the "pro- 

 posed" formula. Therefore, the average road tax rate of these 115 

 towns would not be affected by the increase and would remain at 59 

 cents on the $100 valuation. (See Table 7.) 



In short, under the old Duncan formula the average road tax rate 

 ranged in 1940 from $1.48 on the $100 of assessed valuation in towns 

 with a valuation less than $10,000 per mile to 59 cents in towns with 

 an assessed valuation of over $20,000 per mile. Under the new Dun- 

 can aid the average road tax rates will range from $1.27 to 59 cents 

 and, under the "proposed" formula, they would range from $1.01 to 

 59 cents. In other words, the difference in average road tax rates 

 between towns under $10,000 valuation per mile and towns with over 

 $20,000 was 87 cents under the old Duncan aid, is 68 cents under the 

 new Duncan aid, and would be 42 cents under the proposed Duncan 

 aid. (See Table 7 for analysis of proposed Duncan aid in terms of 

 modal tax rates.) 



The proposed revision of the Duncan aid formula would call for 

 a State expenditure of approximately only $48,647 in addition to its 

 present expenditure under the new Duncan aid formula. In comparison 

 with the seven million dollar business which the State highway de- 

 partment is now annually conducting, this increase of less than 50 

 thousand dollars seems small indeed. This relatively small expendi- 

 ture would go far, however, in lessening the road burden of the "dis- 

 advantaged" towns. To these towns it would provide a means of 

 improving their inadequate town road services without increasing 

 their present weighty tax burden. Moreover, the relief afforded is 

 doubly necessary since the passage of the 1941 law which denies TRA 

 to towns with uncompleted SAO mileage. 



-'-• It should be emphasized that recipient towns are not being encouraged to use this additional aid 

 to reduce their town road tax rates. On the contrary, these low valuation towns should make 

 every possible effffort to take advantage of this additional State aid to improve their dehcient 

 road services. The assumption of a reduced tax rate is made merely for the purpose of securing 

 a basis for judeing the degree of equalization which the proposed formula would ;iccomplish. 



=3 See Appendix C and Appendix D for tax rates by towns under "new and 'proposed Duncan aid. 



