free, they won’t be in any hurry to pay

free, they won’t be in any hurry to pay it back. ”

“But the citizens of Sperryville have contributed to the general fund, too,” countered board Chairman Hubert Gilkey. “If we have to set an interest rate, it shouldn’t be more than 1 percent.”

With Mr. Latham giving “reluctant’ concurrence, the three board members present authorized the loan for a one-year period at an interest rate of 1 percent.

In a final word, “so there will be no surprises in the future,” Mr. Dennis reminded the board that with the shut-down of the block grant program and other federal aid, any future water or sewer projects in the county will have to be locally funded. (Except for the loans, which are to be repaid, there is no local money in the Sperryville sewer project. The Environmental Protection Agency provided 85 percent of the $2.1 million costs; the rest came from a Community Development block grant.)

“Sometimes the benefits of water and sewer extend beyond the people who actually get the service through protection of groundwater supplies from contamination," he told the supervisors.

Mr. Dennis said later that he doubts if it will ever again be possible for a community to secure 100 percent funding for a project such as Sperryville’s sewage treatment plant.

“Income tax money paid for that project," he said, pointing out that the current administration’s cut in federal income taxes was cheered without a full understanding of the consequences. With federal aid drastically reduced or eliminated altogether, localities must now rely solely on property taxes to raise money for projects such as Sperryville’s, Mr. Dennis said.

He predicted that help will have to come from somewhere if poorer rural communities are to finance expensive sewer and water projects.

“The state will have to give localities the authority to tax something besides land or else the state will have to raise its income tax and give grants to localities,” he concluded.