OCR Text |
Show LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Can City Spend Money on Privately Owned Property? Taxpayer Asks and questioned the use of city money under these circumstances. I raise the following questions: 1. By what right does the city spent over $10,000 of the taxpayers' taxpay-ers' money on property they do not own, and upon which they are depending on public subscription subscrip-tion for the money to pay for? 2. By what right do they charge to the Water and Light Depts. and General Fund bills that are for Recreation, and by the Budget Ordinance are required to be charged to the department for which they are used and budgeted? budget-ed? 3. By what right can this money be spent without consent or vote by the Council? The items for which the city has spent taxpayers money are: 1. Pipe a line to the site from Highway 91, also aluminum pipe for sprinkling. Labor on pipe charged to Water Dept. 2. Grass seed Charged? 3. Mower, about $500.00 Charged ? 4. Caretaker to mow grass Charged ? 5. Poles, $2500.00 Charged to Light Dept. 6 Lights, $4500.00 Charged In the election campaign of 1953, Mr. Cherrington, Mr. Ruff, and Mr. Child pledged to initiate a Recreation Program. They were elected on this basis. In 1954, after signifying the council's intentions to develop the ball park east of the Grant School, a group of adjoining property owners presented the city council with a petition opposing any increased in-creased activity in this area. Councilman Child expressed himself him-self as being against maintaining a front yard for the adjacent property pro-perty owners at city expense. Councilman Haymond said, "If we can't make maximum use of this area for recreation, I am in favor of cutting it up for building build-ing lots." Councilman Ruff was in favor of development. When it became apparent that something had to be done and was going to be done on this subject, I group of citizens who were op-poled op-poled to activity on the present nark were assembled by the Mayor May-or to find a suitable place. It was agreed that when such a place was found, it would be presented to the City Council for their approval ap-proval or rejection. It is interesting interest-ing to note that the committee selected were: Bill Phillips, whose son lives next to the park; Ed Johnson, whose son lives next to the park; Ace Thorn whose son is bishop of the ward next to the park; Murray Peay, who was president presi-dent of the Riding Club and responsible re-sponsible for the Present location of the Rodeo grounds. Mr Peay a so lives adjacent to the ball park and owns the site designated for the new recreation area; 1 Ernest Strong, who was presi- to General Fund. 7. Transformers and Hardware, $5000.00 estimate Charged to General Fund. ' 8. Labor on Poles and Lights, $2000.00 estimate Charged to General Fund. Total, $14,500.00. The entire Recreation Budget was used before this project was started. These items will yet be needed: 1. Gravel for parking area, $12,-000.00 $12,-000.00 estimate. 2. Rest Rooms, $4,500.00 actual. 3. Fences, $5,000.00 estimates. 4. Bleachers, $10,000.00 estimate. esti-mate. Total needed, $31,000.00. After all this work and expense, the City may, (IF the property is paid for) have a place that only the people who are old enough to drive and own a car, or the children chil-dren whose parents have the time, means, and inclination to haul them, can use. If children who are too young, or do not have access ac-cess to a car, are to get any use from this large expenditure, it is at the risk of crossing town and exposing themselves to a mile of Highway 91 on foot or on bicycle. It might be noted that there is only a sidewalk on the opposite side of the Highway from the park site. It may also be noted that the State of Utah will not permit a semaphore to be installed instal-led at the turn-off to this park. Finally, I raise the question of the legality of these actions by the City Council, and I invite the support of interested persons toward to-ward further investigation. A TAXPAYER Hent of the siaKe aiw " e fonal interest in the stake house that is next to the park; Andrew Peterson, counselor to the president of the stake; Fave Packard, who is opposed to the present rodeo grounds and would go to any lengths to have Them nwved from Third West and ThIt wasrag'reed in council meet-in? meet-in? tha? alf sites considered were to be brought to the council for their decision as to the most suitable suit-able site. I understand this was not done. The selection was made I krorptkr without the consent of or a vote byTt wasCa "rfed by the committee who Sse the north site that they would raise the money to buy and develop the site by public subscription sub-scription without cost to the City. A small part of the purchase price was raised, but the title to the property has not yet passed to thRecords indicate that Councilman Council-man Child and Ruff have opposed |