OCR Text |
Show WATEM BONJ) QUESTION IS , . SUBMITTED; ELECTION TO . BE CONBUCTEB JANUARY 3- Opposition to Committee's Plans Musters but Two Votes on Final Test; Ordinance for Issue o $1,000,000 in Bonds. ; By a vote of 12 to 2 the1 City Council Monday nigHt voted to adopt the report of the special committee providing for the expenditure of $1,000,000 to Increase the water supply and extend the sewer system of the city. . There was much opposition to the plan by the minority while the question was under discussion, but when the final vote came there were only two : dissenting votes. How They Lined Up. The opposition was led by Councilman Council-man Wood, and he was seconded by Black, Hobday, A. J. Davis and Martin. Mar-tin. The fight for the measure was made by Councllmen Hewlett. Wells, Fernstrom, Hartensteln, Tuddenham, Preece and E. H. Davis. On motion of Fernstrom the date of the bond election. was changedVrom December De-cember 30 to January 3. Objections by Wood. Councilman Wood started the fight against the proposition in a speech in which he summed up the opposition by saying that he was not opposed to a larger water supply, but that he believed be-lieved that a pumping station should not be built until It was conclusively shown that a gravity system could not be secured. , . . . . Mr. Wood said that there were two serious objections to the Spring creek plan as proposed, outside of the cost of maintaining a pumping station. After .months of work the committee and engineer en-gineer prepared a report; they had evidently evi-dently examined the title and purity of this Spring creek water, but at the last minute, too late to write another report, re-port, evidently, they bring in a supplemental supple-mental report, that the title is not good and the purity is questioned. To Abandon Spring Creek. As a solution of the difficulty Mr. Wood proposed that the Spring creek project be stricken from the report and that as a substitute the conduit be run to Little Cottonwood three miles, at a cost of $105,000, purchase the lakes and reservoirs of both Big and Little Cottonwood Cot-tonwood for $35,000; build the dams. $40,000, making a total of $180,000. or enough less than the committee's recommendation recom-mendation to build the proposed sewer of $150,000, and $20,000 for incidental expenses, ex-penses, and thus securing 15.000,000 gallons' gal-lons' dally flow for the months of J uly, August, September and ten days of October. Oc-tober. Hewlett for the Report. Councilman Hewlett led the fight for the report as submitted. He said that the committee had had the support of such expert advice as given by F. I. Richards and A. F. Doremus, and that referring the matter now simply meant a delay that would kill time and destroy de-stroy the value of the options. He said that the matter would be fully ex--plained to the voters before election. Every member of the Council present took some part in the debate that fol- . lowed, and there was a wide discussion, the general opinion being that delays would be dangerous to the city on account ac-count of the value of the options now held. When the vote was taken. Black and A. J. Davis were the only two members of the Council to oppose the adoption of the report. t Address to the Voters. A resolution was adopted authorising Mayor Morris to name a committee of five citizens to work with the special Council committee In preparing an address ad-dress to the voters explaining the prop-" osition. Provision for Bonds. An ordinance was passed without op- . position to carry out the reports of the committee. It provided that the bonds for $1,000,000 bear not more than 4 per cent interest: that they shall run for twenty years, be payable at the end often of-ten years, and that a sinking fund be provided frbm the receipts from the water wa-ter to take up the bonds at or before maturity. |