OCR Text |
Show UlAS valley news "l Whose Fault Was It? feat. March 17, oUti of Power Issue Reviewed News Highlights Makes Public Statement Mayor Anderson Bmta Ua onT; )f Pna, Tnu para UN, cht u locate Pr, 111 1936, Provo citizens voted to construct On October 14, 1936, the Power rcrcnfoipal power plant. Vnn entered the courts where it has remained, except intervals for the past 80 months. Now the ques-Was It? jjiaed is Whose Fault Was it the Power company? varied: are answens Xhe Was it the Citizen's com-JL- ? commission? it the City the Bonding company? Was it Urt'take a look at tka nawa Power On October 13, U otkti kind b n stloa a i Ita Incladiif autln nyiS bow . part a ..y.hu of tha paat two and jeara of Power history,a tha artlclea of aa they appeared with JJrtown. Maybe the answer perplexlni" question It vari-fTer- .00 aim i.tnud therein. MO, artlPSXOBT tha Hon . i iba eeolst a to aecqi a condensed Power m history of the Provo Utah to the taken waa iu, that Court October 14, 1914 n tha Utah Power and Light tha day following the muy im on the power Issue. An foUowlns to hos gMher SI, IMS: filing of briefs iBnedlate further delay by the Utah Mm and Light company in tMr action to enjoin permanentlbuilding a y Provo city from light plant here wlU Imksd of the Supreme Court In SB Lake City Saturday.' I. E. Brock-Si8. Ballif h nprasentlng Provo City, feels git tha action should be given ight of way and should be heard It la Inwtthont further delay. land that Utah Power and Ight Counsel will ask for a 45 hr stay In which to file their Mb, pleading lack of time. Ho data has been set by the case, (hart for hearing of the hove City answered the original company pUttlon of the Utility November 10, following which maty days by law are granted The h which to file a brief. CUh Power and Light counsel ni given until January 9 to file Mito In a stipulation agreed at ttotttae. "If granted, u asked by the tout the Power Company would tors iqtll February 15 In which k Die Its brief. This would a is a decision Impossible the middle of March. Attorney City h, who with George i4a4hAlite. be-to- 1987 Kayor objects to delay Hnrlui of Power Appeal." Protest against a second dole to tha filing of briefs by for the Power company ms lodged by attorneys for him City today with the Bup-n- hkl, irt cd irt (L es Court" "the first postponement grant-- 8 If the Supreme Court eet the Me for the filing of briefs In fe esse against Provo City for Mtrsry 1. A second poatpone--t waa asked by the company's kkrsey Monday.' ' "The action of the Company In Mteg for further delay met Ml stern rebuke from Mayor MBsnoa today: Vs objected to the first de-panted a month ago, knowing hit delay to the chief weapon of M Pirate power Interests in all similar to ours, ke election In Provo was Ml October For more II, tt s month before the election lower company knew our Pton. The ordinance had nu published. On October 14, vere served with writs that "Men prepared beforehand. Wars from the Court to atop W our ease could be heard." !S kf Jilt. y on 9 llJ"My a, 1M7: Postponement until Febru-- " 44 17 u granted the Utah Companys request for a permanent writ directed towards prevention of erection of a municipal light plant here in accordance with a city-wielection result passed by a slight majority here last falL de April 87, 1987: The State Supreme Court heard the second days argument In the suit of Utah Power and Light company seeking to obtain a writ of prohibition forbidding the cities of Ogden and Provo from constructing municipal power plants. months (Six and one-ha- lf passed since Power Company took City to Court.) June 7, 1M7: With e o ta construction mounting and change current in the bond market, delay of the state supreme court In coming to a decision In the municipal light plant case works to the disadvantage of the city. Mayor Mark Anderson noted Monday. A decision was expected June 1, but no word has been received yet by the defendants In the action which seeks to enjoin city officials from constructing a municipal power plant In line with provisions of a city ordinance passed here last fall. IMS: "The Utah Power and Light company supported Its peUtloa for rehearing in tha Provo Power plant controversy with a brief on file today In the State Supreme court." "The Supreme Coart on II, HIT, gave Provo the right to go ahead. (Action for rehearing d the City again). May 18, 1988: "The Utah State Supreme court denied by a unanimous vote, the Utah Power and Light company s application for a re- Dee-emb- er Commission for initiative petition copies so that they might submit to Provo voters an ordinance which would repeal the ordinance passed in the fall of hearing of the Provo city municipal power ease." (Nineteen months had now eUpaed since (he Power company took Provo city to court. Poor and monthe on rehearing.) Controversy "Mayor Tahae Btepa to 8 tart Municipal power construction." "Representatives of bonding and construction firms expected here shortly. Election Petition is filed." "Meanwhile It local oltlsens filed with City Recorder X. O. Bench, a petition asking the City One-Thir- d Data from six municipal plants out of 39 plants investigated by Provo City Engineer show a fair average of rates which are generally lower than the present low rates of Utah Power and Light Company rates in Provo. y ta S8 one-thir- Residential July 30. 1938 PLANTS and one-ha(Fourteen months elapsed since Power company took case to court) lf t April 19, 1989: "Provo citys amended bond ordinance, passed by the City commission on August 5, 1488, most be referred to a vote of the people, aa requested by the Cltt-secommittee, the state supreme court rules today In a unanimous decision of the five ns Justices. FREE OR NOT FREE? Provo city has no municipal plant yet (according to the opposition) they were free from legal entanglements on July 10, 1188. "Whose fault was It? MAYOR'S STATEMENT: "Our plan aa adopted by the July 1, 1088: people on October IS, 1184, conof cltlaens, after templated one year for construcA group several meetings with the Utah tion and two years of operation Power and Light Company offi- before any bonds would mature. cials, made application for peti- We did not anticipate three years tion copies to grant the Utah of legal monkey business. Power and Light company a new We had lost two years through J franchise for a ten-yeperiod obstructionist methods employed were filed; these petition copies by the Power Company and were, were furnished and circulated therefore, forced to amend the and signed by the required num- original bond ordinance to prober of voters and are now on file vide for the lost time. In the office of the City RecordNo practical person would er. aaaume that bonds could be sold Franchise without correcting the dates to "Mayor Ridicule mahe up for time lost. There Term. fran- would be no sense In selling or "The proposed ton-yechise negotiated by a eftlxenr buying a revenue bond that mnst committee with the Utah Power be paid off before revenues could and Light Company was seorned possibly be made available for as an Insult to the Intelligence paying it off. of the people of Provo' by Mayor Mark Anderson In a statement Mayor Anderson Adds: The recent decision of the Issued to the prees today. e Utah Supreme court did not final until May 10.' Wo July 8, 1988: "Provo city will not stand In could do nothing official- - before the way of an election on a fran that date but we now have onr chlae for Utah Power and Light plan of action in operation. The City does not expect to company to operate In Provo, Mayor Mark Anderson said Sat- ask for a rehearing but we are told that the opposition la going urday. to move for a rehearing. July 10, 1938: The City haa never Initiated " 'Of all cases brought before any court action nor naked for a the United States Supreme Court, rehearing. The Power company are never heard, in and the Cltlsens committee are my opinion, I feel this case will responsible for all tho monkey ' s, be among the said business. Mayor Anderson. It they keep their hands off ns for thirty days the first phase of 1988: July 24, will be under con"Petition forma calling for a our plantand the City plant will struction vote on a new franchise to Utah over the entire Power and Light company were be ready to take of Provo within tea electric load delivered by Jacob Coleman of months. the sponsors' committee to City Clerk I. O. Bench, Saturday afternoon In the letter's office. "In a public statement accomService panying the act, Mr. Bench stated: 'Under the state law, I am compelled to deliver the Initiative petitions on the Utah Power Baptismal services for boys in and Light company franchise.' both Utah and Provo stake will be held Sunday at 8 p. m. in the August 2, 1988: "Under agreement with John Utah stake administration buildNuveen and Company, financing ing, announces H. R. Hoswell, of Provos new municipal power cuatadian In charge. The Provo Second ward will plant will be made so that by direction of the service. . have systematic refinancing after the plant la underway, Interest charges will be ent one per cent to a per cent. Mayor probable 1 Anderson advised today." August B, 1938: "Power Bond Ordinance to ar ar Baptismal Sunday Comparison of Electric Rates Commercial July 30, 1938 MUNICIPAL PLANTS Amended. Comparison of Electric Rates Industrial and Power July 30. 1938 "City commissioners moved a step nearer their goal of a municipal power plant today with unanimous passing of a supplemental revenue bond ordinance." (Two years delay made amendment necessary.) August 11, 1938: The application filed .shortly after 8:00 p. m. with City Clerk I. G. Bench, aaka him to secure printers' bids on petition copies which the committee may approve, have printed and circulated calling for a vote of the people on the supplemental bond ordinance." August 24, 1988: "Initiative petitions for an electric franchise In Provo city were filed this afternoon with County Clerk, C. A. Grant, Jacob Coleman, chairman of the Sponsor's announced committee, shortly after noon today. August 23, 1938: City Clerk, I. G. Bench of Provo was ordered today to have petition copies printed for referring to the city electorate the supplemental power bond ordlu ance passed by the City commission August 5." State Supreme Court will be formulated next week, I. E. Brock anbank, Provo city attorney the nounced Thursday. City Blockbank will op--d March 10, 1988: Xten,loa or the filing Postponement until March 11, eontractors' brief the of the time in which to file reply reported. brief waa granted the Utah Power and Light Company by the Sup0. 1987: reme Court In Its petition for a Mtys brief in the munl-rehearing In the Provo municipal SeCtlfcV1"1 brought by power case. P.OW,r Light Com- Originally the city had until MontaF n. Salt March 5, In which to file answer Mb ' to the petition of the Power brief uka recall of the company following the decision of Proklbltlon of the Supreme court In favor of Stm?, the city's right to go ahead with Its municipal power program. city, Utah, from constructing a municipal power system." November IS, 1988: "Utahs supreme court today ordered City Clerk L G. Bench to comple with applications of Provo ttttlsens'. group requesting petition copies of two ordinances designed to repeal the municipal-lighand power plant construction and bonding ordinances passed here October XI, 1114. fci two-third- Provo city will not be In a position to launch Into a municipal power construction program at once, because of the victory won In the Supreme court. It appeared today. "Under the law, the Utah Power and Light company, plaintiff In the action, has a right to file a motion for a rehearing which Is allowed a definite time to run. If the city administration decides to push construction of the proposed system as soon as possible. It will probably be at least six months before the last legal obstacles Incident to the Supreme court decision will be swept away. January 2, 1988: "Mayor Mark Anderson in tends to push the municipal power program along the original plans." February 1, 1988: Petition Holds Rulings in Favor of City Are Erroneous. A petition by the Utah Power and Light company, asking for a rehearing of the Provo municipal power plant case, was on file with the State Supreme Court to- 7, 1939 two-thir- ds The decision, written by Justice James H. Wolfe and Martin M. Larson, concurred In by Justice Ephraim Hanson, recalls the temporary writ of prohibition granted to the Utah Power and Light Company, October 14, 1181 and denies the Company's petition that the writ be made per- manent Friday, July bo-com- MUNICIPAL . K oq This data is here published to give citizens of Provo an idea of what municipal power will mean to Provo for even at these rates the net profit to Provo will be about d of the gross revenue. Comparison of Electric Rates elapsed se "Provo's municipal power Plant controversy appeared headed for the courts again today as petitioners against tha construction served notice that they will file writ of mandamus proceedings lu district court Thursday or Friday. May 87, 1938: "Events moved quickly of Gross Revenue From Municipal Power Plants Is Profit to Community OoPnr mJ!L" Court action). . to be Uken Into Municipal Power Rates Compared (Power company took Full time allowed). of the Utah Power and mmpany In the Provo February 8, 1988: Power case was filed "An answer to petitions for fey In the Bupreme Court. rehearing of the Provo municipal Wear mouths had light plant case before the t May 84, 1988: Court" May 17, 1988: - IT, 1987: Hansen of plgeNjEllas legal staff and Mayor Anderson today held that the ordinances voted upon were contract ordinances and could not be repealed without violation of contract. ahow causa why ha should Provo city's municipal power and 15 to not comply with tho groups delight plant controversy front to- mand to supply printer's bide on day. form sought to preFiled with the Utah Supreme tho petition sent against tho munlcl signers of court on behalf petitioners construction. plant pal aeehlng a new election on the power plant bane was an order June 12, 1988: to show cause directed against "With construction of a muniI. G. Bench, City Recorder." cipal power plant by Provo city blocked through temporarily May 29, 19M: "Court sets June 4 for Power State Supreme court action in In !ta case. puapending Judgement Provo Power decision pending an May 81, 1988: appeal to tho United States SupPower suit Writ served on remo court by Utah Power and Officials." Light Company statements were from three points of forthcoming from restrained pro(City here Interest Saturday. to ceeding. City was free "Mayor Mark Anderson exproceed for two weeks.) to fight pressed determination Jana 8, 1988: through to the end of the power City Recorder L O. Bench said toaue although disappointed by Saturday he will appear before the State court's action In grantthe State Supreme Court June ing the appeal. "Mayor Anderson stated he doubted If the Power Company would take their appeal to the United States Supreme Court for he feels sure the Court will refuse to hear It December St, 1M7: Provo city won a victory In tha municipal power fight with the Utah Power and Light company today, when the Bupreme court handed down a decision declaring the controversial bond and construction valid under the laws of the State. jjvor and Light company for the brief In the Provo ttlapil power ease heard on In the Supreme Court. day. J?? If If. V Inserted by authority of Provo City Commission August 27, 1938: "An election to end all elect-tlon- a In the municipal power plant controversy was suggested by Mayor Mark Anderson today" October 19, 1938: "The Supreme Court today denied the petition of the Utah Power and Light company for review of the Utah Supreme court decision refusing to enjoin Provo TIRE REPAIRING See Us Now U. S. TIRES and BATTERIES 9 ' BRIMHALL BROS. 121 West 1 North EVE STRAIN HEADACHE BLURRED VISION REMOVED BT GLASSES The latest scientific method of examining the eyas Absolute results guaranteed. Ne glasses recommended nairas needed. Glasses may be had on Easy Payment. Dr- - e. H. HE1NDSELMAN with Helndselman Optical and Jewelry Co. ! |