The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-06-04

the Commissioners OF Adjustment,
amounting to $19s, O7s. 80, filed May Nth,
1895.
Received and ordered filed.
From the Board of Aldermen
Resolution adopted May 28th, 1881 TO-
assign certain certificate of tax sale.
Received and referred to the lm1
on Concurrent Resolutions.
From His Honor the Mayor
Relative to the resolution adopted by
the Board of Finance, May 9th, 1895,
no~n-concurring in the award to the Jer-
sey City Water Company of contract for
a new supply of water to Jersey City.
Accompanying his communication His
Honor the Mayor offers a form of speci-
tcations at least as a basis upon which
to the action required to
bring the matter to a focus, if there is
any disposition in either the Board OF
Street and Water Commissioners or the
Board of Finance to settle the wateN
question.
On motion of Mr.. Simpson the COM
munication was received, ordered spread
in full upon the minutes and referred
to the Committee of the Whole.
The communication is as follows
JERSEY CITY, N. j., May 20, 1895.
To the Hon. Board of Finance
Gentlemen-I nave before me the reso-
luton passed by your Board at its meet
ing held May 9Th, 1895, to wit
"Resolved, That the Board of Finance
hereby non-concurs in the following res
olution adopted by the Board of Street
and Water Commissioners April 18th,
1895. to wit
Resolved, That by and with the
concurrence of the Board of Finance
the contract to provide the material and
furnish the labor and produce the re-
suits required in Specification G hereto
fore approved for the furnishing of a
new water supply for this city be
awarded to the Jersey City Water Com
pany on the basis of and in accordance
with the plans and specifications and
analysis submitted by said company and
at the prices named in their proposal
| designated Bid "B,' submitted to this
Board March 25th. 1895. viz:-Bid Il. Tor
water delivered at a minimum consump-
ton of twenty million gallons per day,
ETC."
The proposal referred to was submitted
on March 25th.a 1895, in response to pub
lie advertisement, based upon speclfl-
cations prepared and passed by the
Board of Street and Water Commission
erS, apprOV6u ny NE, anu 10 ~
consent of a majority of your Board.
No reasons appear in any official docu-
ments submitted to me by your Board
since it's meeting of May 9, why TINS
award was rejected.
The last specifications invited bids for
a new water supply on four distinct
propositions. to-wit:-
/. A supply by gravity to High Ser
vice.
2. A supply by gravity to Belleville.
8. A supply by pumping to Belleville.
a. A filtration and publication of the
present supply.
These wide propositions were made at
my suggestion in an official communi-
cation on the subject matter to the
Board of Street and Water Commission
/ ers, because 1 had had two experiences of
the publication of specifications for a
gravity supply. and had noted the criti-
cism created by limiting the bidding
to a supply by gravity. My own judg-
ment was and is that we want a gravity
supply and should get it, if possible.
Nothing came of the bidding On the
four propositions referred to that was
advantageous, or could be considered
by the city excepting the bid on the
gravity plan. which your resolution of
May 9th rejects.
A gravity supply of water for Jersey
City can come from several sheds and
be offered in varied ways by as many
bidders as choose to compete, and it is
my belief that we should try for a sup
ply by gravity solely because 1T is what
the city wants and is the best that can
be had.
No company or combination has any
49, - 49, -