The record-union., 1897-11-30
MUNICIPAL LIGHTING PLANT.
THE QUESTION WILL NOT BT
SUBMITTED TO A VOTE.
Board Refuses to Reconsider Its
Action on the Bailey Side
walk Matter.


walk Matter.
The City Board of Trustees met last
night in regular weekly session, Trus-
tees Wachhorst, Davis, Kent, Mckay,
Bentley, Devine, Leonard, Tozer ana
Pennish being present, and Bentley pre-
siding.
+. M. Egan addressed the Doafo III
relation to the runaway Of the horse
owned by Egan. Brothers, caused py
the horse being frightened by the city
steam roller The horse smashed the
buggy badly, causing quite bill for
repairs. The matter was referred 10
the Finance Committee.
A E. Miller appeared before the
board in behalf of John McGillivray,
to whom the contract for constructing
the sidewalk in front of the school
house on street, between twenty
sixth and Twenty-seventh streets had
been awarded. said that the Superin-
tendent of Streets wished Mr.. McGilliv-
ray to clear out the salt grass roots at
his own expense. There was nothing
in the specifications, Mr.. Miller said,
that compelled the contractor to take
=
tamped down and settled before Mr..
McGillivray received any notice from
the Superintendent Of streets.
City Surveyor Mulleny and Superin-
tendent of Streets Croly were of the
opinion that the sidewalk could not be
laid ina workmanlike manner unless
the grass is first removed, as the grass.
If left in, would leave the sidewalk in a
fob III
Tozer moved that the board indorse
the action of the Surveyor and Super
intendent Of Streets, and it was SO or
dered.
A number of bills were allowed, as
well as salaries.
The City Auditor was instructed to
transfer from the general fund 81 12j
to the street fund. $500 to the sprink-
ling fund, and S475 to the sewer fund,
and also S601 II from the special sew
er fund to the general fund.
COMMITTEE FUNDS.
Tozer from the Finance Committee,
said the committee had been unable to
find any law to justify the board in
complying with the request of the Di-
rectors of the Protestant Orphan Asy-
lun, but would like further time to
investigate. The time was granted.
He also reported that there no mon
ey on hand from which the slough at
Thirtieth street can be filled up. He
did not think it matter of emergen-
cy, however, as it has been in the same
condition for thirty years past.
Bentley said that, as the contract had
been awarded the clerk should be in
structed to notify the contractor that
the funds would not allow the city TO
enter into the contract at present.
Tozer also reported that the fund will
not permit of purchasing another mo-
tor at present.
Devine, for the Street Committee. re-
ported in favor of the amendment to the
sidewalk ordinance allowing Front
street property owners to put down 9TH
er than stone sidewalks.
He also reported that T. E. Clark,
who had accepted a private contract
10 improve the alley between S and T
and Seventh and Eighth streets, had
made no provision for paying the ad-
vertising bill. 1t was proper for the
property towners to pay the advertis-
ing bill, but Mr.. Clark had paid it.
Mr.. Clark said the bill was incurred
several months before the contract was
let, and he had paid it, to avoid bad
feeling He felt that the city should
pay it, however.
Mckay moved that Mr.. Clarks bill
be paid. but met with no second.
In regard to the complaint against
the trees of ]. w. Watt, near Ninth and
n streets, that they obstructed the
view of a property owner, Devine said
he had no recommendation to make.
No action was taken.
Superintendent of Streets Croly said
the bill Of J. A. Cunningham for work
done around the sewer plant was a
just one, although he had nothing to
say about the amount The bill was
ordered paid.
COUNSEL'S OPINION.
The opinion of the Corporation Coun-
sci was read upon the matter of the
Bailey sidewalk at Fourth and K
streets, as follows:
To the Board of Trustees of the City oi
cramento-Gentlemen: E. ]. Croly
Superintendent OF Streets, and William
Mullenney, City Surveyor. called upon me
stating that you desired an opinion in re-
lation to the validity of Ordinance No. 312
] have not had the opportunity as yet to
Investigate this as thoroughly as l desire
but the only question seems TO me 20 be
whether or not your ordinance conflicts
with the street law OF California, com
monty known as the ''Vrooman Act" The
Act last referred to provides a method for
the reconstruction or repair of sidewal ks
end prescribes the procedure In such cases
Your ordinance endeavors to provide as
We'll for penalty for the neglect to re-
construct or repair sidewalks OF course
IT is general rule that special laws can