The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-08-29
SALT LAKE GETS.,.:
WORST OF DEAE
County Commissioners Reser Y
Action of the State Road N
Commission. 4
ROADS IN THIS SECTION III
NOT GIVEN ATTENTIOll
Chairman Mackay 0utspOken 1 ~
Regard TO Alleged I'm. :.
fairness.

The county commissioners OF Salt I.al
county are much wrought up over II
action OF the state road commission
falling 10 appropriate the $1,000. whit
II Is alleged It agreed 10 do. for the In
provemcut OF highways In the count,
Openly declaring that the rond commiE
sion is giving Sat Lake county u
worst OF the deal, members of the boas
are loudly protesting against the actio
OF the road commission. Under la
passed by the last legislature the mad
Gus counties Of the state were 10 recelr,
from the state road commission $20I
each providing that such county shouI
appropriate $1,000 from its own funds au
levy 1-mll tax Tor road purposes viii
In the precincts In which state road wor1
had been authorized.
The county commissioners some 'taD
ago, III accordance with the rcQuircmaoI
OF this law, appropriated the necessar.
$1,000, but for purposes deemed TO ID
entirely sufficient and agreeable To IN
state road commission. they did not lev1
the 1mil tax In the precincts wher
the state road work was authorize1
These precincts are the Justice OF tu
peace precincts eight and nine which ID
cludcs all OF the county south OF Sand1
bordcrcd on the west by Tourlr couuI
and on the east by summit county.
The commissioners. realizing that The
are by far the Two poorest precincts
the county, deemed II wholly unjust
levy 5-mill tax which exceeds IN
county tax by a half lf-mill. hut lnste1
of the tax a proposition was made /
the state road commission that th
same amount OF money bc raised by II
rect appropriation from tn" troasur,
This was understood 10 be- entirely satis
factory to The state road commissio'
and In commurIca ton 10 the board
county commissioners June - las
Richard X. Lyman OF the road commis
sion agreed 10 this plan, This CON
munication follows;
Board OF County Commissioners, Sa
Lake City, Utah.
''Gcntlcmcn-SinCc IL is the policy
the state road commission 10 insist NJ
on having the 5-mlll tax levied IN all tf
precincts where any state money Is sptY
In construction work along state higl
ways during the present year. cSccpuu
I'm your county, whore for reasons e1
planned by yourself II Seems unwise
have these funds raised in this way. au
seems best for the same amount
money 10 be raised by direct approprio
tion from your treasury. will you thert
fore, in accordance with your cxpresse
willingness TO do so. pass resolutic
appropriating this amount Of money 4
use on the state road under the dlrectic
OF the state road commission In lieu I
the 5-mil tax teVy? VIII you also kind
ly furnish the names OF the precincl
in which you recommend that constru'
assessed valuation OF the property
these precincts.
Unless a procedure OF this sort Is "a
lowed In your county. 1, will be diff
sist upon having the 5-mill tax Lev
made In the smaller counties.
Very truly yours.
RICHARD X. LYMAN, 4
"Commissioher.f
Time went on. but to the jlsappoInI
ment OF the county commissioners ~
money from the state road commissio
was not forthcoming. and recently.- ac
cording 10 Chairman John &. Mnckay (
the county commissioners. II has bee
learned that Salt Lake county cannt
have its $4,000. as agreed, because "a
commissioners did not levy the tax. Th
following letter has been sent 10 the sfat
road commission by Chairman Nacka,
and explains the attitude that the coun
~ commissioners took on the question
Mackay Has Say.
State Road Commission, Salt Lake Citl
Utah:
"Gentlemen-In keeping with our IN
Outstanding at n meeting held In N
governors office we desire TO state !
YOU that Salt Lake county viii expen
on the state highways In salt Lake couu
" an amount OF money equal 10. or MOI
than, the amount which would be derive
from a 5-mill tax on all property withl
the precincts where the state road wor
has been authorized, provided the sts'
spends It's $4,000 on the state blSh"a>
in Salt Lake county In connection WI
the $1,000 Salt Lake county has appre
pr!ated some time ngo. Very truly your
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
ERS. Salt Lake County, Utah,
by John c. Mackay. Chairman.
Chairman Mackay Is OF the opinion tns
Salt Lake county has been getting tn
worst OF II right along. When the lai
legislature authorized the s26O.eOO Don
Issue for state road purposes 10 De spen
under the direction OF the state roaa Cos, an
mission each county was given Slp.ov
with the one exception OF Salt Lake coun
~. which. Il was contended, did not nee
IT, This Is pointed 10 as being the oe
ginning OF the onc-sided game ~n'ch tH
comm ssioners declare is being put owe
on this county.
sion refuses 10 give 10 Salt Lake count
the $1,000 which IL agreed 10. as le SLOW
by the communications which ma
passed between Chairman Mackay ~
the state road commission. Mr. aachsy, ,.,
greatly wrought up and is pFotestian
against the actions Of the state cofn'ni.
sion. In speaking OF the matter ycstef
day, Nr. Mackay said.
Gets Worst Of Deal.
salt Lake county pays over 40 Pc
cent of the entire state tax. The state y
bonded for $3.50. 600. Of which salt Lak
county must pay NOi.0OV. hno ieSTIo
absolutely no benefit For the insihte
nance. installation and general kcGpin
up OF lights on the state roads. Sait Lan an,
county pays In the neighborhood OF '''v
per annum. y
Another $500 has been appropriate,
for the removal o. the salt Lake Houu,
tracks nj the Point OF the Mountain "a.
the state road has been Improved AT in'
Point of the Mountain 10 The eatent
$1,000. Altogether -
Lake county expended on state i9ao Lac, 'ns y
is 1911 approximately stSVy. y
nearly double whnt would De kecuI =
from a 5-rnill levy on the two preethO'~
which would amount 10 about NgoV' .,.
These two precincts are by iar ~. ".
poorest In the county and under tne y
curnstances this board did not see nt y
levy the tax. but In lieu thereon we asIosss
to appropriate the same amount OF my ~
from the treasury OF the county Win n..
that tbis would oe as,so, NJ,
able TO the state road commissioh' "a
this is the result We meet WIKI. ana i,ss>
NOT feel that we are being given q ss,,
deal. II is mighty dlscouraslns, ! "a
tell YOU. after we have sndeavored 70 q" -
in the Improvement of the state Ioa"s
the extent this commission has.
The county commissioners may hsI15
take the matter up with the state 49,.
commission In an effort 10 see