Payette enterprise. (Payette, Canyon Co., Idaho) 1909-1935, 1912-09-05

Ordinance No. ZIP passed at the
last regular meeting of the city
council declaring the intention of
the city to create an Improvement
district for the pose of sprInkling
the streets and venues of the city
and known as a blanket ordinance
covering the entire city, caused gem
eral alarm among many of the citi-
zens living in the outskirts and
among some of the large property
owners, they fearing that the entire
city was to be sprinkled. A large
petition protesting against the mea-
sure and Lea1ed By Gtas. Ensign.
Sam justice. n. a. Jacobsen and
others Eas presented and read to
the &C c.l last Monday evening at
the irregular session.
The ition was the result of a
misunderstanding OF the intent Of
the ordnance. or rather the result
of a Misrepresentation or misinter-
pretad Of the intent of the ordi-
nance =. the circulator Of the petit
ton. he signers had been given
to understand that it was the .nten-
ton o. the council to employ large
number of spr.nkling wagons and
that even the most remote portions
OF the city would be sprinkled. After
a thorough explanation of the mea-
sure by Councilman Woodward to
bose present and protesting against
the same, they expressed themselves
as entirely satisfied and changed
their protests to an encouragement
Of the movement.
Councilman Woodward in defense
and explanation of the ordinance
said: That the ordinance creating
tie district, which must be passed
at later meeting, will in no way
change the present sprinkling dis
rietts. In order to have street
sprinkled, under the proposed ordi-
nance, it will be Necessary for ma
jozity of the frontage property own
ers of that street to petition the
council to be taken into a district.
The proposed ordinance will enable
the council to do this without wait
ing several months, as in the past
to establish an improvement district |
for each block or srteet, and in each
Instance save to the city consider
able sum of money.
Another point which seemed to be |
the cause Of great amount of un-
easiness, was the estimate of the
cost of sprinkling at not to exceed 81
per front foot; and that the cost of |
sprlnkling was to be assessed accord
Ing to the benefit received. Coun-
Gilman Woodward explained that a
street 100 feet wide would naturally
REQUIRE more sprinkling than one
forty feet wide, and that the coun-
ell felt that the fory foot street
should not be required to pay as
much as the 100 foot street. Also
that as many streets would not be
sprinkled. the property holders along
those streets should not be required
10 pay the cost of sprinkling the
streets for others.
In regard to the expense of sprink-
ling ana the estimate OF 8 cents it
viii be seen that corner lot hay-
ing so feet frontage TOR assessment
and 1SO for sprinkliRg can not be as
sessed at the same rate as an in
side lot. Therefore in the estimate
II was necessary TO use the highest
r;g1Iae that it might become necessary
4 tNAsess on any part of a district.
Rbe assessment of a district is
made in the following manner
strict account is kept of the expense
Of each sprinkling district and the
total cost is divided by the feet
frontage in that district, and the
resulting number of cents assessed
nm TO the property holders of the
district. According to the state law
the city us u NuOlC must PesS ASA
ME spriakling of the street inter-
sections.
For the season of 1912, in district
No. /. the assessment will be about
( 10 cents; in Nos. 2 and it will be
about 3 1-2 cents. In Dist, No, l.,
this win amount to about 27 IL cents
ner 30 foot lot per month or s1.65
for the season. In Nos. 2 and 1t
will he about II IL cents per month
or 81 .O5 for the season.
This ordinance, which the city
council think an important one. is
an effort on the part of the ooun-
Gil to transact the business of the
city in systematic and economical
manner,
!.