Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1913-11-08
THE SEWER BOND QUESTION
A Few Facts and Figure. Giving Some Side
Light: Of Interest to the Taxpayers
Of Mountain Home

Allow for syphon outlet ". 800 90
Allow for flush tanks -. 800 90
Allow for "a feet iron pipe
| at outlet. -. ]. so 90
Allow for railroad crossing on
Boyd Ave. -. -. .... ESQ 90
Allow for $50 5x8 inch ties set
and plugged -. -. -. 100 90
Total -. -. .... s 7947 SO
This would be the total cost Of
main sewers, flush tanks, manholes
for same etc. to take care OF Noun
ain Home with population Of
10000 people. The 8 flush tanks
would not be needed until the whole
town practically was connected with
the main sewer. Now just for argu-
nent let us say that the village OF
Mountain Home as whole would
vote bonds In the amount OF
S7,947.50 or $4,000. or $4,000. that
would furnish main sewer for the
property owners to connect up with
as the different streets needed
sewer Conceding still further, for
argument sake, that the present need
of Mountain Home is sewer on
he west of the railroad track from
Atlanta Avenue to Boyd Avenue
THE Mountain Home Hotel Is on At
ianta Ave and Boyd Avenue is five
blocks south, or down the track to-
ward Glenns Ferry) and two sewer
lines on the east side OF the track for
the property owners to put In at
their own expense, to connect with
the main sewer.
The report says: First street
from Atlanta to Boyd 1880 feet s
.nch vitrified tile sewer @ 75c per
foot laid -. -. -. y 1860 OO
Five manholes @ $50. each 300 90
Nturas Street from Stanfield to
,oyd (Alturas st. Ia the first street
aast of the railroad and parallel with
the tracks, 317O It s inch vitrified
sewer @ SOC. laid. ...... 1886 90
3 manholes % $65. each =. $40 90
Canyon st. (second St. east of r. r.
Stanfield to Boyd 1876 IT. inch vitri-
fled tile sewer @ 85c ..... 2868 rs
8 manholes @ $40. each -. $50 90
Total. -. -. -. ....$8O44 Is
These three lateral sewers would
cover territory Of about % blocks
of "a lots to the block or a total OF
$50 lots, which, divided into the
total cost would be $14.57 per lot
to the property owner, no killing
amount when you reflect that 1t
would sewer all the congested part
Of the town, and any other street
could tap the main sewer at any
time, with little or no cost to the
town, as practically the only expense
would be for the laterals which
would be taken care OF by
the abutting property owners. To
the foregoing estimates should be ad-
ded about 20 per cent for engineer
ing and contingencies which could
be prorated or borne entirely by the
village IL considered too great
burden for the abutting property
owners. OF course these estimates
could be materially changed II thot
advisable by reducing the number OF
manholes to the number planned for
In the plan of the last engineer. In
the territory embraced In the above
there are fourteen 80 1T. streets and
two 60 TT. streets crossed, making
! total of 1240 feet Of sewer used
n crossing the streets. Should the
own as a whole stand the expense
If putting that in as Is now done IN
putting in crossings In the streets to
the cement sidewalks, 1t
would materially reduce the cost per
lot to the abutting property owner.
could go further into detail but
this outline should be enough to ap-
peal to those interested, as being at
least ON a different basis from what
has heretofore been advocated, and
possibly worthy Of serious considera-
ton.
Yours truly,
C. E. CORKER.