The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1915-11-19
Propos.el Bond!
(contiued from Page one.)

not including right Oh way. ~ 5z9,uuV
Coal Run bridge or fill, not
including right OF way -. 10000
Floating indebtedness-gener.
al fund I. ...l.s.: leo,eo "
Locust Avenue Improvement 10000
Extension OF sewer service n. $4,000
Parks and playgrounds $50. 10000
Total 100000
e"in the construction OF bridges,
rights Of way viii play avery import:
ant part. Your committee believe,
However. that conditions Will arise in
connection with Coal Run bridge
which can be handled only by the city
authorities. and II is our opinion that
these conditions may be handled much
TO the advantage Of the city.
In. the discussion which followed
the reading Of the report y Weigel
pointed out that the recommends
III the former report OF the committee
that an appropriate don be included In
the bond Issue for extending the light
ing system OF the city streets was
omitted in the new report: Mr.. Wei
gel suggested that SIS, 900 out OF the
10000 allotted for Locust avenue linz
provemehts be used for providing Tad;
ditional lights. This $4,000, intended
BY the committee to be used for &C:
quifing the Dairy property and for
moving the Mumford buildings at 10.
Gust avenue and Jackson street, Mr..
Weigel said, could be expended to adj
vantage In providing additional lights
for outlying sections OF the city.
Carl Riggs replied that while add.
tionai lights might be needed. 1t was
not fair TO pay for them out Of the
allotment fol improvementsso on Locust
avenue "
Bert S. Leopold explained that un:
der the new lighting contract which
the city authorities had signed recent.
ly provision was made for 800 arc
lights TO take the place OF 1853 lights
In operation heretofore, thereby pro-
yiding for III new lights:
Frank Kelley opposed the bond Is.
sue OF 100000 onfthe ground that It
would make taxes so high as to
amount practically TO con6scation of
property OF manyfpersons. Mr.. Kelley
sal dtfat he believed that the Locust
avenue improvements and the con-
struction OF the Coalt Run bridge might
be justified at the presnt time, but
that he did not favor bonding the city
for other improyements sug gested By
the committee. He pointed out that
Seattle, Los Angeles and other west.
ern cities had bonded themselves for
public improvements to such an sex-
tent as 10 drive away industries on
kill. 40 ftpyN 4.atf
Samuel D. Brady decla.ed that all
the improvements recommended by
The committee should be provided for
in the same bond issue. Carl Riggs
took. the same position in a brief adj
dress. ~
Ray Hoibert moved that the cham.
Der Of commerce go on record as ia.
yoring the Jefferson street site for the
river bridge in preference to the Third
street site. The motion was seconds
ed aud lively discussion ensued as
to the advisabilityi OF going on with. the
proposed improvements at the pres.
ent time. y
o. S. Mckinney declared business
men in Fairmont were compelled to
borrow money now TO pas their taxes.
me said that he owned only a small
amount Of property but that his taxes
amounted 10 500 "a month. Mr.. Nc.
Kinney advocated the postponement
Of the 100000 bond issue and sug-
Rested instead the strengthening, WI
dung and re,fiooring Of Coal run
bridge at d cost Of about SIS 900 and
the expenditure Of about the same
ani0unt for the repair and re;fiooring
of the river bridge, declaring that
such improvements would make both
bridges good Tor 20 years.
J. NJ. Jacobs declared that the ex.
:penditure Of 100000 at the present
time was going q little too fast. He
said that the improvements covered
in the report OF the sbrid geS committee
would probably cost neare.. ssU0,GU0l
thar $500 900 including right OF way,
and other expenses. Mr.. Jacobs ue.
clared that II already cost him S1.2Ol
a:day In taxes to liyefin his own house.
He said that 1t was bad policyst to issue
bonds to keep O town going and that
property In fairmont was not worm
as much now,as Il was a year ago.
The motion TO favor the Jefferson.
street site for the bridge which pre-,
cipitated the discussion was carried
on a rising vote despite the protests
OF several members OF the chamber
that II was bad policy to- recommend.
any location until after the rights or
way had been secured. 81 20, wi ri
pdrjrS the discussion which follow
ed a/mottpn was formulated by Dir.
William ii. Sands and @. IS. / McKin;j
ney which put the chamber on rec,
ord as fayoring the improvements and
directing the committed to continue
itssworls by conferring with the city
authorities and acquiring fuTther. in
formation on the question from time!
to time. ri
"a motion was passed authorizing
the chamber TO pay s266 due H. L.
Smiths county agricultural agent, a
part OF whose salary the chamber had
guaranteed Q year or more ago when
he was first employed Recently the
county court relieved the chambe rSof
It's obligation TO pay q part Of Mr..
Smiths salary In the future the Ss266I
being back salary due for some time.
Nearly half of the 1886 was raised
by private subscription at the meet.
ing last night and the original mo.
ton that the chamber pay the entire
1896 was amended TO as to cover only,
the remaining amount.
10 6 Mckinney explained the planl