Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1919-05-16


charter, q petition from the owners of
abutting property not being, required
under the new law. He said that the,
law should be studied thoroughly, how.
ever, SO that the council is sure before
it goes ahead that it will not experience
any trouble regarding assessments, etc..
ought to pave-this is of interest to all
the citizens of Little Falls. The war is
over and it is high time to go ahead;
we should not lose much time but pro-
ceed to have the streets paved at once.
j. w. Stephenson, president ct the
Board of Commerce, SAID thatcne was
in favor Of paving all the 1naln streets
of the city, including First street
south from the city limits; Broadway
east and west; Second street northwest
to>the city limits on the Jefferson High
way; and a street to connect with the
Brainerd road. He stated that he fav-
ored using bitulithic in the main part
Of the city; for the outside districts an
1S-foot paved roadway would be suffi-
eient.
George Kiewel stated that the people
here have talked paving for a long time
but up to the time the new paving law,
was passed the financing Of paving
project has been a problem which this
city could not solve. Now this difficult
t. has been overcome, the city council
having authority to issue certificates Of
inGe ebtedness tor the cos, these certifi-
Gates to be paid from the assessments
collected from abutting property own
ers. Mr.. Kiewel gave figures as to the
comparative costs Of the various kinds
Of paving, including bithulithic, wood
blocks, concrete. He said that bithu-
lithic would cost about $2.74 square
yard. IS
j. K. Martin favored paving, saying
that we should make every effort to
pave the streets and to take advantage
Of the Babcock plan whereby the city
could get a refund Of about one-third
of the cost of paving certain streets
connecting up with the state trunk
highways. He suggested that the coun-
Gil move carefully in this matter. how
ever, so that no trouble would result.
T. C. Gordon concurred with the
statements by Mr.. Martin and Mr..
Kiewel and added that he hoped the
council would take this matter up at
once and get the paving done.
E. F. shaw said that while he was
not a property owner on the business
streets of this city he favored paving
and believed we need it very badly.
The main thing, he said, was to be sure
that the procedure is legal, SO that the
city will not be held up in the matter
when it once gets it's started.
Charles Sylvester expressed himaelf
as heartily in favor of paving. Ee
said that the only way Little Fails
will ever get paving is under the new
law and it should be taken advantage
of. Little Falls needs nothing as badly
as paving-many other cities have
gone at this matter in much better
shape than this city. There may be a
difference of opinion as to the material
to be used for paving but that can be
ironed out afterward; we should cover
just as much ground as possible this
year.
R. B. Millard said he favored paving
but he>wondered whether the city
could figure on any assistance from the
county in this matter as the money vet
ed by the county would barely pay for
what they plan to hard-surface. BE
was told that the city does not expect
any assistance from the county only
to get the refund from the state on the
trunk highway project. as the work
must be done through the county in or
der to get the refund.
George Kiewel explained that the
federal aid on paving in this city
would not amount to much as it would
Isbe available only on streets where the
n Oh
t w. H. Ryan expressed himself in
favor Of paving and said he was for
the best kind, mentioning reinforced
concrete as being conside!ed very good.
z. J. Vasaly and s. G. Vasaly stated
that they did not object to paving but
that assessments should be spread over
q number Of years as this would likely
make great deal of difference with
many property owners. q
City Attorney Vernon explained that
under the new law the assessments
could be SO arranged that payment
could be spread over a period up to
twenty years. He said in regard to the
new law upon being questioned as to
whether it would stand, that he was
convinced that it would but that there
would be no harm in friendly suit in
supreme court to test its validity.
Z. J. Vasaly stated that generally
speaking he was opposed to the issu=.
ance Of bonds by boards or councils as.
under the new law, such large:
amount as the proposed paving would
involve, but that the present situation.
was unusual.
". p. Olson, secretary Of the Board.
Of Commerce, explained thu. BabcockI
planz Of paving through cities to connect