New Britain herald., 1926-10-05
FUNDS VOTED FOR
 WORLD WAR SHAFT Present Memorial Could Be Re
 produced at Less Cost (, I. KIhBALL DISAPpROVES
Admits Arch and Court Of Honor Could Be Made Permanent But Dfsl1kes Veneer Of Stone O, Frame of Steel.

statements apparently contradic. tory of the war memorial commit. tees report were made to the board or finance and taxation last n,rht when its members were informed that the temporary arch and touy. Of Honor at Walnut Hill park could De perpetuated and at q cost lou.- than the proposed shaft now fay. ored.
 When the committee wa. first an. pointed strong sentiment for n,akinr permanent the present design va. expressed. Discussing this phase or the work, the committee reported ia the common council last month:
 lt Is well at this point to call to your attention that when your com mlttee was originally formed 1t frs. considered the perpetuation of the present temporary memorial in Wal nut Hill park but was confronted bv construction difficulties of such , serious nature as to make them un- surmountable except at a cost. 80 prohlpitive as to make the nece.- sary appropriation beyond the ctty.s means or its legal power to fnance."
 Acting on recommendation of tha committee, the common council a,- proved its plans and asked the board or finance and taxation to suggest a financing plan. under which s1es,. ooo to include the cost of the monua ment, architects fees and d fund Tor It's upkeep would be provided.
 Searle Questions KimbaIl
 Meeting at the call of Chairman Edward F. Hall last night at tho or- flee of Mayor Weld. the commission CTS were in session but a moment when Commissioner Frederick A.. searle directed series of questions at George T. Kimball. member of the memorial committee. and Architect H. Van Buren Maeonigle, its desisn- CT. MT. Searle asked If 1t was DOS. sihle to perpetuate the present tenn porary memorial by building a steel frame arch with a veneer of stone. and placing the individual pests in the same fashion as In cemeteries.
 MT. Kimhbali replied that q veneered monument was not suitable for permanency. and that individual would be required to sink to a great depth to avoid tip- ping. He also warned of the danger of killing off trees. The steel frame might give" and since stone will not give" cracks might make fre- luent repairs necessary. he asserted.
 Asked directly if a frame arch with stone veneer and individual monuments set as in cemeteries night be erected and at cost less han the shaft now proposed. Mir. iimball replied affirmatively, re- beating his warning of the danger of tracks.
 Designer Outlines Cost
 Architect Magonisle placed the lppr oximate cost of the monument It s14o,0oo and this figure might ,e bettered on bids. Granite would cost at least s5o,o0o more and would lot be practicable, he advised the 
 Items entering into the construc- ion costs, he enumerated as follows: Masonry, stone, granite base and haft, s1o4,ooo: bronze. s11.s27; 'arving and modelling. s1o,soo; ex- 'avations and concrete, s1o,5oo: electrical work, s1.50o. Total. s13s.- 'c7. These figures are on bona fde ,ids.
 The architects fee will be 10 per 'ent or approximately sl4.o0o.
 It is the architects wish that the contracts be signed without delay SC limestone contracts may be placed, he material quarried before winter et in and cut during the winter months. Eighteen months Is the time stimated for the work.
 The committee voted to recom- nend the appropriation of sl6s.ooo ut of taxation, the costs to be dis ributed over a period 0. five years. f the entire bill was to be met in me year an increase of one and one. quarter mills In the tax-rate would 'e required. The proposed scheme makes necessary addition of one iuarter of one mill for each of ths i've years.