Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-06-01
THE CITY SURVEYORS CHARGES.
\ Property Owner Gives His Views on
the subject.

the subject.
The question of grading H street has
brought into prominence the subject of the
charges made by the City Surveyor, and
property owners are taking great deal of
interest in the matter. The following com
munication is from well-known citizen
EDS. REcoRD-UNIoN In addition to the
other objections raised by property owners
TO the bids for the contract to improve II
street, from Tenth to Twentieth streets,
| there is one which affects every owner of
property in this city, to wit, the charge of
the City Surveyor for engineering expenses.
| Section 2, Subdivision i, of the City
Charter authorizes the Board of Trustees to
appoint City Surveyor, prescribes his
duties, and limits his compensation TO
| 81, 500 per annum.
Section OF Chapter NIX. of Ordinance
No. II provides that the City Surveyor
shall receive as compensation for his sery-
ices the sum OF Sc per day when actually
and necessarily employed in the service OF
the city.
Article IL. Section 6, city charter, pro-
vides that, % 1t shall be the duty of the
Street Commissioner to enter into, enforce
and carry into effect any law or ordinance
referring TO the regulation. cNa0gi1g, alter
ing, repairing and improvement ot the
streets" etc, and the salary received by
him as Trustee shall be in full for his sery-
ices as ex officio Street Commissioner
| Article MI, Section 80, city charter, pro-
vides that, The grading, draining, plank
ing, paving, repairing, or otherwise con-
structing or improving of streets and street
crossings, must in all cases be done under
| the direction and TO the satisfaction of the
Street Commissioner"
MIR. Bassett claims that the service which
he renders as City Surveyor in connection
with the Improvement of the streets, such
as that proposed upon H street, is not done
in the service of the city" If not done in
the service of the city, who is he acting
! for Certainly the property owners have
not employed him. and if he is not in the
service of the city nor the property owners,
who can he be acting for? Can he be in
| the service of those who seek to be con-
tractors? 1t appears to me that there can
| be no question as to whose service he
is in while performing that work.
The order of the Board of Trustees
directing him to prepare the ground and
specifications for the contractors, deter
mines beyond a doubt that he is in the
| service of the city, and being in such serv-
ice he is not entitled to have charged
against the property owners $50 per block
| dLli paw pCl lnlSiSSCtlOu kdIllOulLlUg III the
aggregate to one-twentieth of the whole
cost Of the proposed improvement for his
personal compensation, but, instead there
of, while actually and necessarily so en-
gagged, is entitled to only six dollars per
day, to be paid ont of the City Treasury,
| and whatever such service amounts to
must, under another provision of the law,
be charged to the property owners.
Under the provisions of the law above
noted, it is the duty of the Street Commits
sioner to superintend and accept the i'm
provements in question, for which no
charge can he made against the property
owners. The City Surveyor has only to
designate the grade, the position of the
curb line, make specifications of the work
to be done and make the necessary meas
urements upon the completion of the work,
so as to enable the Street Commissioner to
determine whether the work is in a condi-
ton to be accepted.
This is matter in which every owner of
real estate in this city is interested. SINH
lar charges have been made by the City
Surveyor in every case where grading or
paving has been done. Mr.. Ryan, the
Street Commissioner, said last Monday that
1t was the custom. 1t is time for public
officials to stop and protect property-owners
from such unlawful and extortionate Gus
TOMS E. |. ROBINSON.