Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-01-28

NANNh hih NhA"H
Besides the department reports 10
which ! have referred n suhmtto! the
fcIorts % thr city attorney. recorder,
police Ju-iicv, inspector Ut buiiliugs
r.alrr Of weights aud met.ury-, aui
pouudkccper. Each set. forth the buii-
ness Of IL Department.
IoiST cilY AND COUNTY uyiLpiNG.
Befor- the Council came iuto once,
the city nud county had adopted ymu-
furnished ,y AppOnyi Tor luiut huiid'
Ing, anI an "a aviation haI beru made,
aud was really Tor the fuuudR ION.
Whom the plans were adopted, the e..
tlniap'd cost was, witbOut the tower,
sli5,OJO, with Il s9'D,UnO. Bo.h the
city aud county RasnJfitlr. believed
the cos, of the building would greatly
exceed the estimates, and called In
four expects ~ figure upon the Gust.
There was some delay Ia Obtaining
the plans aud sieciilcatious from The
architect, AMI after thry were obtained
tho cX ptns reported that the building
could bo erected for about S4D1,OlD
without the tower. and s!.5,DI, with
IT, ON the strength Of this report u
was decided ~ " on, aud the agree.
Ui'Nk lhAA' NAAh ~ llbH9l ~ wv
4 rmrr Council TO furnish plan, aud
specifications nud 10 supvtlntend the
contraction was reduced Ia writing
and signed. Bids were asked for put.
ting In the foundation, aud u contract
made aud the work done. Bids were
asked by advertisement for the con-
struelion Of The bullding. Thr lowest
bid received was s-'p,Oll without the
tower. The only bid with tower cam.
plelo was .l10,1JD. The great excess
u biis oyerthe estimates Of the experts
was accounted for partly by tho great
advance Ia labor ana material, and
partly by the fact that full details u
the tile and iron work were not
furnished 10y Apponyi 10 the AK
pcrS. Before deciding 10 accept
lhc lowest bids and award contracts,
criticisms were made by parties en-.
titled 10 respect 10 the effect that there
was not sufficient strength IN some u
the iron works, and that II would bo
unsafe 10 erect the building without
correcting The plans and specifications.
The Joint committee decided to refer
the plans 10 an architect for n report
aud Mr.. Hale was selected, Besides
some unimponan, criticisms, his re-
port stated that some Of the iron work
was not strong enough, and that there
were architectural defects IN tho walls
supporting the tower, rendering them
too weak. Tho JoiHt committee had
lost confidence Ia App0nyi, and rc-
commented his dismissal, aud he was
dismissed by h1th the county and city,
While the Jolnt committee was not en-
tirely satisfied with the plans VI APP.
pDnyi, II was thought they could he
modified 20 ~ u mOru nearly meet the
views of both parties than an entirely
new plan, aud that n competent archi.
toct could remedy the deficiency Ia
strength and make necessary cOrroc.
tlons which would result In proceeding
more speedily with the erection OF u
building, ~ nearly filling the require
ments VI the city and county ~ any
building could, ON n lot the Size Of the
site selected. Other reasons iniluenc.
Ing the Joint committee were that u
considerable sum had been spent In
putting In foundation adapted 10 this
place, aud for the plans anu spcciflca-
lions, which would DO Loot " new
plans were adopted. After having
decided 10 revise and accept the
plans, II was not practicable To throw
thu matter OF tnolco ol hIoulttti
open 10 competition, the changes In
the plans had 10 be made under tho
direction OF the city and county au.
thorities; they could advise and direct
one architect NJ 20 the changes 10 he
made, but could moi c0nfer with the
large number who sought the position.
| state tho onse fully because there has
been dissatisfaction expressed ut the
delay In the erection OF the building,
and because the selection Of the archi.
tect was not loft open for competition.
The Joint committee has also been dis
appointed and annoyed ut the delay,
for neither the city nor the county has