Los Angeles herald., 1891-11-21

There was lively time yesterday at
the session of the board of public works
when the proposals for sprinkling the
.treets of the city came up to be passed
upon.
The advertisement for proposals speci-
fled that proposals might be made either
upon the different districts separately
or upon the whole city. There were
half a dozen or more bidders, and some
of them had, two or more different bids,
based upon separate districts and upon
the city as whole. A little considera-
tion of the bids by the board resulted
in showing that two bidders-Le Grand
Belts and A. P. Cross-were so much
below any others that only those two
could be considered. The proposals
were to be for the term of two or three
years.
Mr.. Belts offered "to sprinkle the en-
tire city for the sum Of $32, 900 per an
mum, payable in twelve equal monthly
iDstallments."
Mr.. Cross proposed to Sprinkle all
the streets to be sprinkled in the city as
whole for the period of three years, at
the rate of $2,270 per month, payable in
monthly installments at the end of each
monSh. This, on an approximation of
ninety miles of street total an increase
OF this mileage shall be paid for at the
pro rata of the amount paid for the
ninety miles"
Mr.. Belts was represented before the
board by his attorney, who claimed
that, considering the number of miles of
street now to be sprinkled, his bid was
much the lowest at present, and would
prove to be great deal the lowest be-
fore the expiration OF the three years for
which the contract was to run.
In answer to question, the city
superintendent of sprinkling stated that
all the improved streets OF the city were
at present being sprinkled. The city
superintendent OF streets then stated
that there were now approximately
10915 miles of graded and paved streets
in the city. Using that statement as a
basis for calculation, the attorney
claimed that Mr.. Belts bid of $32 900
per year for the entire city was $294.93
per mile per year, or $685. .66 per month
for sprinkling the entire present mile
age OF improved streets. That upon the
basis of $2272 per month pei ninety
miles of streets, Mr.. Cross bid was equal
to 1902. .66 per mile per month, or $276l.77
per month, and $33, 14l.27 per year for
the present 109ls miles improved streets,
thus showing that the bid of Mr.. Belts
was $1147.27 lower per year than that of
Mr.. Cross when they were both figured
upon the present extent of streets to be
sprinkled But the bid of Mr.. Belts was
for straight $32, 900 per year for sprink-
ling the entire city for three years; all
increase in improved streets to be
sprinkled under his proposal without
any increase in price during the life of
the contract. On the contrary, the pro-
posal of Mr.. Cross was for an increase in
price pro rata to the increase in mileage
of improved streets.
The street superintendent stated that
within the three years last past Is miles
had been added to the improved streets
of the city. Using that as criterion to
estimate what would be the increase in
mileage of improved streets during the
three years that the contract now under
consideration would cover, the board
might figure on an average increase for
that period of 361 miles. This increase,
at the rate of $3O2.66 per mile per year,
which Mr.. Cross proposed to charge
upon all increase in mileage, would add
the sum of $11, ,047.69 per year to the
cost of sprinkling the present mileage,
thus making Mr.. Crosss proposal cost
the city an average of $44, 1885 per
year for three years as against the
straight $32,00 per year. at which his
client proposed to do the same work.
Upon this showing the attorney claimed
that Mr.. Betts's bid might reasonably
be estimated as being $l2, 1885 lees
per year than that of Mr.. Cross.
The chairman OF the board, Mr.. Nc
Garry, announced that he was con-
viuced that the bid OF Mr.. Belts was un-
questionably the lowest.
Mr.. Rees stated that he did not be-
lieve Mr.. Belts could do the work for
that amount, and heIdid not propose to
saddle any person with contract that
he would not be able to live up to.
The attorney thanked Mr.. Rees for
his consideration for the welfare of his
client, but stated that so firmly con-
vinced was mis- client that the work
could be done for the sum of $32, 900 per
year, that he stood ready to furnish the
city any amount OF security for carry
ing out his proposals according to the
specifications under which it was made.
Mr.. Rees moved that the board rec
ommend that Mr.. Cross's bid be ac-
cepted by the city council, which mo-
tion prevailed by vote of 2 ayes to l
no, Mr.. McGarry voting in the negative.
Mr.. McGarry announced that he
would be compelled to make minority
report and recommendation. and the
losing side expressed great confidence
that the evident advantage to the city of
their proposal would win before the
council.
During the discussion considerable
heat was developed at times, and state
ments and denials were made with
good deal positiveness and vigor. The
advocates for Mr.. Cross's proposal con-
tended that the opposing party had no
right to argne upon the possible increase
in mileage of streets to be spfinkled.
And Mr.. Betts's attorney insisted that
as it was well-known fact that there
would be such an increase, which would
have to be sprinkled and paid for under
the contract, it was not only proper but
necessary to consider such increase in
arriving at the relative merits OF the
two proposals.
Oyercoats! Overcoats! Overcoats!
The best assortment in the city at Mullen,
Bl uett & Co.'s.
BAYNCLIMATE VISITORS.
They Inspect the Electric Road and