The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-12-28

OF the boari OF public works TO talk over tho
matter OF rejected extra bills became hcstcd
In the conversation, and stated that the engineer
had turned extra bills into yardage, in my csti-
mates and still adhcr, to this statement
III he has preserved his records shey will show
IT. II not, have \ copy of one of my estimates.
showing the quantities in red figures that cover
extra DIS This am ready 10 produce before
the engineer, or before any committee Council
may appoinE
III regard to the statement by the city engineer
that had received oross. sections OF all the street
work was doing for the city, deny this state
ment, but admit that / have received cruss-sec
lions for large portion OF 1t. also state in
this connection that tho work. when completed
varied considerably from the -scctic n I'm my
possession. These cross sections did not re-
ceNe until about nre months after the signing OF
the contract with the city, ALL ough it WAS ex-
prcssly understood that l was to receive ali
plans specifications etc, necessary for the pros
ecutlon of the work.
After signing my contract :or macadam am
positive the elevation OF subgrades on some OF
the streets was changed without my consent
causing the greatly increased expense or prose
cutting the work, and that the cross sections, and
prohlss furnished ME did not give sufficient datn
10 check the work up properly.
In regard to the claim make for extra con-
crete work upon the brick drains, beg leave to
state that considcr it perfectly lust as an itcm
of extra work
The Salem avenue drain-Thc plans bid npon
showed distinctly the amount or concrete to he
used in this work. and tho specifications statcd
thcjbrick work was to he backfllled with earth
or other suitable material. During the prosccn-
tlon OF the work this specification was changed
anu the backflling made OF concrete, instead OF
EARTH and this il what claim l should In COM
pensatcd for.
On the Henry street drain tho plans hid upon
uid not contemplate any concrete whatever and
during the prosecution OF the WORK | was COM
PEELED TO use large quantity OF concrete. which
claim Is extra work and for which should be
paid.
In regard tn the bad work claimed TO have bccn
done upon tho 81 inch sewer, | beg to site that
all out the first II feet OF pipe were laid II,
accordance with the specifications. and the ONLY
objection 10 the first ii feet was they had back
filled ii with rock next to the pipe which was
contrary to the specifications. This I agreed 10
remove at my own expense, and when tho same
was removed, in my judgment, il was the best
portion OF tho pipe sewer.
It's n fact that inferior pipe were laid In tho
sewer, bnt the city furnished the pipe and they
were not under my inspection. obcvcd the or.
der Of the board OF public works and removed
this sewer pipe for which r,ldered G bill to the
city, and which has not yet been acted upon, and
for which expect payment.
In regard to using rock from this trench, did
use portion of the rock with, however. the mil
knowledge OF the city engineer. / never was
told not to use 1t, and never knew OF any objec.
tion to it's use until the engineer made hts state.
ment at n meeting OF Council on December u,
Than
like the amount the city engineer limited at
In regard 10 the change OF specifications from
2i-inch to a1inch brick sewer, agree with tho
city engineer that we did talk the matter over
about change OF specification, but my bid Ind
already been made upon the existing epccihca-
tions, and the work WAS rs ordered, without nny
change ir the specifications.
My time has been so taken up with important
business matters during the past week that I
have not had the time to go thoroughly Into the
mattor bnt will he glad to do 60 Mt any time your
honorable body may desire.
Yours respectfully.
W. F. PATTERSON
Then the members OF Council tried TO make
Mr. Patterson with he had never been born But
he smiled and stuck to HE text Ike a Trojan
City Engineer Dunlap took turn Mt him hut only
ELECTED the admission that there was perhaps,
claimed, though the fact remained that some.
extra work had been turned into ynrdage
Mr. Dunlap denied 1t poiut blank MIR Patterson
declared his ability to prove it by the civ
engineers ecords IL given access to them bnt
one thought this cxtraorilins ~ one omounted
TO anything, so IL WAS dropped. lie stated thnt
some cross sections or the streets were not fur
nlshcd him for months after the macadnmizinr
we're made in grade lines, increasing the COST of
work on the first contracts to his dctrimcnt The
later contracts were faring better lie was quite
sure the extra work. bills had been rejected
by Council which were nfterward allowed IA
yartiagc. Still he thought Mr. Dunlap did right
In allowing them.
licrcaboUts President Buckncr thrc,a hon h.
shell into camp by stating that The records Of
Council failcu TO show lhat the "eyfra work,
hi u had ever ben before that body. aud consc.
qncntly could not have been rejected This was
a "corkcr' until later on Clarence Coleman, OF
been brought on by !. Allen Wat :, cnnr,nan OF
the street committee in report made. in Fchru
nry nhh whlch wa discussed in !hc famous star
chpnhtr "eNcculivc session" OF Council held
last April.
Farther examination OF Mr. Patterson brought
ont with the vivid distinctucss OF wArt on n
womnn's nose the entire confusion OF jufisdic.
tioi. overlapping and intcrmingling, between the
board OF public works, the city engineer and
various committees oi Onncil lie claimed that
Mr.. Dunlap did injustice ,othc city u. We ns to
the contractor In failing to 20 il ii matter OF
measul cmens and points OF dispute thor0ug hlv
enough. He had had no rene tsurcmc, Il after
the city ems inecr, hut some of the sub con FACTORS
had hhd Ill one instance in particular n much
greater measurement was obtained than the city
engineer had allowed. That WAS practically al,
which was obtained from Mr.. Patterson.
From this lime on the city engineer was side
issue and council proceeded to, investigate thn
board OF public works. Councimen Pattie and
moomaw did the kecIhanling The first thn.
damaging to the board brought out was Prcsi-
dent Kirks position thst the board had 10 act as
unit snd could not act rs individuals, and cGIh-
sequehtly Ill matters OF supervision must act IN
concert.
secondly, 1t WAS shown that according to his
statement personal suT crvsion WAS IRREGULAR and
infrequent Tbs other members OF the board re-
ieved the tension on these important points.
however, ny showing that there had been u lot of
supervision by each rs individuals and THAI they
did not as Individuals hold such conssrfcte ed
Views rs to thaoasticity Of their functions
Then Mr.. rattlc ser up great big soike and
hit It dozen hard liSAs, and 1t looked as though