Waterbury evening Democrat., 1893-12-08
THE COMMITTEES REPLY.
Lay the Blame For the Almshouse
MIDDLE on the Architect.


Lay the Blame For the Almshouse
MIDDLE on the Architect.
In their statement to which Architect
Smith takes exceptions. Messrs Rice and
jackson say that in the plans for
the plumbing handed in by the
architect high priced fixtures were
called for. This, we presume, is the
reason that the plans were discarded. The
plumber informed the committee that he
made his own plans and specifications.
I'm regard to the concrete, members of
the previous committee informed us that
the architect asserted to them that all the
concrete was furnished that his plans
called for. On our examination of the
plans, to ascertain the depth of the concrete
contracted for, the architect claimed that
they called for but sixteen inches. Not
withstanding his assertions to the con-
trary, they plainly showed depth of two
feet.
Instead of making an allowance for
concrete left out, also the excavating for
the same, which all amounts to a con-
upon to pay bill dated August l, 1892,
and signed and approved by the architect,
for extra concrete and excavating for
1881. so.
In regard to the claim of the architect
that there was large amount of extra
plastering. done for which no charge was
made, We would say that we considered
this matter, but in view of the fact that in
our opinion the plastering throughout was
very poor job we thought that the con-
tractor should not be entitled to any extra
pay for the same.
The committee were not so blind but
that they did see these extra areas. and
also bill presented by the mason and
signed and approved by the architect
dated August 80. 1898, for the extra areas
amounting to S3SO.45, which citizens of
Waterbury are called upon to pay.
Concerning the four flights of stairs,
which the architect claims were left out by
order of the selectmen, if this was the
case, proper allowance should have been
made for all work left out.
| In regard to the claim of extra pay for
face castings around some of the doors, the
frames and sashes in the twenty windows,
| extra painting when We can show that the
painting called for in the specifications
has not been exceeded, extra work around
windows, and the extra store room in the
| laundry, we would say that these were all
noticed and considered by us rs an offset
to balance the refrigerator, ice box and
other things that We did not mention in
our report and which were left out.
EThe architect, plumber and carpenter
were given hearings. The mason did not
appear before the committee.
The work had every appearance OF
being left for finished. as we found all ma
terials, implements, tools, etc, (excep
those of the plumbersl removed from tn,
premises. Will the architect inform tn,
committee how the fireplaces, the marrow
stills. the plastering and other unfinished
work can now be done rs the specification
call for?
1--WE notice the architect says that thu
mason has been notified to complete hi
contract. We have no doubt of this, bu
would this have been the case if there hat
been no town meetings:
Regarding nearly all the large item
mentioned in our report, the architect ha
made no explanation.
I'VE now state what we should hav
said in our report, that We consider tn
selectmen have been blamed more in thi
matter than they deserved as it could nc
, reasonably be expected that they shout
know if the contracts had been properl
carried out.
Mr. Smith claims that the contractor
are still under bonds of SIS, 900 each t
complete the work 1t is not an ope
question whether you can recover from
bondsman after the contractor has bee
paid in full ?"