The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-02-04

Report Of Citizens Committee
on the Extras.
The COMMISSIONERS ENDORSED.
Exsras and Deduetfons Leave . Snail
Balance Against Eigsy-The
Busiding Well Pat Cp.

re COMMITTEES OF cftaxens selected 10 fs1-
quire into the aimshoase mates has con-
Guided It's Investigations and last evening.
as meeting held in Architect John
farkinson's oihces. declared that the
county commissioners had been honest
and faithful in ali things pertaining TO the
construction of the building. In the re-
port OF the committee it is recommended
that the aroun: saved hy Contractor
Rigsy in his departure from the plans and
specifications be charged up 10 him. The
aggregate amount which the committee
recommends that the commissioners de-
duct from Mr.. Rigby's account Is 81 80 80.
while they recommend tina: extra charges
amounting TO & col IS be allowed.
At former meeting the committee of
twelve. consisting Of Dexter Horton, A.
B. Stewart. E. o. Graves. Herman Chaplin,
John Collins. James NJ Coiman, Edward
c. Neafeider. j. II. frink, Robert Moran,
]. u. Lowman. :. +. Clough aud John
Parkinson. selected a special committee of
four TO investigate the condition of the
almshouse and report. This special CON-
mittee, consisting of Herman Chaplin. A.
ID. Stewart. ]. II Colman and s. r.
Clough. submitted its report last evening
TO the committee Of swelye. After few
amendments the report, which is as fol-
lows. was adopted and ordered filed with
the board Of county commissioners:
SEATTLE. WASH, Feb. 8.
TO Fred Gasch. esq. Chairman of the
Board OF County ComnisSioners--Ded SIR:
In endeavo.ing 10 act on your request to
examine into the condition of the county
almshouse, both as 10 whether as il stands
IL is suitable for the purpose for which it
was bul!t and also TO give you our opinion
OF the business OF the Gist of claims and al
iowances as presented 20 your board over
the signatures of the architect and the
superintendent of the building, we beg to
report as follows:
I'VE found the building completed and
Our investigation. therefore. was neces-
sariiy limited TO what q finished building
would show. The building seemed to US u
substantially built structure both in
material and workmanship. and We be-
lieye that 10 is well suited for the purpose
for which il was built. In MANY details it
does not correspond with the specifications,
which were in some instances unneces-
sarily expensive. Where such changes
have been made We have endeavored TO
form a correct estimate of the amount
saved oy the contractor and charged same
To him.
1.-The largest item on bill OF extras was
81, lis for filing hollow wall. We find
your contract contains n clause requiring
all changes 10 be authorized by your board
Ia writing, and We are OF the opinion that
the contractor was not justified in making
so important change without receiving
such written Instructions. We found il a
difficult matter to arrive at a proper charge
against the contractor for failure TO COM
ply with specifications on exterior brick
work. The Specifications call for the ex-
terror brick TO be laid in pressed brick
fashion and each bidder was required to
show sample OF the brick TO be used.
In the case of this contractor. he
submitted TO you. board not sample of
brick. but said that he had purchased a
certain kiln of brick which he offered in
place OF required sample; but no ok
in this kiln vas OF face brick character.
and it was impossible TO lay them up in
the manner specified. We estimate the
differences between doing the work as
| specified and as ii was done at $40 per
i,ooo--Sl, 40. III this change is made then
| the item OF $si6 charged tor the omission
| o: rustic work and red mortar should be
omitted.
Upon investigating the Specifications
which were part of the contract, We
make the following recommendations:
I'VE recommend that the contractor be
charged with the following items. In
making these charges We recognize that
while the amount charged for the omission
| OF some articles would be the difference in
cost between the article furnished and that
| specified, yet, granting that the one pro-
yided answers every purpose at present, If
| the article specified had at any time in the
| future 10 be put in the building in place of
the one provided. the cost would in all
| probability far exceed the fgure1we have
given. This is especially true in estimat-
ing the charge for the difference of two
feet in the len 9th of the bnilar