Great Falls weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1894-1???, 1895-05-31
BOARD
Allows Mckay Brothers Estimate
for Labor and Material on the
High School.
MUST FURNISH A new BOND
The Board Demands a New Bond
from the COntractOrs-Dan Nc
Kay Protests.

order in special meeting Monday night all
the members were present.
Routine business was dispensed with
and the board proceeded to consider the
report Of the investigating committee.
Hanks said that the better element of
the community is in favor of proceeding
with the construction of the high school
building. In order to get the matter
before the board he moved that the last
estimate of Mckay Bros, for S1,954.80, be
allowed and that a warrant be drawn
for the Same, and that the board do not
consider the report of TIL Investigating
committee.
Gockstetter said that he would second
the first part of the m%otion-to allow the
estimate and to have Il warrant drawn
and Hanks amended his motion to &C.
cord with Gockstetter's views.
Cooper said that all this clap-trap
about anybody being in favor of stop
ping the work on the building is simply
nonsense. Nobody on the board wants
to see the work stopped, and there is
not a respectable minority of the people
opposed to it. He wanted the district
to have a square deal and would contend
to the very end for it. Repath has made
Il report and no one doubts his honesty
or ability. Repath estimates the perches
of stone in rubble work and footings at
2,O3G, worth $0,G7l. White estimates
1902 perches of rubble walls and G3G11a
perches of footings, a total of 2,23Sls
perches. This at S4.75 per perch mounts
ings are incorrectly added by White and
should be G26T.
White said he thought this was a mis-
take of his copying clerk.
Cooper, continuing, said White had es-
timated 1922 cubic yards of extra exca-
walton; Repath estimates 1902. The
difference, at 81 per yard, is $40
Repath's report states that in his esti-
mate he figured the footings according to
the specifications, but the committee has
found that the footings were not up to
specifications.
Luckett called Cooper's attention to
Repath's report, made at the request of
Attorney Downing, in which Repath
states that White claims 60 perches Of
stone around the air inlets. Repath
states that, if they are found to be in
place, the contractor should be credited
with them. Repath states that his re.
port is only approximate. and yet he fig
ures the work done at Sll,94S.
White said that Repath had taken
measurements in only a dozen places,
while he himself had measured 100
places. Yet their figures vary only 1864.
Cooper said that Mckay had been
paid s2l 1861 according to Repath he
should have been paid only S2l. l45.46.
This leaves a balance in favor of the dis.
trict of S2223.O7. White has not given
the district credit for 2S7 perches of
concrete omitted, and in the footings
there is a difference between White and
Repath of ll2 perches. These amount
to 81, $50. so, and if deducted from the
estimate, assuming Whites figures to be
correct, leave a balance due the con-
tractor Of only S3GS.3O.
Holmes said that he assumed Whites
figures to be correct, because they we're
always checked up by Emerton and eau
field. 1t is merely a question whether
the board will now, or in the future, de-
duct the value of material unnecessary
and omitted.
Cooper SAID he did not want to deduct
from the cost of the roof what did not
20 into the foundation. The last esti-
mate should not be allowed, until White
had presented an estimate showing the
value Of materials omitted.
White said that, including the estimate
under consideration, the board would
have paid ~SlO,45S.4O on the original con
tract. The value of the work done on
that contract is Sl4,4S9.5O. There are
now 100000 brick on the ground, worth
$500. The concrete omitted is worth
Sl,44G. Footipgs omitted are worth
81 ,3:G3.25. Drain tile omitted is worth
S75. This makes a tota! credit to the
district of Sl3,342 60, besides 10 per cent
of the value of The work withheld. lie
had never in his experience made an
estimate for work and material omitted,
but would be glad to do so.
Cooper said the estimates seemed too
large. White said that he was keeping
them as small as possible and did not
consider them disproportionate. Cooper
said the building could not be built for
10000. Plumbing and steam heating
would cost $4,000 to $4,000 extra. Yet
White had made sworn statement that
it could be built for 100000, including
plumbing and steam heating. White
said he believed it could have been, but
the board let a separate contract for
those items.
Raban said he remembered that, at a
meeting of the school board over a year
ago, Mckay had been asked if his bid in
cluded plumbing and steam heating.
Mckay had evaded the question, saying
that everything in the specifications was
included.
Mckay said that in all buildings he
built, plumbing and steam heating had
been let separately, In the specifications
for this building he had never seen any
specifications for those items.
Cooper said other contractors had bid
on them.
Hanks motion was then put, the vote
being:
Yeas-Hanks, Gockstetter, Luckett.
Nays-Cooper, Raban, Poole.
Holmes declared the motion carried.
White then requested the board for