The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-04-18
WATER WORKS.
Street and Water Board
Committee Advises Rigid
Inspection During
Construction.
COST OF SUPERVISION
Chief Engineer Ferris Gives
Figures of Two Methods
of Protecting City.
COST OF SUPERVISION

| discussing the new water works at Boon
| ton. Although the contract stipulated
everything having regard to the city's in
/ terests, yet the Board felt that close in
| spection of the construction work was q
| sine qua non. To a Committee of the
| Whole was this matter referred and yes
| terday they made the following report
| To the Honorable the Board of Street
| and Water commissioners
Gentlemen-Your Committee on New
| water works, to whom was referred the
communication from engineer in charge
| new water works respectfully report that
| they are confirmed in the belief that a
complete and rigid inspection should be
made of the various matters essential to
| the construction of the new water works
| during the process of such construction.
| The specifications under which such
works are to be built were prepared with
unusual care, and if such specifications
are adhered to there is every reason to
| expect that the works when completed
will be built as well, if not a little bet
| ter, than are any works of like character
| in the country. In making proper pro-
| vision for inspection at this period the
| city would seem to be exercising only
| that degree of ordinary business caution
which should appeal to any careful in
dividual. Improper or careless work
which could be prevented in the initial
stages might not discover itself until some
time after acceptance by the city, and
| the financial loss would be the least of
the evils to be borne and it is not neces-
sary to assume that the contractor would
Wilfully disregard the tenor OF his con-
tract in order that we should foresee and
provide against such possible contingency.
The city has now agreed to purchase
these works on their completion ana ac-
ceptance, which was undoubtedly the
wfsest and most economical course to
pursue but the notice thus given the
contractor that when works are com
will not be indefinitely prolonged, might
and probably would result in less rigorous
| care, and more particularly and especial
| ly so if the city displayed Indifference
There are many things that enter into
| this work which must be given inspec-
| ton before they so enter, or not at all, for
| instance the steel out of which the pipe
| line is to be formed must be properly
| heated and cooled and dipped and rolled
before it becomes pipe, and while our
specifications provide in minute detail
| how these several essentials shall be
done, and without the doing of which the
| life of the pipe will be materially shorten
| ed, no action has been yet taken by the
city to guarantee that the specifications
shall be lived up to-.
The dam foundation must be properly
constructed. Certain qualities of cement
must be used and l, the mortar must De
| properly mixed. Tunnels must be of
certain described character, etc., etc. etc.
These are some of the many things pro-
vided for in specifications in detail and
completed would be a substantial and per-
manent acquisition and not thing of
shreds and patches which would require
constant repair. 1t would seem to this
committee that to not provide a proper
inspection would evidence a needless dis
regard of the city's interest for which
this. Board should dsclaim any and al
responsibility. We feel that preventive
is infinitely better than can be the most
scientific post mortem examination:
Your committee learns with pleasure
IL hi Tlf,o1- dnff
spection requirements and of the amount
of probable cost therefor, the engineer in
charge of construction has assumed full
responsibility. That he has been an abb
solutely free agent to recommend what
should be done and how it should be done.
We believe that is the right course. He
was appointed for his knowledge of this
class of work and for his judgment, and
| SO long as the interests of the city are
being carefully guarded by him, he Should
| remain untrammelled in the exercise OF
| that knowledge and judgment even in so
| far that if the co-official body which d1-
yides with us the care of the water de-
partment shall concur in our view of what
| is required in the new works and snail
provide the necessary funds therefor all
nominations for such inspectofSh1pS ana
| supervision as may be provided for shall
| emenate from such engineer and that no
appointments for that purpose shall be
| made without such nomination.
Your committee would further report
| that in the event of proper provision
being made for inspection. the fund
made applicable therefor be made charge
against new water works and bonded as
SUCH A necessary expenditure for in
spection and supervision is in the opinion
of your committee just as much of and
| just as. fair charge against this account
| for said works on completion. 1t will tend
to simplify matters and will put an item
| of expense where it belongs.
Finally your committee would suggest
| that the Board of Finance be requested
| to confer with this Board at an early date
| in the matter herein reported on
FERDINAND HEINTZE,
ROBERT G.. SMITH
ANTHONY HAIICK,
JOHN SULLIVAN
JAMES S. NOLAN.
Committee on New Water Works.
| Dated Jersey City. April II, 1900
In order that as much light on the sub
| iect as possible should be obtained the
Board requested Mr.. Garwood Ferris, the
| consulting engineer, to give his views on
| this supervision of the construction work,
| and Mr.. Ferris replied yesterday as fol-
| lows
| Honorable Board of Street and Water
Commissioners
Gentlernen-At your request herewith
present comparison of the results to
| Jersey City if the two methods of super
vision of construction of the new water
| works described in my communication to
! your Board dated June 49, 1899, one per-
| mitting Jersey City to safely purchase
the plant upon completion, final testing
| and acceptance and the other, at less
| present outlay, relying upon one year and
| eleven months test in use instead of a
| close inspection during construction.
I would premise that owing to legal
1 delays the earliest date at which, under
| the contract the completion of the works
could be expected would be March l. 1902
make May /, 1902, the earliest probable
date at which the works could come into
| the possession of the city. The latest date
| at which the city could purchase at the
| 81 595 600 option would be February l, 1904.
| The first method I estimate, at the
| outside, would cost detail esti-
mate annexed)...... 49,. ...... 80. 500, 600
| The other method:-
| For engineer and assistants. $23, $40
For testing steel and super
vision of pipe .s.............. $500
| For incidentals and contin-
| gent (say)...... .... $50 -. 4S60
| Excess of cost Of first method -. s52, 800
| Qt will be noted, however, that the Sec
/ ond method does not provide for any in
| spectors which may be appointed, to the
extent OF their appointment would the ex-H
| cess Of cost be diminished)
# we diminish water from May 1, 1902,
to February 4, 1904 the excess of cost