The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-07-27

improper charges shown on Appendix
"B'' Is S11S6 30 and the writer suggests
that the City Auditor be directed TO cred
it the bond fund with this amount and
charge the engineering instruments ana
tools account with same. This sugges-
tion is made In face OF the fact that one
instrument, costing SLABS. and one
horse, costing sS5, both shown on Appen-
dix ''B" are at present being used In the
construction OF the Big Cottonwood con-
duit. for the following reasons:
Why Suggestion Is Made.
First-Any instrument used for special
work Is not necessarily UNIT for further
use when the special work Is completed
and, on the completion of the work, be-
comes part OF the general property OF
the city and not of the special fund for
which It was purchased. II may pos
sibly be correct to charge the special
fund with the use Of the instrument. but
Il is certainly incorrect 10 charge IL with
IT'S full cost.
Second-When an instrument Is charged
TO the instruments and tools account OF
the Engineering department and thence
taken into the inventory. the city has
a check upon t and should II be lost or
stolen. the responsibility for It's absence
may be determined. II II is charged TO
any special fund. all trace OF it, for prsc-
tical purposes, is lost.
In this connection It may be mentioned
that the inventory of the City Engineer
Instruments and tools is at present In an
unsatisfactory condition Should the
city desire TO know the extent OF Its
assets in this respect, 1t would be i'm
practicable TO give the figure correctly
from the present records.
City Inventories.
Referring more particularly 20 city iu-
n
Importance of having them kept correct
ly, the writer begs 20 state that his in
vestigations have led him to examine the
waterworks storehouse account, as shown
on the City Auditors records. and that
he finds a discrepancy in figures has
existed In this account since January l.
1904. On that date the Auditors books
show that the waterworks storehouse in
ventory should be S39 .241.67. while the
waterworks superintendent's figures
show only $23115.70 leaving a difference
of s16,125.97. AS far as shown on the
city records. this deficiency has never
| been accounted for
The special pay-rolls" charged by the
| Engineering department during 1904 and
! 1906 to Utah Lake Improvement"
amount in the aggregate TO a considerable
| sun. IN no instance is IL feasible to
check these amounts in detail. as no
| lime sheets accompanied these special
pay-rolls, no distribution Is shown on
! chem and there is no information on
| record as to time, place or quantity OF
| work done by the individuals whose
names appear on these pay-rols.
AS shown on the engineering records
| the total amount of construction work
! done on the Big Cottonwood conduit, up
to and including December 81, 1905, was
$76,2s5.64, while the Engineering charts
for the same account, up TO the same
date, was Sl7,o6612. This figure repre-
cents 22.371 per cent of the amount oi
contract work completed TO that date
| The percentage OF engineering charges
| on contract work Is usually 4, being IL
per cent for preliminary work and 81.
per cent for construction; though ir
work as costly as the Big Cottonwood
conduit it is usual for the percentage u
run less than 4.
Taking the extreme figure OF pei
cent. however, and estimating the cos
OF engineering on that basis. we hnc
chat on estimates amounting to SIC ,2S5 g.
the charge, after allowing ~ per cen
for preliminary work on the total amour
OF contracts, s24S.274.3S. should b,
s5601. 25, making the engineering charge
on the Big Cottonwood conduit up TO an,
including December 81, 1905. excessive 1,
the sum OF s11, ,46AS7
Big Cottonwood Conduit.
The total amount OF contracts entere
into by the city, for the Big Cottonwoo
conduit, was S246 .274.30; the amount G
engineering charges TO December 81, 1905