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

was s17.066.12. or 6.929 per cent OF
the total amount contracted for. The
total amount OF contract work com
pleted on December 81, 1906 was
SIG. .2S564. or 90975 per cent OF the
total amount contracted for. SO that
with only about 81 per cent OF tho con-
tract work actually completed, the en-
glneerlng charges were almost per
cent In excess OF what they should
be for the total amount of contracts.
In other words, estimating the per-
centage literally, namely. al per cent.
the engineering expense for contracts
amounting to S2i6,274.SS should be
$9S50.97; the engineering charges TO Inc
bond fund for contract estimates amount
ing to $76.2S5.63 were sl706612. making
S7215,15 more for S76.2S66i than IT should
be for s2f6.2743S.
Taking the percentage charged by the
engineering department 10 the bond fund.
UP to December 81, 1905. as basis,
we hnd that to complete the con-
tracts of s246,274.3S IL would cost the
city, for engineering expenses. s55,O94O4,
When II Is remembered that In the ad-
dress to the property taxpayers OF Salt
Lake City on an Increased water and
sewage system, formulated by the
Salt Lake City Council and n special
citizens committee on December IA, 1904.
the estimated expenses for engineer
| Ing prellminaries and supervision on
I
! 600, was $4,000, the excesstveness or
the engineering departments charges 10
| the bond fund, for the period ending De-
cember 81, 1905, will be self-apparen'.
Interesting Comparison.
The amount OF contract work done on
] the Big Cottonwood conduit from January
| l. 10 June so, 1906, Inclusive, was
! Sl56, ,4c5.35. The amount of engineering
| charges to the bond fund. on account of
| Big Cottonwood conduit. for the snme
| period was S30Sl.S9. or 1859 per cent
OF the completed contract work Ac-
| cording TO the scale OF charges for en-
! gineering work. from January /. 1905,
! 10 June 30. 1906. we find that the en-
gineering cost of contract work amount
Ing to SIC. .2s5.64, exclusive OF the 1t1 per
cent for preliminary work. would be
! Sl502 06. We have already seen that
UP TO December 81, 1905, the engineering
cost for the same amount Of work was
! SIT 7,066l2; deducting from this figure
S36o4.1 H. being 11s per cent allowance
for preliminary work on the total amount
Of contracts. s246,2745o, a balance is
left of St3,372.01: a difference OF
s11 $685.. Expressing this difference In
percentages, the cost OF engineering
on the Big Cottonwood conduit. for the
years 1904 and 1905, was seven
hundred and ninety per cent greater, for
a given amount of work, than the cost
| OF engineering LOT the peTlou between
January and June, 1906.
In view OF the foregoing figures. It tE
not unreasonable TO infer that the same
class OF error charging Items improper
ly 20 the bond fund.- exists In the
special payrolls. as they have beer
demonstrated TO exist where detailed
check on the charge was possible. II
the absence Of any positive evidence tc
the contrary, however, the writer IL
constrained to accept the figures or
these special payrolls.
Incidental Expense Unclassihed,
The items shown In the attached
schedule under the heading of Incl
dental Expenses (unclasshed)," amount
ing to $500, are shown In this manne
owing TO no information being procurabl'
from the records as 10 the correct dis
tribution Of the same. They are as fol
lows:
F. S. Richards, legal services $500
A. r. Doremus engineering ........ l,5o'
Mutual Life Insurance company, ettor
ney's fee in case George Z. Eller-
beck VS.. Salt Lnke City. ...... 81
R. P. Morris, trip to New York .... 25
r, s. Wells, trip TO New York ..s. 25
+. s. Richards, trip TO New York ,.. 25
J. S. Critchlow, trip TO New York 25