The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-04-18
PUBLIC WORKS DILEMMA.

PUBLIC WORKS DILEMMA.
Judging by the discussion in the
council on Tuesday evening. property
owners who paiG fer sidewalk i'm
pTovements last year and year before,
hut have failed 10 get them, will be
lucky if they ever get the walks. On
various pleas the contractors who so
readily undertook the work. are refus-
Ing to complete it. and the board of
public works confesses its inability 10
handle the situation.
The Utah Fireproofing company,
which held the contract for 1905, re-
fuses to go on with the remaining 5O0.-
600 feet of walks ordered for that year
and still unfinished. The board of
public works thinks the contractors can
be held on their agreement, but the city
attorney says they cannot. The council
evaded action by d ruling of the chair
man that nothing was before it for con-
sideration because the communication
from the board of public works was
signed by only one member instead of
three as required by the rules.
James Kennedy and 5. Birch. contract
ors for pipe. sewer and sidewalk in
1906 also ask to be released and refuse
To accept scrip for payment because
their contract calls for payment in
warrants on the special assessment
funds. The new law. passed by the
last legislature. provides that no as
sessment can be levied until the work
is done; and the banks refuse to ac-
cept scrip except at such a discount as
TO make it Improbable for contractors.
L may be observed casually that the
contractors for 1905 had no hesitancy
in continuing work on the basis of their
original contract until the advances in
wages and materials affected them.
Possibly some such considerations have
affected the disposition of the other
contractors and helped them discover
that the new law releases them from
further obligation to complete their
contract obligations.
However that may be, the property
owner is confronted with the certainty
of further delay i'm improvements, par
ticularly IN those sidewalk districts
which were ordered done in 1865 and
where the work has been permitted 70
drag along for nearly two years, al
though ii was paid for and the money
has been in the bank ali this time. The
responsibility for this lies directly with
the board of public works. the city
council and the mayor who have per-
mitted the unconsciOnable delay, al
though their attention has been called
10 it repeatedly and they We're aware
of the exact conditions existing. They
compelled Contractor Percival To COM
pIete his work for 1906 before they gave
him any further work; is there any
good reason why they should not COM
peI the performance Of other contracts?
If there is. it must be because the con-
tracts were loosely drawn or tho board
of public works has not been safe
guarding the public interests.
What with the botch legislation OF
this session, and the lax administration
If public works by the city administra-
ton. the taxpayer is getting the worst
kind of deal all around. Councilman
Tuddenham has already called atten-
ton to the fact that the uncOmpleted
sidewalks have been paid for at the
rate of 6S cents a linear foot. and the
property-owners have a right to expect
walks for their money at that rate.
If the contractors cannot be held 20 the
performance Of their contracts. some
one will have 70 pay much more than
IS cents for the work. The property
owners cannot be held for the differ
enee in cost: the city has no fund eX-
cent the special assessment already
collected with which 10 pay for walks
and there you are.
No more perfect illustration Of the
bunglesome. crude system of city gov
eminent under which Salt Lake oper-
ates could have been furnished. Be-
tween the board of public works, tie
citv's law department, the city coun-
eli. the mayor and the contractors, the
taxpayer is bound to lose. He can't
fix the responsibility except to know
that the city administration generally
is to blame: the best he can do is to
nay the bills, swear at the administra-