Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-11-11
BOARD OF WORKS
RECEIVES CHARGE:
Taxpayers in Sidewalk District
1903 Say Specifications
Are Disregarded.
INSPECTORS HELD BLAMABLE
Vhilo Watching Work Done They
Have Permitted Inferior Work TO
Be Done by Contractor.

paving that is being laid in the south
eastern part of the city has called forth
formal complaint from Taxpayers who
are called upon to pay for the improve
ments. Many protests have been voiced
against the work, fault being found
with the fnannerin which the ground Is
being prepared, with the small amount
of cement mixed with the gravel and
sand with the poor quality Of the ce-
ment, and last of all with the way In
which the pavement is left unprotect-
ed by fences after it is laid. Not only
have the contractor and his men been
criticised, but the inspectors in the
service of the city have come in for
share Of the blame attaching to the
undertaking.
Yesterday the following complaint
was submitted to the board OF public
works, having been prepared by the
committee Of citizens appointed to in
vestigate and report upon the condi-
tons pertaining to sidewalk extension
No. 10S:
1--WE. the undersigned citizens and
taxpayers residing within that portion
OF sidewalk extension No. 10S, lying be-
tween Lincoln and Seventh East
streets, from east to west. and between
Ninth South and Tenth South Streets
omsnorth to south. do hereby solemn,
~ protest against the utter disregard
of the contract specifications by the
James Kennedy Construction company
In the laying OF sidewalks in the above
described district.
"Wo protest on tho following
grounds:
THE contractor has failed to lamp
the fills on sidewalks raised above tho
natural level as required by the spe-
cfications. (See paragraph ?, section 9,
page 20 of printed specifications)
The contractor has failed TO finish
The wearing surface OF the sidewalk in
workmanlike manner as required by
the specifications. (Sce paragraph 3.
section II, page &c, of printed specifica-
honsD
Tho contractor has failed to protect
the sidewalk against traffic. after it's
being laid and before it has set firmly,
as required by the specifications. (See
paragraph 5, section II. page 26, of
printed speciications.)
The contractor has shamefully disre-
garded the specifications as to the re-
tatiVe proportion OF cement to sand and
gravel, placing in the sidewalk first
aid, for foundation, one part of cement
to u parts of sand and gravel. and in
The wearing surface, one part of cement
to six parts OF sand and gravel; where
IS the specifications call for one part
Df cement oseight parts of sand and
gravel for the foundation, and one part
of cement to two of sand and gravel
FOR the wearing surface. In other
words, the contractor used one sack OF
cement in the foundation where he
should have used one and one-half
sacks; and in the wearing surface used
one sack of cement where three should
have been used
In the sidewalk laid after protest by
Indignant citizens the relative propor-
lion of cement used for the foundation
MAS increased by the contractor to one
10 nine. and for the wearing surface,
increased TO one to three; whereas 1t
,hould have been one to eight and one
10 two respectively.
In proof of the foregoing charges,
your petitioners herewith present the
Lfhdnvits Of numerous citizens
All of the foegoing violations of
contract by the contractor were made
possible by the fragrant misconduct of
HE inspectors of the city.
Your petitioners represent that while
much of the sidewalk laid in said dis
'rict is lnanifestly defective and OF poor
iuality, that a great deal of said side
Walk is covered with sand and it's de-
lccts hid from view, and that your pc i
htioners cannot, therefore, at this time,
let out In detail the particulars and |
The location of many of the defects in
aid sidewalk. except as before set
'orth as to. the insufficient proportion
" cement.
In view OF the foregoing facts. your
petitioners pray that the work done in
sle district before described by the
lanes Kennedy Construction company
se not approved and accepted and that
'our petitioners have an opportunity to |
resent to your honorable body a de-
allied statement of the particulars in |
which the work of said contractor is |
efectve and in violation of the terms |
II his contract. and the particulars OF |
he damage done your petitioners there
~.
Your petitioners further pray that |
lle inspectors guilty of allowing the
'onogoing Vilations of contract by the !
Contractors be forthwith discharged"
3 4h----- .faas