Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-04-18

an attempt was made to I'LL the res
eTvOir with water, and after depth
of -four and half or five feet had
teen reached, the attempt was aban-
,, Goned by reason of the fact that the
reservoir leaked at the rate Of one
foot in twenty-four hours. After an
inspection by the superintendent of
public works, the contractors were
ordered to put on a lining Of cement
and sand and three inches of con-
crete over the floor, which was con-
sidered as extra work, for which they
were paid the sum of $S0S.75, max
ing total cost up to that time Of
$5S4S75. ~.. II
Still Useless. =. ..'....- -. +
Again an attempt was made to fill
the reservoir with water. with re-
suit similar to the first attempt. The
contractors demanded the balance
iue them under the contract but were
refused by Friesell, until the reser-
voir was made water tight They
| then appealed to the superintendent
of public works, who instructed Fries
| ell as follows: I want you to write
letter recommending payment and
get this off our hands" The letter
was written, final payment made to
| the contractors April 6, 1912, and the
Territory had on its hands reservoir
costing $584S.75 which would not hold
water, and was absolutely useless for
the purpose for which it was intended.
For months nothing was done with
the reservoir, and finally new plans
and specifications for new structure
of reinforced concrete to be built in
side of the first so-called reservoir
were drawn, and on February ID, 1913,
| the contract was awarded by Super.
| intendent Bishop to Pfcanco and Co.
for the sum of $6125.00.
Under the present contract, rein
forced concrete wall is being built
against the stone wall first built, and
over this concrete is placed lining
of cement, and the whole treated to a
coat of Eitumen paint. The floor OF
the reservoir is also being covered
with layer of two inches of cement
Plans Were Faulty.
From the foregoing your commit
| tee finds that the original plans called
for a reservoir which would not hold
water, conclusion also INDUCED IN
by the very contractors who did the
work, and the person who drew the
plans, and that fact called to the at
tention of the superintendent OF pub
lie works at a time prior to the award
ling of the contract.
j "Carehssness, lack, of study Of
conditions, the absolute insufficiency
of plans and specifications for the
reservoir, and the lack of ability tc
!, undertake such work, has cost the
/ taxpayers of this Territory, in the
construction of this reservoir, al
amount far in excess of the cost o.
reservoir which in the first instance
could have been built of reinforced
concrete, and would have fulfilled the
purpose for which it was intended.
Loss: $1,343.75.
Even allowing that the stone wal
first put in adds to the strength o
1.-THE reservoir, and would be neces
sary in reinforced concrete con
1 struction, the completed work woulC
cost much less on a liberal estimate
than the amount already expended
upon the reservoir, as is shown b!
the following: Eli. !.
Value of portions used from frs
contract: =. 49,. -......
Excavation, about 2009 cubic IL.
i yards, at $3.50 ..........$ 3,000.0'
i Rock facing, 900 so. yards,
| at 1925 1,125.O
Reinforced concrete and ce- -.
mentfng ........... 6,125.0
! Roof 10000