Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1914-09-11
TELLS WHERE TAX
PAYERS MONEY GOES
Continued from napa 81

contracts for the so-called O'Connor
bridge and the Gibson bridge, both
OIL the Skookumchuck river, the
Prather bridge on the Chehalis river,
and the Ruth bridge. All these were
contracted under the emergency
clause and all the contracts went to
the same company. This same mat
ter has been commented upon in con-
nection with another examination of
county affairs. relative more particu-
larly to the commissioners office.
call attention to it again as one Of the
facts in connection with our road and
bridge system.
Our statutes provide for the erec-
ton of bridges, the estimated cost of
which is more than $4,000, by con-
tract based upon bids secured by ad-
vertising for three weeks, save in the
case of an emergency. Here con-
tracts for all the bridges built in 1913
were let as emergency contracts, and
the aggregate of the contracts was
$28,9OO.OO. Either no emergencies
existed, or the engineer or commits
sioners had failed to properly inspect
the bridges. Such hasty methods do
not make for the best results. 1t
would seem that bridges of the value
of those mentioned should be built
after more careful consideration.
BY examination of the commission
ers' minutes for 1918. I find that
only an insignificant portion Of the
work done during that year was done
on contract, other than the bridge
contracts above referred to. ! find
mention of a contract for 1875 rods of
clearing, for the building of some
fence and for the widening of a GER
tain fill. This last contract was for
the sum of $212.50. l do not have
the amounts involved in the other
contracts. I found no record of any
other contracts let for road work.
though I looked carefully through
the minutes twice. This means that
of the total of more than $66.0O0.OO
spent in 1918, by far the larger por-
ton was spent on work done under
the supervision of the road supervis-
ors, on the day labor plan. Whether
any large job could be, or rather,
would be, handled as cheaply under
that plan as under contract. is ques-
tionable.
How Work is Done.
Considerable sums were spent on
certain of the roads. For example
on the so-called Morris road. more
than SLOTS in four months. and on
the Centralia road, more than $4,725
in eight months. both exclusive OF
the cost for gravel etc., and the sal.
aries or per diem of the supervisors
The sums mentioned were warrants
paid for labor only. Persons living
in the vicinity of roads whereon day
work is being done say that a vast
amount Of time is wasted. 1t is COM
mon to see two or three men riding
back and forth the entire distance OF
a long haul on gravel wagon. draw
ing pay for full day when, as mat
ter of fact, very little of their time
is really spent in productive labor. Al
so, in many cases teams stand fol-
long periods Of time doing absolutely
nothing. This would not be toler-
( ated by a contractor.
The practice of doing a large
amount OF road work under the sup
ervision of the supervisors of the
various districts by day work. also
tends, without doubt, to the practice
of letting the work to persons favor
ed for political reasons. regardless OF
efficiency.
The 1918 Budget.
The commissioners have just COM
pleted their budget for 1915, and II
might be we'll to call attention to
some of it's features at this time.
The first thing that appears is that
the current expense fund has been
reduced by about ten thousand COL
lars, as against the 1914 budget. BY
a careful examination Of the details
OF the budget, it will appear that in
most cases the Offices to which spe'
cial attention has been given in this
report are allowed rs much or more
than formerly. The total of the 1914
budget was s92,488; the total for
1915, $82,609. The difference, OF
s9.S75, is more than made up by the
one item of interest on bonds and
sxVyr