Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-09-24
CLAIMS To HAVE SAVED
S734,188 IN THREE YEARS
Administrative Board Comes Back Mt
Those Who Would Work
Its Abolition.
FILES COMPARATIVE TABLF
Unit Cost of Work Done by Council
Committee in 1910, 1911 and 1912
Shown to Have Exceeded Unit Cost
in Three Years Under Board.

The Administrative Board las night
dealt n staggering blow to those of its
critics who have held to the view that
no material benefits to the city by
fling with the Charter Change Commit
tee tabulated statement showing that
in street and sewer work alone the
board has saved the city in the last
three years, as compared with the price
paid for such work by the old Street
Committee. the sum of s734.lSS.43
The statement was presented by
Councilman Pollock. exponent OF the
plan which provides for the retention
OF the Administrative Board, the en-
largcmcnt of its powers and its cleo
ton in the future by the Council. in
stead OF by the people.
FRIENDS HAD NOT ANTICIPATED
so LARGE 4 SAVING
While the more kindly of the Admin
istrative Boards critics had conceded
that its administration has expedited
the transaction OF business and has
effected savings in certain departments.
the most enthusiastic OF its friends had
not anticipated saving OF the size in
dicared by the statement. Its prcsenta-
ton last night caused a near -sensa tion
and established for the board n battle
ment which it's opponents will nnd IT
is difficult to break down
In preparing its statement of econo-
niles, the board compared the Street
Committees administration Of 1910,
1911 and 1912 with its own administra-
0f
only the activities TO which the old
street Committee confined itself
Uses UNIT COST SYSTEM
FOR PURPOSES OF COMPARISON
For tho purpose of arriving at an
estimate OF the savings Effected bv the
present administration, the statement
makes use of a SYSTEM of unit costs
For example. il shows that tho street
Committee during the period covered
bought 3i,35S.222 bricks. paying for
them S572,427.94. or Sl5.aS per 1000
The board. during it's three years Of
administration, bought 14.27G.15O bricks
paying for them S2l2,790a aS. or S14o7
per 1000. Tho unit costs in the case
OF bricks, according to the statement
were. therefore. sl5.SS for the commit
tee and s14.o7 for the board or n saw
ing In unit cost for the board of ~
cents per 1000. This saving multiplied
by tho 14,276.I5o bricks used by tho
board in already executed work shows
n saving of s5.S52o2 over what would
have been spent. presumably. had the
committee been In charge
SMOOTH PAVING SHOWS
LARGEST SINGLE SAVING
This system is followed throughout
tho statement. The largest single saw
inr is recorded under the head OF
smooth paving. The unit cost OF
smooth paving under the committee
was SEA? square yard. Tho boards
unit cost for smooth paving was sI57
The statement claims, therefore, that
n saving OF s3i5,3o3.71 has been ef-
fectcd by the board In this work alone.
as compared with the price that would
have been raid by the committee. since
6l2.6io.i0 square yards OF smooth
paving were laid In the last three
years
Attention was drawn last night to
the fact that the committee confined
itself almost exclusively to the use of
the expensive asphalt block paving.
while the board has awarded larcc
contracts for asphaltic concrete paving
at approximately SI.40 square yard
While both fall into the class OF smooth
paving. the opinion is general that the
block paving is tho moro Valuable, and
that the statement as to this class of
work is misleading, since no allowance
1Continued on Third pare.9