Arizona republican., 1921-12-22

provement fund ,or would this be maintenance cost to be taken care of by the board of supervisors after the roads have been accepted from Twohy Bros. Cor
 In reply to your inquiry have to say that under the highway commits sion act, and in accordance with the call of the bond election the highway commission is the only official, body CT person to administer the funds de- rived from the bond sale for the construction of the roads involved, and that it is my opinion that no one but the highway commission has the authority to expend the funds neces- sary to do the work mentioned above, and it is their duty to complete the road and pay for the same out of the highway improvement fund be- l fore turning the same over to the board of supervisors, including the cutting of the expansion joints men, l toned in your letter.
 Yours truly.
 J. C. FOREST, Deputy County Attorney.
 JCF-J co to B of s.
 concur with the opinion of the learned counsel for the county. 1 However, as he does not mention ! which is but a small proportion of the s6,097.99, I am of the opinion ! that same is capital charge and not maintenance charge, on the 1 grounds that the roads have not | been handed over ot the county, and any finishing touches necessary to be done on the roads even after the roads have been accepted from the contractors, are legitimate capital expenditures.
 What finishing touches" are may be d debata point, but in this par ticular case I consider the commits
 sion showed sound judgment in fill | ing up all contraction cracks tmn7e- diately same occurred.
 Schedule D. attached hereto shows
 the average cost per mile of paving
 of different dimsensions, as follows:
 12.4573 miles; 1S'x6"; average di-
 rect cost per mile, ss0,264.6S; aver
 total cost per mile, $34.556.4T: tota
 cost, s43o,4
 36.2400 miles; 16'xe"; average di-
 rect cost per mile. s36.264.6S; aver
 age total cost per mile. S31,721.2si
 total cost, $1,149. .579.7o.
 6S.2363 miles; 16'x5"; average di'
 rect cost per mile.s $26,550.1s; aver
 age total cost per mile, S2S,006.TS; | IOIdl COSlf SlfJ11,Vtc c-4s
 Total miles. 116-9336; total cost
 s3.491. .14220; average cost per mile
 s29. .ss5.76.
 Excessive Freight Rates
 | Excess freight. which has entered into the cost of building of the 11f
 miles in question, have already
 mentioned in this report, but to tanc
 too) excessive freight rates whicf
 every taxpayer of Maricopa County
 has had to pay in connection witf the building of the 116 miles, l now wish to draw your attention.
 That there is no possible doub
 that the freight rates on both ce- ment and sand and gravel are ex- cessive is evidenced by tentative 1; opinion handed down by the inter , state commerce commission after { : full and complete hearing as fal : back as September 13. 1920, saiC l opinion being to the effect tha Phoenix should have the sam' } freight rate on cement as Tucson In spite of said tentative opiniol , absolutely no relief has yet been re 5 ceived from the excessive freigh ? rates charged on cement by the rail , roads. It will be of interest to ever! -- citizen and taxpayer of Martcop; : county to learn that it has cost then I for freight on 51,61s.3S0 tons of ce r ment shipped from California, wbicl s has been put into the roads in ques . tion, no less than $61,3S4.59 nor $ than it would have cost Tucson. Q As far back as May II. 1921, Tn a Arizona Corporation Commission, af . ter a full and complete hearing
 ordered the Arizona Eastern Railwa 3 to make reparation to the. Maricop
 County Highway Commission for ex l l cessive freight rates charged 10 y hauling sand. and gravel. amountin . to over s17,00o, yet at this writin