Arizona republican., 1921-12-22

1921; and to show, moreover, all oth- CT information not mentioned in said letter but which is absolutely neces- sary for a comprehensive statement of the expenditure by the commits sion of s3,921. .606.26 from and includ- ing May. 1919, to and including Oc- tober, 1921.
 The letter referred to reads as foi- lows:
 Phoenix, Ariz., Oct. 10, 1921. To the Board of Supervisors,
 Maricopa County,
 Phoenix, Ariz. Gentlemen:
 In view of the fact that the county Of Maricopa is soon to conclude a portion of it's program of highway construction, under. which a fund to- tall;ng s4,0o0,000 will have been ex- pended, we feel that a comprehensive statement should be prepared and made public at once, for the eniight- enment of citizens generally and tax payers in particular, concerning the costs of our highways to date.
 We respectfully urge that you or der an au/t of the books and ac- counts of the County Highway com mission, such audit, among other
 
 mile for miles of road constructed; {; the amount paid contractors under original contractss the amount paid contractors for extra construction not in original contracts; amounts disbursed by the County Highway commission not paid to contractors, showing Highway Commission en- gineers' fees and salaries, travel ex- penses and office expense; inspec- tion expense; Highway Commission members salaries: office expense and travel expense; legal advice maps and printing. freight. and cleo tion costs. We suggest that the audit show in each item the peI cent of the $4.oo0,0G0 bond fund the amounts total.
 Respectfully submitted, J. c. Ad- ans, l.. H. Rhuart, Ezra W. Thayer D. II. Claridg., Geo. A Mauk, Geo H. N. Luhrs, J. S. Douglas, W. w Cook, Chas. Korriclz, V. E. Hanny c. D. Doris, T. B. Stewart, W. L Pinney. J. T. Whitney, R. W. Craig E. W. Clayton.
 The questions asked in the above letter I will answer in the order given or give reasons why I have not answered same.
 Question 1. Cost per mile for miles of road constructed.
 Answer. Roads constructed to Oc- tober 31, 1921, amounted to 11693st miles.
 The total cost for same, including overhead amounted to s3,491, ,142.20.
 Equal to average cost per mile o, s29,s55.76.
 For details see Schedules c and D
 Question 2 The amount paid con tractors under loriginal contracts. Answer. s3,275, ,464.41. This am ount is made up as follows: Am ount paid and due Twohy Bros. a shown on Schedule C, S3,305, ,9S3. .64 Add due by the State. s1,5s6.4A Total, s3,307, ,5700s. Less retaine, per contract, s27,o54.17. Included i, extras, s5,051.50. Total s32,1O5.s s7 Grand total, s3,275, 464.41. Question 3. Amount paid con tractors for extra construction no in original contracts Answer. Work done on force ae count, s7.o90.71. See Schedule c. Over and above the above amour of extras certain earth fills include in the original contract were wit l the permission os Twohy Bros. le l out to other contractors at a reduce price. Said fills cost ss,s16.3s. Sc Schedule c.
 Question 1. Engineers fees an salaries.
 r Answer. sS1.4s5.2s. See schedul A, item. 13.
 Question 5. Engineers travel ex 1 penses.
 Answer. s1S9.o1. This amour does not show as a separate item i 1 Schedule A. s13.75 however, wa l charged to Commissions general ex pense and was for expenses incurre ! by Mir. Perkins, chief engineer, whil 1 in Tucson with members of the com I mission.
 s125.26 was charged to Engineer, l general expense account and was fo meals for surveying party at Buckey on several occasions. Total as above, s13901.
 Question 6. Engineers office ez pense.
 l Answer, ss.s4s.s2. See schedul A, item II.
 | Question T. Inspection expense. r Answer, s40,223.s6. See Schedul | A, item IA.
 Question 8. Highway Commission members salaries.
 Answer. s31.s5OOo. See Schedu,