Arizona republican., 1921-12-22

s4,000,000 road bond issue to redeem the outstanding bond issue of spe cial road district No. and No. 2.
 On Schedule A, attached hereto, you will observe that show not only details of the money expended by the commission, but I have segregated same into what in my opinion is a just and equitable charge against the 116.9336 miles of road built up to Oct. 31, 1921; also what in my opin- ion is properly chargeable against the balance of the original project of 2S3 miles, of which the 116.9336 miles is part.
 The commission started function ing in May. 1919. The construction of the roads was not properly started | until around September. 1920. Mean while, large sums were of necessity spent in surveying and in endeavor- ing to get fair freight rates and many | other necessary overhead expenses applicable to the 2S3 miles. There 1 fore it can be seen that there would l be no justice in considering that the entire expenditure made before road construction was started should be ! entirely charged to the first 116.9336 miles built.
 I have charged against the 116.9336 l miles not only depreciation on all equipment, but an amount covering l loss and wastage.
 l The items of equipment shown on | Schedule A. under the heading of l Appraised Value of Fixed Assets. etc. l were arrived at after an inventory by 1 actual count was taken of all equip | ment in the possession of the com- 1 mission and in my opinion the values as shown, considering the organiza- 1 ton as a going concern, are reason 1 able.
 On Schedule E you will observe that I have charged as direct con- | struction cost item s6,097.99 against
 the lI69336 miles built. which item covers the cost of drilling and filling
 expansion joints and filling contrac-
 ton cracks. and is equal to cost per
 mile of s52.15.
 The question has been asked me by
 more than one taxpayer if I was
 going to show how much had been
 expended by the commission on ex-
 pansion joints and contraction
 cracks, and whether same was not
 purely a. maintenance and not "a
 construction or capital charge, and
 hence not a legal expenditure from
 the funds raised from the sale oi
 bonds to construct roads.
 l In this connection the following
 opinion received from the county
 attorneys office will be of interest to all taxpayers, and is as follows
 R. E. L. SHEPHERD.
 County Attorney,
 Maricopa County,
 Phoenix, Arizona
 | May 10th, 1921. Maricopa County Highway Commis-
 sion,
 3 North Seventeenth Avenue,
 Phoenix, Arizona.
 Gentlemen:
 Attention Mir. F. X. Jones. I have yours of the 9th lnstp 1T which you say in substance: When we let the contract for con- 1 str1ction of roads to 'Twohy Bros CO, the plans and specification: called for an expansion joint to lt placed in the pavement at every stop, regardless of the distance the! might be; this results in expansion
 joints being irregular and sometlmei as far as $50 or 400 feet apart. Int
 plan was adopted, knowing that l : would be necessary to relieve thl
 expansion by cutting channel , across the concrete at points wher this expansion was not sufficient t prevent the pavement from buck ling, but was much cheaper, accord ing to the engineers estimate tAal putting expansion joints at regula intervals of 30 or 40 feet, as well q eliminating other undesirable flea lures of putting the expansion joint in oftener. The cutting of thes | channels and putting in these extr | joints where needed was not includ ed in Twohy Bros bid. | And then you ask the folowin question:
 Has the commission the lega right to do this extra work and pa for the same out of the highway i'm