Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-09-14

1 u GVAGtA QGNADA 4n0 ~ NnAIA ehEE TN
receive no pay. This additional work
consists in making provisions for future
buildings and additions at the same To-
ditOriums, and in ell cases additional
classrooms and in this connection the ar
chitects are required to show preliminary
plans for future improvements in con-
nectlOn with the plans and Specifications
for the work immediately proposed: This
is required in order that this board may
be able to pass intelligently upon the
plans for the work Immediately con-
templated and be sure that future add
lions can be made at the maximum Of
convenience and at minimum of expense.
This makes the work Of the architectsl
much more complicated and extensive
than If they were called upon merely to,
make plans and specifications for a
building of given dimensions and ca
pacity, without having In contemplation
future improvements. This board and
considered that foresight and economy
required that all present construction
work should be adjusted to future ina
provements and additions. Much Of the
heavy cost Of making additions and ak
tensions to existing buildings has been
due to the fact that no proper provision
was made at the time the old buildings
were originally constructed.
Fifth. The foregoing covers all Of
your recommendations excepting No. 4.
Upon the basis Of the new estimates re-
stated, and including the contract
charges of building adviser, architects
and engineers, as above set forth. the
total present estimated cost Of these
40; No. 16. s187.8737O; No. SO, SOD. 1875;
No. 3S, $l97, 343. 10, making a total esti-i
mated cost Of S808,65SS0. While this
estimated cost is S40,91620 less than the
amount of bonds asked for. It exceeds The
total sum Of S660.100 allowed in your last
communication by the sum of S146,-
: 6S3.SO.
while this difference probably VIII be
still further reduced as a result OF COM
petitiye bidding, it Is apparent that the
only certain method Of bringing the total
cost CT these buildings within the figures
named by you Is by the application OF
your recommendation No i. which isl
that from the plans ana speclhcation1i
adopted for the new buildings proposed
alY non essentials be eliminated for the
present and installation deferred until the
little school children Of indianapolis are,
provided With hFeprOof. substantial SCHOOL
buildings with all modern necesSitiss.'
"In this recommendation you appsr.
emily cOncede that the four buildings in,
question should be fire proof, substan-
tial school buildings with all modern
necessities but you suggest that all
'non-essentials' be eliminated. Yet yeu,
do not indicate what you consider to be
nOn-essentials although 1t was upon this
phase OF the matter and this phase only
that this board at the conference referred
to in your last communication requested,
that you should submit your recon-
DECLARATIONS OF Suggestions IN WrlFIGX.t
The record shows that you we're asked
with reference to the design or features
Of the particular buildings in question
to examine the plans and specifications,
and If you had any suggestions to make
as to the elimination Of any features or
any class Of material, to make those sug-
SestlOns or objections specific, so the
school board would know exactly what
it had to consider. This you failed to
DO, but crltiSed the conduct Of TIE
school board and its predecessors in
carrying on The building program for
the last two or three years. all Of which
had absolutely nothing to do with the
four particular buildings in question,
which alone were before you.
No SPECIAL
FEATURES PLANNED.
1T was stated to you at the conference,
and the plans and specifications clearly
show, that no auditorium. gymnasium,
cafeteria. or other special features Of this
character are contemplated In either Of
these four buildings. At the time OF the
adoption Of the plans and specifications
Tor each OF these buildings, this board
was not of the opinion, and is not of the
opinion now, that any features were In
Guided which were not essential to fire.
proof substantial school buildings with
ali modern necessities We are, there
fore, unable to select or determine on any
so-called "nOnessSntials'' for elimination
from the plans and specifications.
When your board made the computa>
tion deduCting $4,000 from the estimatedt-
cost Of School No. 10. $4,000 from SCHOOL,
$4,000 from School No. 81, a total de-
ductiOn OF 49,, 900. said deductions not
being horizontal or Of uniform percent
age. you must have knO n at that time
what, If any, features in these buildings
YOU considered nonessentials. We think
cit. therefore. only fair to US and to tia
school public that you specify and de0-
iEnate what you consider to be nonessen-,
tials in each of these four buildings, and
when you make your specific recommend
datlons as to what alterations should be
made in the plans and specifications for
each OF these buildings with the view to-
eliminating what you consider to be IN
necessary expense, the school board VIII
Immediately give such recommendations
It's full and careful consideration, with a.
!. view to meeting your ideas, II In the
judgment and discretion. which thu law
imposes upon this board alone, that can
be done without injury TO the health and
comfort of the school children who use
rhe buildings, or to the detriment OF the
school public.
these bonds. bearing interest as they do
at only > per cent. probably will sell at
a discount. and due allowance for this
should be made in the amount OF bonds
authorized.
POWERS OF BOARD
ARE LIMITED.
&c. In conclusion we beg again to re-.
mind you that the sole question before
you is the proposed bond issue to provida
for the construction of Schools No. 16,
SO, IS and 81. and no others. The gems
eral tax law under which you operates
c~onfers upon you no general supervision
] or control over the school city of Indi(
1 annapolis. or over any other municipalitY.i
1t is only when taxpayers file a petition
with the county auditor. demonstrating
against a particular bond issue that yoU
are granted any authority over any mus
nicipality, and then your power Is linn
tied to the decision whether the proposed
bond issue is unnecessary, unwise or ex-
C~cSSive.' In this instance. although the
taxpayers who demonstrated commended IN
their petition and by argument of their
be postponed for a year or two, and were
you have held in accordance with tbe
ings are imperatively necessary now. It
termine whether the proposed bond issue
and finally what amount of bonds you
need only give your attention to tho
plans and specifications and the costs OK
these four particular buildings, and IL
is wholly unnecessary that you should
indulge in criticism of other building
work done by this board or Its predeces-
sOrs during the last few years, and any
attempt. as yOu well know, TO control
the judgment or discretion of this board
or future school boards as TO future
building operations is an unlawful and
-