Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1922-03-16
ASSERTS CITY
SHOULD INSIST
ON GUARANTEE
Former Board of Works CLERK
Urges Importance of
Deposit.


Opposition to departure from the pres
ent requirement that contractors put up
deposits to guarantee the life of street,
alley, sewer and sidewalk improvements
for certain periods was expressed by
Frank j. Noll, Jr., State Representa-
tive from Marion County, and clerk of
the board of public works from 1909 to
1915. in a letter to the present board of
public works.
At a meeting of the board with local
contractors last week it was suggested
by some one, by whom has never been
announced-the aboard might receive
lower bids on street improvements If the
guarantee were not required.
Mr.. NolPs views are as follows:
Having learned it has been suggested
to your board the specifications for street
improvements be changed so as to elimi-
nate the present form of guarantee which
provides for the deposit of street improve
ment bonds to guarantee the main
tainence and repair of public Improvement
work for the term OF the guarantee,
feel it my duty to advise you Of condi-
tions that existed some years ago when
was clerk of the board of public works
when surety bonds were accepted on
some classes Of work as a guarantee for
maintenance and repair.
PRACTICE OF
LONG STANDING.
For at least thirty years the city has
been requiring the street Improvement
bonds as a guarantee on all sO-called
permanently improved streets, but, for
a great many years, surety bonds were
accepted as a guarantee on other i'm
prOvements such as sewers, sidewalks,
curblng and gravel street. Our exper-
fence was that we never had any diff
Guilty, whatever, in securing repairs to
the permanently improved streets dur
the guarantee period and never had any
complaints from property owners about
the condition of the streets during the
guarantee period for the reason that
contractors made repairs at regular In
tervals so as to secure the release of the
interest coupons attached to the guaran-
tee bonds and the firal release Of the
bonds at The end of the guarantee per-
Tod.
However, In the cast of all other i'm
provements, and particularly sidewalks
and curbing, the question Of repairs dur
Ing the guarantee period was one Of the
greatest troubles that the board Of public
works had. Property owner continually
were complaining about broken cement
blocks in the sidewalks, people were
stumbling over them continually, many
damage suits against the city were both
ering the legal department and people
would complain about the same defective
Sidewalk as much as a dozen times and
naturally get out of patience with the
board of works. We were accused Of in
efficiency or a lack Of desire to force the
surety company to mako repairs.
PROPERTY OWNERS
WERE SKEPTICAL.
"W lille were unable to make many Of
the property owners believe 1t, the truth
Of the matter was We were spending a
great deal OF time trying to force these
repairs, but We simply could not get IL
done. The surety companies were not In
the business Of repairing sidewalks and
would not do It, This situation finally
lecame so burdensome to the board of
public works and the boards clerks
suggested they change the specifications
SO as to provide for the same form or
guarantee for all other improvements as
was In effect for permanently improved
streets, which had been so successful, and
which change was made.
This action eliminated all Of our
troubles and worry about repairs to I'm
provements, as 1t was necessary for the
contractor TO obtain release from the
city cival engineer showing the streets
had been inspected and repairs made X
necessary, before the interest coupons,
or bonds, would be released to him. This
also resulted in a better class Of work,
as he contractor realized he could not
afford TO take any chances with his own
money on deposit as a guarantee for the
work. Many times when defective con-
ditions In improvements were called to
our attention and we undertook TO
OBTAIN repairs by those contractors re-
sponsible for the work. we learned not
only had the contractors gone out of
business, but, IN many cases, the surety
companies had failed.
at was an easy matter for an irrespon-
sible contractor to get by with cheap,
defective construction and saddle the ex-
pense Of repairs upon the city.
Therefore, ii appears 10 me II the
safeguard OF this street Improvement
guarantee fund Is removed, It might re-
suit in n poor quality OF work"
This letter was referred to John L.
Elliott. city civil engineer by the board
Mr. Elliott replied. 81 would strongly ad-
Wise the board take no steps to eliminate
such a guarantee. The elimination Of
this guarantee feel would make trouble
for the city in obtaining proper repairs
and would also remove one of the means
OF obtaining better work, as no con
tractor desires to lose any portion Of his
guarantee through poor workmanship.
Il believe If your board were to advise
with the contractors regarding this mat
ter you would find the majority OF them
would be In favor Of keeping the guar
antee as at present"