The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-03-10

concrete we're lct to TIbbctts s.
Pleasant.
County work Costs less.
IS. The court further finds that
the customary price for work OF
similar character 90 the work done
Ina Improvement district No. 297 on
county rond work commenced in
Tulsa county ia the year 1921, uu-
dor conditions quite similar IN all re-
apcctg except that In the county road
work no maintenance bond Is rec
Uuirod and the Improvement Is paid
for iu cash instead OF tax bills,
rHugoF from 90 to 60 per cent OF the
amount allowed under the contract
ln this case.
~. Tho court further finds that
In the preparation OF tho estimate
herein the city cuEinccr In his csti-
mate OF cost included ns part OF
said estimate Of cost for said inn
proycmonis 10 per cent ot the con-
tract price To- cover the item Of dis
count in the sale OF the scrip or
tax bills aud that in all tho contracts
Let In the cIty Of Tulsa during the
year 1921 such estimate included
such itctn.
co. That iu an said contracts
I N ill IlltI lNfIl tN % ll'i 'lIN VI NlN'
total contract was included u cover
engineering fees and sum Il from
8i2O TO 5000 TO cover printing and
advertising fees.
o. Thnt a. has been the custom
OF the city engineer in determining
the unit expense In each public I'M
provomont. including Improvement
district 80. 2o7- to include IS per
cent TO cover discount on tax bills.
~. Tn. court further finds that
In determining the cost Of the Inn
provomont herein I'm district No. 2o7
| thcro is included IN the Issrc-
gate cost of said Improvement as
| finally approved by the city COM
mission of the city Of Tulsa. the
/ item Of 10 per cont for discount on
| tax bills ns well as q por ems for
engineering fees and n sum In the
present instance OF Sl75 to cover
advertising and printing fco5.
20. Tho court further finds that
| the measurement and computation
| of the quantities and the Applicant IN
| thereto OF the prices fixed J." the
| contract In determining the total
cost Of said Improvement, are sub
| stantially correct
"a. Tho court further finds that
| said work OF Improvement in dis
| trict No. 297 was done IN substantial
| compliance with the plans ana spcci-
| cations on file and 1ho contract en-
| tered into and that said work was
/ completed at the time of It's accept
/ nncc by the city engineer and the
| board of commissioners.
No Evidence Cr Fraud.
H5, Tho court further finds that
/ there has been n failure to cSi1hlLsh
| by competent evidence the nllcEa-
/ tions OF fraud and colusion with
| reference TO the various matters
| complained OF.
26. Tho court further fInds that
| n Q per cont engineering fee has for
n long period 'of time bson asses 'ed
/ and collected against the property I'm
/ special taxing eases ~ the city Of
/ Tulsa and that per cHnt OF the to-
| tai Of the final cost OF the work is n
| fair and reasonable charge for the
engineering work necessary to PER
| form the Improvement.
p. The court further finds that
! this action was instituted within 10
| days from the date Of the adjourned
| hearing on the protest filed by Beat
rico j. Weston and other persons
| affected by the proposed assess
ment, being the protest set out In
finding of fact No. 100.
2S. The court further finds that
at the time OF the hearing of the
application for n temporary injunc-
tion herein II was urged by counsel
then present representing the de-
PENDANTS In this action, all of whom
were then represented. that under
tho charter OF the city OF Tulsa II
was not necessary for the board OF
commissioners 10 give the property
owners any hearing as to tho bene-
fits from the work for tho payment
OF which special assessments were
to be levied. after the completion