Council Proceedings: May 1, 1906

ReadAboutContentsHelp

Pages

1
Complete

1

To the City Council of the City of Fort Worth:-

I hereby return without my approval the resolution adopted by you April 16, 1906, in which you approved the report of a special committee, viz., Messrs. Zurn, Lehane and Moreland, recommending that the city accept the bid of the Fort Worth Sprinkling Company for doing the sprinkling of streets for one year. I disapprove of that action because-

First. The special committee was appointed March 5th simply to take up the sprinkling matter "for consideration", said appointment being in the following words:- "Monday, March 5th, 1906. At this time Alderman Zurn called the attention of the city council to the fact of the expiration of the sprinkling contract with the Fort Worth Sprinkling Company, and asked that a special committee be appointed to take the matter of sprinkling up for consideration: the motion was carried and thereupon His Honor appointed Aldermen Zurn, Lehane and Moreland as such special committee". No instruction was given as to what acts they should do; the public was in no manner apprised that they wanted to receive bids; I understand that the chairman of that committee stated to parties inquiring that nothing would be done until the new administration, and that by reason of that statement at least one bid was at that time withheld. The committee afterwards concluded to make report on April 2nd, but in its report does not claim to have in any matter notified the public it wanted bids, and yet in that report it calls on the Council to instruct it to negotiate a contract-not with any party offering the best bargain but - with the Sprinkling Company; and not only asking that it be confined to the Sprinkling Company, but that it be instructed to negotiate a contract - not on the best terms obtainable but - on the terms of this old contract just expired, and that they be given power to act. This request to thus be tied to one party and at one price when it was known that no publication or call for bids had been made and no test made of what advantageous contract might be gotten in behalf of the city and citizens was, to say the least of it, an unusual proceeding. The city

(I)

Last edit about 1 year ago by Koliver
2
Complete

2

was entitled to have the best bid which could be gotten from rival bidders with full notice to bid. I am unwilling to give my endorsement to a matter of this kind which has been closed in the summary manner this has been; it was in effect snap judgment as against the public. The semi-consideration which was by force of circumstances given to one or two other parties after these rigid and seclusive instructions have been sought and obtained, does not relieve this procedure of its objectionable character. The very fact that when the slight competition that by accident or force of circumstances came to the front, the Sprinkling Company then for the first time offered to do the work for less than under the old contract, shows the bad policy of cutting offfree, full, and fair competition, and especially shows the mistaken judgment of the committee in asking the City Council to instruct it to make a contract upon the terms of the old contract. The city will forever have the worst of the bargain; will forever have the laboring oar and be rowing against the tide if vantage ground can be given in this way to those contracting with the city. Any good intentions of the committee or any strength of conviction on their part that their course was the proper thing for the city, can't relieve you as members of the Council from responsibility in this matter.

Second. The proposition made contemplates the unrestricted use of the nozzles of the city on the fire plugs, the constant use of which, I am informed, requires frequent repair and expense to the city; and I am informed that it is dangerous to have such constant use for that when a fire might come, the threads might be so worn as to make the firemen unable to use the hydrant which would result in danger before repair could be made. There should be separate fixtures or attachments to be used for getting water for sprinkling purposes. The old contract had a provision that the Sprinkling Company should not connect the firehydrants except such as are already prepared for such connection, and that the Company should put in standpipes at all

(2)

Last edit about 1 year ago by Koliver
3
Complete

3

other necessary places. This feature of the old contract I am informed was not carried out by the Company. But the proposition now made does not promise to put in or use the Company's own standpipes.

There are other objectionable features to the details of the proposed contract, which I will not mention.

Third. In the committee's report of April 2nd, it sets out its estimate of the cost of the city securing and operating its own sprinkling outfit as follows:-

I5 wagons at $300.00 ---------------------------- $4500.00 I5 teams and horses at $350.00 each ....... 5250.00 stables .................................................. 12250.00 I5 drivers at $50.00 .................................. $750.00 feed and repairs ..................................... 300.00 hostler ................................................... 35.00 inspector ................................................ 60.00

I am informed that the committee figures on an outfit from one-third to one-half larger than the outfit operated by the Sprinkling Company. It is my opinion that an outfit two-thirds of the size estimated can do more sprinkling than ever has been done by the Company. The amount the city has paid out within the last two years would bu y the wagons, teams and hdorses for even the large outfit figured out by the committee. The amount paid by abutting property owners woudl certainly more than pay the running expenses. It is my opinion that the city should own its own outfit and do the sprinkling and collect the charges. The committee suggests that at the end of the year the city would possible be in shape to undertake the work municipally; it is my opinion that we had better undertake it now.

Respectfully,

W.D. Harris Mayor.

Last edit about 1 year ago by Koliver
4
Complete

4

FILED APR 17 1906 Jno T. Montgomery City Sec'y

Last edit about 1 year ago by Koliver
5
Complete

5

Mr. Jake F. Zurn,

Chairman Sprinkling Committee, appointed to contract for the sprinkling of the streets in the City of Fort Worth.

We submit for your consideration the following proposition to sprinkle the streets of the city:

------ First----------

The city is to furnish the water, when the supply will admit, without charge for the sprinkling and to allow connections to be made with the fire hydrants.

------ Second --------

We will furnish sprinkling wagons of the same kind and character as we have heretofore used in the sprinkling of streets and will sprinkle all streets under the supervision of the city engineer, or any other person whom you may designate to represent the City in passing upon the sprinkling, said sprinkling to be done satisfactory to such party, and any failure on our part, to authorize the cancellation of the contract.

-------- Third ----------

We will charge no more than one cent per front foot for all sprinkling done on Main, Houston, Weatherford and Front streets and cross streets extending from Rusk Street to Throckmorto Street; for all other sprinkling done in the city we will charge not to exceed one half cent per front foot per week, the above specified charges to be charged and collected from the owner of the property, no claim being made against the city for any part assessed against such persons.

-------- Fourth ----------

The city to pay us $25.00 per mile, per quarter, for all

Last edit about 1 year ago by Koliver
Displaying pages 1 - 5 of 53 in total