OCR Text |
Show COMMISSIONERS REJECT CLAIM $8,000 Alleged Balance Of Scott P. Stewart, Not Allowed Rejection of ft claim of $8,000 presented pre-sented to the bonrd of Utah county commissioners by Scott 1'. Stewart was made by the members o that body Monday on the recommendation recommenda-tion of Amnion Tuttle, county auditor. audi-tor. The claim is said to represent an alleged balance due Mr. Stewart for engineering work performed by him under a contract made by a former board of county commissioners commission-ers March 1, 1020. In making his recommendation that the claim be not allowed Mr. Tuttle points out that his action is based on an audit made of county hooks and records by the Lincoln G. Kelly company of Salt Lake City, covering a period from January 1, 101'J to October 31, 1021, wherein the audit shows that. Mr. Stewart was over paid $0,511.71. The audit calls attention to tbe fact that the original contract stipulated stipu-lated that Mr. Stewart was fo have been paid on the basis of five percent per-cent of the cost of certain rond construction con-struction work then contemplated by the county, which when completed com-pleted amounted to 285,5-17.05. A search by the auditor of the county files failed to reveal a copy of the original contract wherein the engineer's commission was stipulated stipulat-ed at five per cent, but he found a duplicate copy of the contract in which, the auditor's report declares certain changes had been made from those recorded in the minutes of the county bonrd, one of which changes indicated that the commission commis-sion to be paid Mr Stewart was on I he basis of seven per cent of tbe cost of construction work, and not five iht cent as originally set forth. Overpayment Indicated On the supposition that this change of figures had been authorized author-ized hy the board of counly commissioners, com-missioners, Mr. Kelly based his figures fig-ures oti this alleged change of the original contract, and still indicated that Mr. Stewart was overpaid ?0.-r11.71. ?0.-r11.71. he having received a total of IfL'li.OOO. Mr. Stewart bases bis claim on t ho assumption that he should have received commission on a much greater amount of construction work done than that indicated by the Kcllcy audit, which audit provided for certain deductions on the actual amount of road construction work done. The county auditor states that Mr. Stewart's claim involves a sum much greater than the commissions would amount to on the construction construc-tion work done within tho county (luring the period covered in his contract, |