DEEP DRAINAGE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19111, 21 September 1927, Page 12

DEEP DRAINAGE.

COST OF HOUSE CONNEXIONS. PROTECTION OF RATEPAYERS. Arising out of certain allegations made by Mr H. G. Livingstone at the previous meeting of the Drainage Board regarding exorbitant Sharges for house connexions, a special committee set up to report on the matter submitted its report to the Board last night in the following terms: — The committee has gone into the question of charges made for house connexions, and recommends that provision be made for ratepayers to lodge with the Board particulars of connexions required, such particulars to be available at the office for inspection by drainlayers and plumbers in order that tenders may be submitted for acceptance, or otherwise, by ratepayers. It is believed that if this method is .adopted property-owners will be ass'ured of competitive prices. Mr Livingstone, in moving the adoption of the report, , said that as the Board was obtaining ■ legislation compelling ratepayers to connect their premises, it was reasonable that the ratepayers and the Board should be satisfied that the connexions were made at a reasonable cost. Taking the figures of the actual case ho cited at the previous meeting, and assuming that CO out of the 80 licensed plumbers were engaged in plumbing work, there would be 140 house connexions for each plumber —or three years' work for each — representing £933 per annum for each. The Board wanted to see the work, done at a reasonable cost, and it was necessary that the Board should be able to review the cost during the period that the connexions were being made. He estimated that at the end of the period they would savo the ratepayers £40,000. He did not want' to raise the cry of exploitation, nor did he want to interfere with private business. If the work were done at a reasonable cost all parties would be satisfied. Mr E. H. S. Hamilton seconded, and said that it was suggested that a. small fee of 5s should be charged in connexion with tho proposal in the report. _ Mr W. C. Large said that Mr Livingstone's opening remarks nad charged plumbers with exploitation. He denied that exploitation was going on and he knew the position pretty well, being in the position of. a lookeron and, proverbially, they saw most ot the game. None of tlie Cliristchurcxi plumbers was making a fortune,, unloss engaged in soinG land speculation as a side-line. (Laughter.) As to the merchants, some of them had given up plumbing because there was nothing in it. The time had gone by when the plumber, like the stage Irishman, was a standing joke, and members or the Board should be above taking that position. He had an offer from prominent members of the trade to set up u committee, as was done in Wellington, to consider cases of alleged overcharge. ~ , , Mr J. W. Bcanland said that some ratepayers were so ignorant they wanted plumbers to give quotations lor the plumbing and drain-laying. The plumbers of the city were .not making a lot of money; in his twenty-live years' experience he could not recal. one case where a plumber had made a fortune. The only thing was that thenposition was a little better than that of a tradesman. The chairman (Mr H. J. Otley): Some of them are not so well off. Mr C. S. McCully cited instances ,ot unsuccessful tenders which showed very small profits. n Mr W. R. ,Carey considered that competition was going to solve tho matter to a large extent. <> The chairman said that of the 60 registered plumbers there were a large number working for employers, but there were enough employers to make the competition keen. Replying to Mr Arthur Smith, the engineer (Mr Jas. Cullens) said that in the past three months 20 additional pipe-layers had been licensed. Mr Smith cited the case of a man who got a house connexion in Sydenham in pre-war days for £25 and who was quoted, recently, £35 for a similar connexion which, in view of increased cost of material and labour, he considered reasonable.

The report was ,adopted. The matter of Arranging- details to give effect to the report was, referred to the Special Committee.

Advances to Ratepayers. "

The Finance Committee recommended that £150,000 be raised for a period of ten' years to provide for making advances for house connexions, and that all matters relating to the raising of this amount be lefj in the hands of the committee.

Mr S. C. Bingham, in moving the adoption of the report, said that it seemed probable that the Board would get the authority they were asking from Parliament and the preliminaries should be put in hand at once. Replying to Mr Smith, he said the money would be raised only as required. The report was adopted. The chairman reported that_ the Board's Bjll was progressing satisfactorily as far as it was possible to see. Mr Howard, who was in charge of the Bill, and all the Christchurch members had done everything possible to assist , with the Bill.

DEARER BY GENERAL LOAN FINDING COST OF SEWER CONNEXIONS. The United Burgesses' Association, it will be recalled, made a strenuous attempt to get the Legislature to amend the Drainage Board's Bill to provide that the cost of laying all connexions from the sewer to the street boundary of all properties should be paid out of loan. In a report submitted by the secretary of tlie Board (Mr C. F. Champion; to last night's meeting it was stated that a more wasteful way than that proposed by the Association hardly could be conceived. Mr Champion's report set out: — The valuation of the area in whicll sewers are at present being laid is approximately £8,000,000 and the amount estimated as necessary for making the connexions £200,000. In the event of a 15 year loan being raised a rate of 41-64 d in the £ on the capital value would be required, which is equal to £2 13s od per £IOOO of capital value. For a ten year loan 27-64 d in the £ or £3 los 4d per £IOOO, and for a o-year loan lid or £6 5s . per £IOOO. It is estimated that tlie lowest figure for which these connexions ■ can be done is £5 each and in the event of a 15-year loan being raised the ratepayer with a property valued at £IOOO would pay out more than the value of the connexion in two years and at the end of fifteen would have paid £4O for a connexion worth £O. One would think that the figures above would be conclusive enough to satisfy everyone, but I was somewhat astonished on the occasion of my last appearance before the Local Bills Committee to find that the Burgesses'' Association had again written to the Committee advocating this method of doing the work. Even allowing for an error of 50 per cent, in the figures as an estimate of the cost of the work,

the rate for a five year loan would amount to just over £3 per £IOOO of capital value. There are other interesting features in connexion with this question. In the above examples I have taken the valuation at £IOOO, but there is also the case of the property valued at under this amount. Take for example, the vacant section worth, say, £2OO, which will pay 10s 8d p§r annum for 15 years as compared with the £2OOO property which will pay £5 6s 9d per annum for a connexion worth £5 to £6.

Whilst I have not had any definite information as to the ultimate decision of the Local Bills Committee on the proposal of the Burgesses' Association, T feel sure that had they decided to amend the Bill in any way, due notice would have been given to the Board. The secretary's report was received.