HUTT BOROUGH AFFAIRS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 556, 10 July 1909, Page 3

HUTT BOROUGH AFFAIRS.

THAT £13,000. THE OFFICIALS IN REPLY. The principal topic of conversation in the Lower Hutt Borough during the past fortnight has been the, reports of Messrs. G. Laing-Meason and F. W. Marchant, civil engineers, on the administration of the engineering department. The matter came up at a special meeting of the council last night to deal with the question, the Mayor (Mr. E.: P. Bunny) presiding over a full attendance of councillors. / Briefly the position is this: the consulting engineers report that a sum of £12,550 will have to be raised to complete certain municipal works, and the following are -the statements, of responsible officials connected therewith:— '

' -Mr. Marchant on the Position. ; 'Mr.' Marchant says the accounts drawn up by the borough treasurer, in his opinion, do not show the actual and correct expenditure on tiio several items of water supply, surface drainage, street improvement, and' sewerage. Proceeding, he states: "One item will illustrate iny contention, and, this applies toothers: the borough purchased a steam roller and stone-crushing plant for £1091 or there-

abouts.'; Of this : amount gorily .£SOO . was charged against street improvement, arid the. balance against water- supply and sewerage —manifestly a debit against the water, and, sewerage , accounts. 'If any'debjt at all was .charged against them,'the utmost that should bo done would bo a charge for hire, 1 .which would bo amply satisfied;by the sum of £100 for rolling the part of the streets disturbed. Largo - sumsin excess of; the. amounts authorised have been; expended, on stroet improvement and ■ surface drainage. The consequence of this whole thing is that tho, sewerage, work; being the last to bo executed, will be Bhort of funds. Probably about £13,000 must bo borrowed to fully complete the sewerage works,; in - addition to the. balance of the £62,000 loan in hand, which .was to bo devoted' to. that particular item. : Pne has to admit thatbnt slow progress has been' made with the under constructkm,.with the result; that the. cost of supervision becomes, a serious chargo on the i.works. V: Works . in? the first instance were . to. have .been; constructed under, contract,'instead, of day. labour.", ■ . - Mr. Lalns-Meason's Statement. Mr. Laing-Measonsays: -'The actual total expenditure on the water supply was £20,377, and the amount of. £17,790 13s. lid. as shown by tho council's 1 officials does not represent the . actual total. expenditure on this work. "Whatever 'may have .bton* the reasons forthe increased,cost of the water supply works, it is quite ovident that- the stun of £2587 was expended on them over and above' the amount stated in the details supplied to me ;by 1 the town i clerk and borough engineer, and that, consequently, the amount to. be expended on, 1 the seweipge works has. been decreased to • thai extent. In'regard to the provision for sewerage,, it is 'shown that septic tank sites bad'been purchased,' works constructed,;/and 96 chains ,of-.sewer^:laid .on March 31,ileaving 22; miles .11' chains .still, to bo dealt with. The. VmWrit , expended was - £4726, and; the amount'' required; to: complete, 'the work;' £20,300.* Deducting from the unexpended balance .of loan- moneys (£10,849) the £3100 allotted for Everest's Creek diversion, 'there J remained £7749 available ■ for this purpose,. lea'Hng a' shortage, of £12,550. This total , •may be reducible by - some £313 of material in. hand, but on this point the framer of the report is not clear. .1 consider that the cost of Bupervisißg has been excessive in.all the; works constructed under tho council's directions, certainly , very much / more than was ever'contemplated, arid the works hayo been carried out at: a very slow rate of | .progress." ... I Tho Replies. The,reply of the town clerk.(Mr. P. R. i Purser) is aa follows: "I submit that there w very'little in the reports calling for comment: from mo. 1 note, however, that the consulting- engineers; are : somewhat ambiguous' in their remarks in regard to the statement of accounts furnished them .by' me, which might; be cbnstfuedi f in 1 .'•several different •ways.:.; I must point out that the only person . authorised to furnish-me ; with certi'ficates 'showing the allocations of the'ex•.penditure'o'n "works is the'borough engineer; and ;that I have.his certificate/in respect to' ever}* item; of- expenditure ! in :his department.. All .the items included in the statement furnished by the engineers are in every respect in accordance with' the allocations., as oer- . •tified to by the borough engineer.' Referring' 'to the works carried out under the'loan, but which; were hot included in : the engineer's origina} reports, I desire to say that T.have/ from ,' time to 'time, drawn attention to this matter, particularly in regard ■ to the reticulation' of- the Te Momi estate' with r water mains; and-the 1 lowering of Victoria Street, but, in view of the fact that,the detailed items of the reports referred to. were not embodied, nor in any way referred to, in the voting paper submitted to : tho ratepayers, I realised that the council could exercise a somewhat wider discretion in the expendi.ture of the'loan moneys than'they other-] wise could have '• done had • the items been detailed.", - .. , Mr. Rlx-Trotfs Report. In his report, Mr. Rix-Trott said inter alia: After my appointment as borough engineer, one,of the., first 'things ..the then council asked ine to do. was to go thoroughly into, the' Etofiosal -as - dnuta ujv. bj„

Meason'and Marchant. I told the council in meeting that I was absolutely opposed tothe drainage scheme being carricd out before; a proper nigh-pressure water scheme was : laid down in the borough,,as it was against, all. law of good sanitation. The Mayor and council agreed with me in this matter, as will be noted by the Mayor's resolution on Page,3o4 of the minutes of July 24, 1905.

Mr. Marchant and myself at onoe sot about drawing up the report on the revised scheme, resulting in a' joint • report to , the' council. We condemned the idea'of utilising the Belmont Stream, for which tho council had paid £2500, and recommended that the excellent artesian supply should be used.: Tho original estimate for the water works,, as drawn up by Mr. Marchant'and my self, • was as follows:—Suction gas-pumping-plant builuipgs arid artesian wells, £2400; land purchased, for pumping station, buildings, and' reservoir, £500; reservoir (construction), '£1600; • water mains ' and reticulation, £10,900; house connections, at present,, £900; engineering and contingencies, £1500: total, £17,800. ... . ; '

Mr. Laing-Moason says:' "From the evi--dence submitted to mo I /End that the actual expenditure on the water supply was £20,377." That may be so, but I contend: that the extra beyond the original amount is justly chargeable to' the sewerage works. These are my reasbns : £4000 was taken : off : the sewage scheme that was originally allocated to it by reaeen' of the 'water supply being done away-with, which x water was tohave been utilised for flushing the sowers,! and the motive' power to drive the hydraulic

plant for lifting ,the sewage. ] Now, in . going; into the sewage portion of the scheme, it was found : necessary to increase the size of the;. water mains; and this suggestion was put to me by Mr. Marchant in a letter dated.: January 27, 1906, whorein ho states, ''To,.guard against a stick-up irith -tho;..'sewage pumps when ,a large,\quantity of water is being used for domestic purposes.'-' In this matter, I ' agreed witli' hjm; we likewise "inr creased the; size of tho '9in. main to a lOin. one for the same reasons; The engines! and prodiioer plant were also increased in size for similar reasons. Those • originally." contemplatod wore to havo been 25 horsepower only, but they'could never have met'the extra, demand put upon them. The engines reconimended;:by .the " makers to do the* work being 70 : break-hor'se-powor,' and, instead, of, with wlls;,qosting: £, 1400, they ;cost £2275, with'a'-Customs.duty of. £458 3s. ,6d. in ( addition.' of the. engines,; etc., was made by Mr. Marchant; and -myself in> conjunction withi the ,Ma;yor, submitted to';the' council; and adopted, by them. ' ■ The' r'eser-voir _'site;' is not ; the; one 1 ' originally contemplated. , iThe first site :would have cost only £100, but after further inspection, it. was considered "• unsatisfactory! The present site cost The construction of_ the .reservoir cast, more, as fully twothirds of' the excavation was .cut out of the. rocls, arid entailed the excavation ■.. of some thousands "of yards of material. In a letter to mo on July 28, .1906, Mr. Marchant "estimates; the reservoir to cost £2000,..instead, of, £1600," . originally . contemplated. But though the extra cost was incurred, the"position we decided to-place it; in -is, far; superior; justified; • ; Mr. Laing-Meason'also says' that ,"it; has been ; stited ;to ;him' that'in' the construction of; the. reseryp.irXcertain,.',mistakes, Occurred which considerably increased the,cost of ' it beyond . the^hmourit" which otherwise would have ;been>expended." I'do-not l knoiv-from whom Mr. Laing-Meason received this state-ment,-rbut--I- here -state most etaphatically thatj.it js not; correct; no;, mistake, ococcurred ;in any way whatever; in the construction of the reservoir.- I;think; before .repeating .suchi a. statement; as . this,: ;Mr. Laiiig-Meason should- have ascertained the accuracy of it -tyefore putting it on paper. I. must also call the attention of the cil to the fact that the , under-mentioned ' estates . and streets/ were ' reticulated with water main's, and were not included, or provided for, in ,the-original scheme; viz., Te Momi Estate, Old Military ■ Road; Fry's Lane; Downer Stregt, Trent Street; Thames .Street, ; Bristol Street,, Cornwall Street, 1 Stevens Street, Rata Street, and a portion of Waikato Street, Knight's Road, and Petor's Lane/ making a total , of 183J chains laid at a cost of, including all hydrarits arid fittings, £924,' but froin which must be deducted the value of 60 chains" of-3in;' pipe not laid : in Racecourse Road of £164, leaving an .extra-cost,of £760. .. ■ ! Mr. Laing-Meason states: "I' find on ox- ■ amination of the accounts that the Belmont icrcek diversion cost , £3525 10s., which, is almost exactly the amount estimated, so ■ that-' the"excess "of expenditure' was "confined .'wholly, to the' Waiwetu, Road (Irainage and. street improvement; ! also, I' have found it necessary . to consider, the- surface, drainage :arid street improvement, works.. under ono heading', as ,they are .inextricably mixed tip together; arid I did not seo my way clear to distinguish where one began '-'.'and-; 'the other ended.". I'fail to, understand how Mr V |Laing-Measori could' not distinguish tho ; various items," seeing that he had a copy of : a return furnished nim by the Town; Clerk showing the items scperately charged. to surface drainage, street , improvement, arid sewage works up to the end of tho financial year/ended: March 31,1909. , Now,, to analyse the original report of Messrs. Meason and Marchant for drainage (January, , 1905) :*-Drainago and .flushing, £14,749; power for lifting and automatic Lmachinory, £5329; sewago disposal, £1760; total, £21,838; deduct as per water scheme; report, £4000, leaves £17,838. This was for drainage. How can Mr. Laing-Meason now say that the drainage should cost as per his present estimate £25,026—.in increase of £7188' oil his. firm's, original estimate? I must make it clear that' the; joint report, which , was rend to tho ratepayers, when it was proposed to raise tho loan,' embodied the amount of £17.838 stated above as tho Jotal'csfiimftta for tie .lowago portioa of tta

ioan. I have considered and estimated the I oost of the work still 'to be'done, as fiom March 31, 1909, to; oomplete tho sewage works as per joint scheme. ! With regard to -Everest Creek, I would call the council's attention to the fact that after' repeated conferences with "the Petone Borough Council, the diversion of tho crock on the lines'laid down had to be abandoned. A committee'was, , set up to go into the matter, and. it was decided that the solution of the difficulty'would be to construct a concrete barrel to carry the water and discharge it at a point Immediately south of Whito s Line (on Wakefield Street) into the present drain (Moran's'Greek).' This would 1 .cost, I estimate, abo.ut £2000, leaving a further balance of £1100, which might be devoted to reduce the deficiency shown above, making the amount^to,be found-'£3731 9s, 6d., p'us tho amount paid in extra wages. I may say ihat:my present estimate to finish the works allows a sum- of £599. beyond that originally contomplatod in the, sewage portion of tho loan, and also for tho increased rate of Is. per day in as per award. In comparing. day labour with > contract work, carried out in this' borough by Messrs. Meason and- Marchant, I must draw the .council's gttention to a- -contract let 'just prior to my taking up the position 'of- Borough Engineer. The work consisted of the first'portion of the main drain/and was let, on : April 11;'}905, to Messrs. M!Cauloy. and: Cunningham, the council finding the cement. lie contract was to'have taken fcur toonths to'complete? but was not finished until the end of the following l'ebruary, or nearly seven months over the contract timfe.

On a small workof this nature, a clerk of works was employed, and Messrs. Sicason and Marchajit visited the works occasionally. The work did not prbeeed to tho satisfaction of the council,; as must-be. ; m>ted by ,a 10solution on. th'<s : minutes/page 29",,10t1i July.' 1905)j whereiii it was proposed b.v Councillor Ward, ; and seconded by Councillor Mason: "That Messrs., Meason and jYlarcliant' b.) requested to give closer 'attention to-, their, duties .in.- connection with the main road drain!" .The amount of\ the contract with materials : and extras was £137(5; on which* 5 p©r; cent, commission was paid to Messrs. Meason : and Merchant, £68'?s.; 6d.: and tho wages of a clerk of works amounted-t0;£142 6s. Bd. Therefore , the sum " of £210 10s. ; 2d. was:. paid for supervision on a small: contract of £LS76, or over, 15J_por- cent; These are -facts,- 'and the council must draw'their own conclusions. Similarly the ; main road- surface drain from the north end : of 'the borough to; King's .'Road; was earned out!;by. contract under tno supervision of an- outside engineer and: clerk of works. - The, whole of the *Work had to be taken up„ and inlaid owing to tho: manner in, whicn the work was done. Another cas©, ; the Middle AVaiwetii x|l6ad drainage, cartiixl out by the same; engineer and contractor, this also .had.to bo taken up and relaid, beiSgcone of tho: first ■'works 1 , taken-' in hand by myself after my, appointment. %: ; Mr. ; Laing ; Meason. states that, last -year's' supervision s cost £1400. I am hot aware of bow ho- arrives at his figures/ but can only 'stat-o.thoy arc inaccurate. ' The amount expended son loan works for last year was £6583 10s. 4d!, :and £822 ,14s:; 10d. out of district fund ,to; finish the Main Road. The ooSt of supervision was as follows Proportion of engineer's salary, £150; 70 per oen(;; clerk of works) 7 months mail ro bench marks,, etc., £93$ one working ganger, £140 Bs.; one worlring: carpenterin charge of gang,- £1,67 ;■ total, £690 Bs. the amount 6f supervision: (£690) from tiio total amount of £7064; it-leaves-the sum of £6717 expended oh works:'. therefore/ tho supervision is, approximately 10 per rent. on. -that amount.- I' ithink "this' jompares favourably with -the. 15 J per cent, [paid for-"supervision on the Main Road: drain, contract ; it most decidedly does with'. the two, .other.,cases given 'where the work had • to be done over again; ■ To put the supervision, in. its -worst light, I'have given two cases tho full wagco although-it was supervision only, "wQiero, ill both cases the men worked. ' : , Summary of expenditure is :• Waterworks, ' £17,790 13s'. lid.;' less refund/ Custom, duty on plant, £16 19s. ; total, £17,773 14s. lid.' i Diversion of creeks, sewage and surface drainage, £18,577 '55. ; ,5d.; 6treet improvements! £4800; total expenditure, £41,151 os. ;4d.; balance in -hand - March 31, 1909, £10,848. 19s. Bd.; grand total, £52,000. Mr. Lalng-Meason and Mr. Blx-Trott. ■ In reply to Mr'. Rix-Trott's explanation, Mr.; Laang-Meason. states in a, letten-datedi July 7: - Every plaji. and specification. Vas idrawn entirely by my late firm, and Mr. Rix!Trott did not. originate a single design or prepare/a single plan either of tlib water or ;drainagfe work,, witli the solitary exception of ;tho small engmo-liouso at. the pumping station. Regarding the;-mistake made at tho 'reservoir,- if the rouricil . desired ft he could 'produce!the written statements of the eyewitnesses who spoke. to - bim on tho subject. :MrS Rix-Ttott an' extraordinary assertion that: to instal,drainage works! before/ ,a high-pressure water supply »' 'against the flaws of good.sanitation,' whatever that may meaa.' In Christchiirch a sewerage system :has existed for nearly 30 years in advan.ee •of high-pressure' water, the only supply hitherto being "from private artesian wells, as at the Hutt. As to the' excessix'o cost of supervision-, lie employed for over, two years ■a surveyor at £390. : Other, extravagances :might ;be quoted. The engineer and one foreman or.clerk of works should have been sufficient.' ' His. list of sewers still to- bo conI structed is absurdly low, and if any doubt is felt on this,' ! should adviso the council to wMtch the work now proceeding' in . Cuba ; Sbreet. As an oxamplo of the low price he has placed ;ori the work, I may say. that the item of trench ox6aVation is valued by him at £5200, • wlio ro a s it is undoubtedly worth not less' than £9000... . Jlr. Rix-Troit insinuates ' that . in., a . previous' .contract :• car-' ried out under my control tho cost of snjwrriffloa .waaiuga.: .The council of. the day J

know all tho facts as well u Mr. Rix-Trott, ■ and you, sir (Mr. Bunny), aro aware of them. Tho work, although elow, was of excellent character, and tho total cokt was below tho estimate. Two oases ho mentions ' had ' nothing to do with us, and had as theywero, T have known' as bad cases under tho day labour system, Regarding the Middle Waiwetu lload, instead of attempting to adhero to'my proposals, lie, entirely on his own initiative, proceeded to spend a very largo additional sum of money, and I have no responsibility whatever for the ,work don© or tho money spent there. It was irregular v■' to spend' tho additional money without first making the council fully aware of ( tho ,excess of expenditureovor tho, amount voted. Mr. Rix-Trott says that ■ £18,577 and £4800 was spent on diver- V sion of creeks, soworag<n : and < surfaca. drainage, and street improvements; .0n1y,,, - £4726 had been expended on sowerago proper, consequently, according to him, lie liad .spent £18,051 on creck diversion, surfacoj drainage, and : streot improvement, whereas . tho ratepayers ooijy authorised the expendi- , turo of £9260 oo them, so that by his own. figures 'he liad exceeded tho authorisation in • theso thfeo items by £9391, not taking Ever- \ ost's Creek diversion into consideration. Whatever Mr. Rix-Trott may say to tho. contrary, the fact cannot be blinked that thai; sewerage account has been depleted by over: £9000 by the diversion of that amount t<»| tho surface drainage, crocw divorsiona, and l street improvement accounts.

End of a Long Discussion. , The council were in committee until after) midnight. ' Certain "questions wero framed!' (some .bearing on items of finance); which; aro to be submitted to the Town Clerk, and j the Borough Engineer. The replies of theso | officials will; come before tho council at, a>' special meeting to be held on Wednesday. « evening next.. . -j ■ , ■