TOWN SERVICES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 9, 10 July 1909, Page 15

TOWN SERVICES.

WATER, DRAINAGE, AND SEWAGE. IMPORTANT MEETING AT LOWER HUTT. An important special meeting of the Lower Hutt Borough Council was held last evening for the purpose of further considering matters appertaining to the administration of moneys in connection with the carrying out of the water supply, drainage, and sewage works. There were in attendance the Mayor (Mr. E. P. Bunny) and all the members of the council, besides a large number of the general public. The data before the meeting comprised the Borough Engineer's and \he Town Clerk's written replies to Mr. Marchant, and Mr. Laing-Meason's reports bearing on the various loan works. Air. Laing-Meason also submitted a reply to the Borough Engineer's (Mr. RixTrottj report. Mr. Rix-Trott first desired to emphasise the fact that the proposed watersupply scheme emanated from himself, and not from the consulting engineers, as had been frequently stated. The original estimate for the waterworks, as drawn up by Mr. Marchant and himself — being embodied in a report to the then council — was £17,800. Mr. LaingMeason, however, had said, continued Mr. Rix-Trolt, that the actual expenditure was £20,377. That might be so, but he (the speaker) contended that the extras boyond the original amount were justly chargeable to the sewage works, for the following reasons :—(1): — (1) That £4000 was taken off the sewage scheme, which sum was originally allocated to it, for various reasons stated in detail ; (2) in connection with the sewage, portion of the scheme it was found neces sary to increase the size of the water mains; (3) the engines and producer plant were also increased in size -and price (some £1333 increase, including duty) ; (4) a mote costly reservoir site than the one first provided for had been selected (5) while in a letter to him (the writer)' on the 28lh July, 1906. Mr. Marcfiant estimated the reservoir to cost £2000, instead of £lboo originally contemplated. Proceeding, Mr. RixTrott denied emphatically that "certain mistakes" had occurred in connection with the reservoir, thus considerably increasing the cost thereof. He pointed out that the cost was added to, by reason of the fact that no less than thirteen streats and estates, not included or provided for in the original scheme, had to be reticulated to the extent of 183^ chains, at a cost of £924. After 1 ' allowing for certain work not yet done, an extra cost of £760 had to be met in this connection. He failed to understand why Mr. Lamg-Mcason had made the remark that it was necessary for him to consider the surface drainage and street-improvement works under one heading, as they were inextricably mixed up. STREET IMPROVEMENTS. After quoting the amount expended each year since 1906, the engineer stated that he had had to find a further sum of £822 14s lOd to complete the Mainroad works, which amount was charged to the district fund account, making a total sum of £5622 14s lOd spent on street improvements. SEWAGE. In reference to the sewage scheme, it was stated by Mr. Rix-Trott that the, septic tank site . on the eastern side of the river cost £676 5s 6d; that on {lift western side £506 ss, both absorbing considerably more than was originally anticipated' After further traversing the consulting engineer's contentions, Mr. Rix-Trott asked how could Mr. Laing Meason now say that the drainage would cost altogether as much as his own present estimate of £25,026, when in January, 1905, he himself esti-mated-the cost (per schedule attached) at £17,838. His (the Borough Engineer's) estimate of the work still to be done, as from the 31st March, 1909, amounted to £13,711 9s 6d. Liberal allowance for labour was made in the estimate, the prices given covering the cost for work of a similar nature at present being carried out. The amount in hand was £10,843, leaving a debit balance of £2863 9s 6d. To this amount must, be added Everest Creek diversion, as originally contemplated (£3100), ' bringing the balance to be found up to £5963 9s 6d. Continuing, he said :—: — "But, as against the above, balance, I am entitled to receive credit for £1132, representing additional wages paid under award, which, under these circumstances, would have left the amount to be found equal to £483] 9s 6d. . . . To carry the waters of Everest Creek, and discharge the same at a point immediately south of White's Line into the present drain (Moran's Creek) would cost, I estimate, about £2000, leaving a further balance of £1100, which might be donated to reduce the deficiency shown above, making the amount to be found £3731 9s. 6d, plus the amount paid in extra wages v My present estimate to finish the work's allows a sum of £599 beyond that originally contemplated in the sewage portion of the loan, and also for the increased rate of pay." ' SUPERVISION. . On the subject of supervision, he stated that Mr. Laing-Meason's figures, es-" timating the amount for last year at £1400, were inaccurate. The amount spent on loan works last year was £6583. Out of this, only £690 3s (approximately 10 per cent.) was spent on supervision. This compared favourably with the 15£ per cent, paid for super"vision on the Main Road drain contract (under the direction of Messrs. Meason and Marchant). DAY LABOUR v. CONTRACT. Dealing with the subject of day labour v. contract, ho quoted instances where, he alleged, contract works under the direction of the consulting engineers, had taken four months longer than iue stipulated time to complete. Another instance was that of the Main Rnad surface drain (carried out by contract mider the supervision of an outside <:up;ineer, and a clerk of works), which had afterwards to be taken up and telaid. The Middle Waiwetu-road drainage, carried out in the same manner, " by contract, had also to be relaid. Finally, his experience was that day labour was better and cheaper than contract work. Summing up, he remarked that the whole of the. facts and figuies quote i could easily be found and verified. J n conclusion,* he submitted the following summary of expenditure: — Waterworks, £17,773 ; dh ertion of creeks, sewage, and surface drainage, £18,677 ; street improvements-, £4800; total expenditure to date, £41,151; balance in hand, £10,848. Grand total, £52,000. TOWN. CLERK'S REPORT. Mr. P. R. Purser's (Town Clerk) report relative to the same matter read as follows: — "I submit that there is very little theiein calling for comment from me. I note, however, that the uj-i-sulting engineers are somewhat ambiguous in their remarks in regard to the statement of accounts furnished them by me, which might be construed in several different ways. X must, therefore, at this juncture, point out that the only per.-on authorised to furnish me v. 'th certificates showing the allocations of the expenditure on works is tho Uorou^h Eni gineer, and that I have his certificate in

iespect to every item of expenditure .n his department. All the items included in the statement furnished tho consulting engineers are in every respect in accord with the allocations as certified to by the Borough Engineer. Referring to the works carriocl out under tho loan, but which were not included in the engineer's original reports, I desire to say that I have from time to time drawn attention to this matter, particularly in regard to tho reticulation of the Te Momi estate with water mains, and to the lowering of Victoria-street, but in view of tha fact that the detailed items, of the reports referred to were not ombodied, nor in any way referred to, in the voting paper submitted to the ratepayers, I realised that the council could exercise a somewhat wider discretion in the expenditure of tho loan moneys than it otherwise could have done had the items been detailed " A late, additional report, was also read from Mr. Laing-Meason, affirming, among other things, that Mr. Rix-Trott could not claim to have originated the present water scheme. In the same connection, in answer to Mr. Bunny, Major M'Donald (ex-Mayor of Lower Hutt) wrote stating that when the scheme was first advocated the present Borough Engineer was not in New Zealand. MR. I;AIN'G..tfEASON'S REJOINDER. Traversing 'Mr. Rix-Trott's reply to his report, 'Mr. <Laing-Mea&on described it as very lengthy, containing much irrelevant matter, such as, for instance, the question of who designed the water supply works. As Mr. Rix-Trott had introduced the subject, he ('Mr. XiaingiMeason) would only stale the indisputable fact that the whole of the work was designed, and every plan and specification drawn entirely by tho late firm of iMeosrs. 'Meason. and 'Marchant, with the solitary exception of the small engine-house at tho pumping station (the work of the borough engineer). Regarding the mistake which was made at the reservoir, resulting in the breaking of a pipe, Mr. iMeason said I hit "if the conncjl desired it he could procure the written statements of the persons (eyewitnesses) who had spoken to him on the subject. Touching 1 on supervision, he said that in a small place like the Hutt, the engineer and one foreman or clerk of works should have easily been able to do the entire supervision of the loan works as well as of tho maintenance. '''Mr. Rix-Trott," continued the writer, "snys no f'lils to see how I could not distinguish between the itenis of street improvement and surface drainage set forth in the statement furnished to me. It is only necessary to read this document to see how tho two matters are mixed up, and how practically impossible it is to disentangle them. However, this is quite outside the real issue, «hich is that there is an excess expenditure onjthcse items of £7193. "The Borough Kngineer furnishes a list of sowers still to be constructed, and his estimate of their cost. His estimates are absurdly low. ' As an example . • . . one item of trench excavation is valued by him at £5200, whereas it is undoubtedly worth not loss than £9000. . . I say unhesitatingly the estimate given by me is a fair one, and that it cannot be expected that the work can be done for less money." Dealing with day labour v. .contract work, the writer said that as regards the contract quoted by Mr. Rix-Trott, which he (Mr. Laing-Meason) had supervised, the work, although slow, was of excellent character, and the total cost was betow the estimate. The other two cases threatened by Mr. Rix-Trott had nothing to do with him. Relative to the Middle Waiwetu-road, he staged that Mr. Rix-Trott, instead of attempting to adhere to his (Mr. Laing-Mea-son's) proposals, had, entirely on his own initiative, proceeded to spend a very large sum of money, so that he (the writer) had no responsibility whatever for thg work done or the money spent there." 'According to his own report, Mr. Rix-Trott had expended the sum of £18,651 on creek diversion, surface drainage, and street improvement) whereas the ratepayers only authorised the expenditure of £9260 on them. Mr. Rix-Trott, in his summary, continued Mr. Laiug-Meason, said that the sum of £10,848 19s Od was in hand on u^st March, ISO 9. So it might be ; but' that amount included the sum (£3100) allotted to the Everest creek diversion ; therefore, the sum of £7743 only was available for expenditure on thn sowerage scheme. In conclusion, Mr. Laing-Meason said the whole case might be summed up as follows :—"lnstead: — "Instead of limiting the expenditure to the amounts voted for each item, and making the council fully aware of the position, huge sums in excess of the authorised amounts had been taken from the sewerage vote." DISCUSSION. A motion was passed to the effect that the discussion be taken in committee. The Borough Engineer and the Town Clerk had to retire .from the meeting. At midnight the council adjourned until Wednesday night to enable further information to be supplied by the Town Clerk and Borough Engineer.