THE WAITATI-LEITH WATER SCHEME.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13545, 19 March 1906, Page 6

THE WAITATI-LEITH WATER SCHEME.

TO THE RD'TOB. Sir,—Figures, it is said, may be made to prove anything, and even were this not so I am afraid the man has yet to be born who ran make them interesting. It is my misfortune .to have to lie continually piling up figures for tlio consumption of tlio general ratepayer. My jnly excuse is its necessity. The Waifati-lioith water scheme is of interest to tlio ratepayer. Ho knows there is some suoli schcme, but he is ignorajit of

its cost. Some of the city councillors endeavoured last Wednesday evening to supply this'information, whilst others alleged that tho figures then supplied by myself and Cr Loudon were based on a "slight misconception," and Cr Lawrence has

added to tho misconception and confusion by the figures you published for him in your local column on Friday. May I, therefore, solicit sufficient space to enable mo io place what 1 think I may term the exact situation before you? Let :no first say, for the benefit of the general public, that the Waitati-Leith water scheme was enter™.! upon to supplement theßoss's Creek service, and to supply the high levels of Dunedin and surrounding suburbs. Various schemes and plans had been reported on by Mr Hay, Mr Barr, Mr Rogers, Mr Reynolds, etc., but the 'Wai-tati-Leith was selected and approved by tho City Council as the best. In this I agree, not only with the. policy of the council, but I believe th" scheme was absolutely necessary. This being the situation, tho chief point to bo considered is that of the estimated cost. How much were the citizens called upon to spend on the Waitati-Leith scheme? I gave tho figures, and Cr Loudon gave liie figures last Wednesday night, and we each added a. few additional items that should be of interest to the ratcpavore. These figures Cr Lawrence has challenged. and contradicted. . To use his own words, ho has requested you to correct some of the I'uiures ur.ci! <it the meeting of the City Council on Wednesday night, in the. discussion "on the Waitati-I.nith extension scheme." The chairman of the Water Committee has, with the best intentions and in complete innocence, led you astray. Tho figures stated at the council table on Wednesday are unquestionably correct: the figures supplied to you by Cr Lawrence are demonstrably wrong. "Let me justify this assertion.

(.V Lawrence stales 1 hat Mr Barr's estimate of the undertaking was £46,891. In doing so, lie has overstated t-Jio amount by about £10,000. Mr Barr's original estimate of the scheme was £29,540, and on (ho basis-of .that estimate the council, on May 30. 1900; adopted the Water Committee's report, which contained a recommendation that the scheme should be carried out. Later on. Mr Barr submitted another estimate, which brought the cost up to £35.365, and it is nr/on the basis of the second estimate thai the work is being proceeded with.

I am well aware that Or Lawrones lias gene astray, but, I do not propose, at Ibis moment, lo do 'noro than roilerate my statement that, on I lie original estimated cost 'of the Waitati-Leiib scheme, he has overstated the figure by £10.000.

The figures next dealt villi by Cr Lawrence are those used by Cr Loudon, which show that £31.198 had been snent for labour and material, that £13.268 had been paid for compensation, and that £7602 had been paid for engineering: and legal charges.—malriiiF in all the sum of £51.528. To what extent has Cr Lawrence corrected these? All ho has done is, as yon say. to .inalvse the expenditure under the item £7062. This analysis consists in pointing out that (his particular amount has been naid in several sums to certain individuals, but his analysis does not Question the correctness of the sum total. On (he contrary, it confirms it. Cr Loudon's figures, therefore, not only stand, but are confirmed (not corrected) by Cr Lawrence.

Furl her, he explains (hat the payment to Mr Barr under his contract with Die corporation to carry out the scheme has so far been £845. May I be permitted to point out—(1) That I lie tolal amount of Sir Barr's contract (or fee) for completing: the whole scheme and work outside tin l Waifati-Leiili scheme was lo be £950, and (2) that it is proposed to leave undone in the meantime work lo the value of £22,000. Again, in the course of his "correction," Cr Lawrence points out that the. sum of £656 had been paid to Mr Twit prior to the commencement of this service. I have puzzled over this statement, but have been compelled to give it up. It is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps Cr Lawrence will oblige with a further "correction."

Finally, Or Lawrence says that a sum of £444 lias l>cen paid to Mr Harr for report*, extra work, and services rendered in connection with compensation claims, surveys, plans, ele. Well. Sir, on reference I fm.l the following rluuses appear in Mr Barr's contract with tin* corporation:—" Such sum (i.e., £950) to cover all my personal expenses, salaries of surveyors, draughtsmen, and clerical assistance. All information with regard to properties alreadv acquired Vv mo will be at the service of the City Council, whether I am especially retained in compensation cases or not." '

In viow of this singularly comprehensive clause will Cr Lawrence kindly inform the ratepayers why or how a fee of £950 has expanded to one of £1946, with yet more to follow, and whether he thinks the repujating clause has been sufficiently rigidly interpreted by the committee in tho ratepavers' interests?

Or Lawrence informs us that he believe* " that when allowance is made for increased cost of labour and material Mr Barr's estimate will be reasonably justified." I have already shown that

Mr Barr's estimate was £35,365 From which wc must deduct the estimated cost of the reservoir that is to stand over ,„ „ „ 13,500 Living £21,865 But the corporation books show that there has already been spent ' on labour and materials 31,198 And paid to Mr Barr 1,289 A grand total of £32,487 in other words a present excess in actual expenditure over and above the oriirin&l estimated cost of the scheme of £10.622.

Nor does this end the story. The scheme is uncompleted, and I estimate thai, thore remains to bo spent, in order to finish tho portion now in hand, a sum of (6av) £3000, or a total excess over tjie orHnal estinjaisd wtf of £&e&

This, then, is tho sum that Cr lawrence has to "reasonably justify," and whioh. was termed a "slight misapprehension" on my part.

. My assertion is that the engineering portion of the Waitati-Loith schemo will cost the citizens £13,600 more than tho original estimate, and that this additional cost will bo on and for an incompleted sohcme.-I