EXTENSION OF THE GROYNE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9866, 7 October 1903, Page 2

EXTENSION OF THE GROYNE.

A special" meeting of the Harbor Board was held this afternoon at 2 o'clock, the principal business being consideration of tenders for the groyne extension. There were present : Tlie Chairmoin (Mr Townley). Messrs Hepburn, Sievwright, Clark, Matthewson — a bare quorum — when the tenders were opened. Tlie Chairman stated the other members were in town, except Mr Harding, wlio was at Tolaga Bay. Three tenders were received as follows j—J. M. McLean and Sons, £17,490; J. McLaughlin and Co., £16,624 13s 4d; Mockrell and Colley, £17,208 5s 4d. McLean and Sons stated that they could reduce their tender .a lot if the Board altered the specification as to concrete, which took 2£ casks of cement to oiie yard of concrete. This was out of all proportion for such work. I The Clerk stated last year the tenders were: — McLean and Sons, £17,502: J. Sellar, £12,245 13s. The Clerk stated that' the difference i was in the cement. There was none in I the ironwork or the stone. McLean's estimate for the concrete was £10,000, and ! Sellar £6000, while" the Engineer's •estiI mate was £5000. The Engineer and i Sellar were within £1000 of each other. i In his estimate, Mr McLean excluded the ; sand, which he considered was lost. Mr Wlu'nrayjind Captain Tucker attended at this stage. I Mr Hepburn stated cement was cheaper •now, but the Clerk replied that the quotations at present were the same at Home, 9s 6d a cask. . The Chairman said there was 2s 6d duty now tliat there was not 12 montlis ago. j In reply to Mr Clark, the Chairman said there was no reason why Messrs Sellar did not tender. Mr Sievwright said it was a coincidence that Sellar and the Engineer -should be , so close in their estimates.. • Mr Clark : My recollection was that 'the Engineer estimated the work would : cost £10,000, and we thought £2000 too ' much of a difference. I The.Cliaarman quoted figures to show that the Board would liave £11,360 to Igo on with the groyne work. They I would have £8164 credit balance this year, and. then they .had the following year's revenue, and they wouM have £18,000 for the following year. It seemed' as if the Board would liave sufficient means to carry on the groyne contract next year without any overdraft. • Mr Sievwright thought that without anticipating revenue, the Board wvre hardly justified in going on with {Jie work. The Chairman did not see anything so far as the revenue was concerned to, mate them hesitate in going on with the'work. Mr Clark:- What is going to keep the dredge in repair and do other work? The Chairman stated £5000 was allowed for other works, and this amount could be reduced if necessary. Mr Sievwright said the Board might go on with the work as far as they could until funds gave out. Mr Clark considered that, the Board should get the opinion of the Oversear as to whether the specifications could be altered. ' , Mr Sievwright said the discrepancy of £5000 was so great that the Board conld hardly iiCcept a tender. Mr Matthew3on: Especially when the Engineer and Sellar were so close last time. We should get a thoroughly competent man to give an opinion as to the cost of the work. The difference last time and this time is so great tliat it seems hardly accidental. Perhaps the cement can be reduced. Mr^McLeod, Overseer, thought that the proportion of cement was more than it should be. ' Perhaps this was because it had to be placed in the water, but it seemed too large. Mr. Matthewson thought the Board should take time to consider the tenders when there was such a difference as £5000. The Board co-uld get. the opinion of Mr Eergitsson, engineer to th? Wellington Board, as to what the work would cost. •■" The Overseer stated the Wellington Board were doing a good deal of concrete work, and their custom could ■be obtained as to the proportion. The Clerk read a letter from Mr Ferguson, giving the proportion! of concrete for hlock or wall construction at on-e in seven, which was generally enough. Mr Witty stated the Gisborne specification^ provided for one, in six and one in fivo. Tlie Napier Board stated that the. pro- ; portion used, by them was one in seven and one in six under water. Mr Sievwright moved that the Board do the work by day work under their, sunervision. ■• . Mr Clark would like the Engineer to' pay if he considered the specifications could be altered so as to do th,e work for less than £17,000. The Overseer stated he would not like to replv to this straight off. The Board decided to adjourn further: consideration of tlie tenders until Saturday at 2 p.m.