CLIFFORD STREET KERBING.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 13321, 5 March 1914, Page 9

CLIFFORD STREET KERBING.

The cost of eleven chains of kerbing m Clifford street Mas the subject of al return submitted to the Borough Council by the Engineer recently. The cost was stated as -838 10s-"4d, or £3 9s 9£d ( per chain, as compared, with his esti-ima£e:'br-£3 lOs.per cjtain. On the presentation of the return CV Wade asserted that the work had cost four times the amount stated, and, the Engineer \vas : requested to furnish full particulars. These were* submitted to the Council last night? when / the Engineer maintained that' the cost was as Stated above. He -added : "In settling my estimate of cost, it- was assumed the Borougli possessed all the requisite" plant and tools. That it happened to be out of boxing timber was a mere coincidence, as also the fact that at the moment totara was not procurable m town, hence heart- kauri was - purchased, not of choice, but of necessity, at a cost of £17 14s 3d.' Comment has been made as to why white pine was not bought and why something less than a thickness of two inches was not obtained. Tlie answer to such criticism is that had the latter been purchased the work would-, have... seen- -tne end of it, whereas the 'timber purchased is' fit for further works, having -suffered little or no deterioration-, and when unfit for such purpose will be used for box culverts, a use for which white pino is wholly unfitted. There is, moreover,' no reason why the. cost of the timber should be regarded as an element of tlie cost of this work than exists for depreciation arising from the use of all other plant N on all other street works, a practice not 'pursued, but let deterioration on the timber be assessed at ten per I cent, of first cost; then m that case add three shillings and twopence half-penny per bhain to the stated cost. While my nett estimate of cost was put at £3 10s per chain, it must not be forgotten that the cost was stated to the contributors to be £*4, and that, they actually contributed £2 per chain to the cost of the work." Cr Wade took exception to a clause m the report stating that "the public were present" at the meeting when the previous estimate was challenged. He criticised the timber question, and said he knew from the time occupied on tho work that it could not be done at the price stated. Unfortunately they had to accept the statement. The Mayor said the Engineer would produce * documentary -"evidence, and if it could be proved wrong they could do so, hut they must not make insinuations against the* Engineer. Or Bright moved, and Cr Wildish, seconded, that the report be adopted.' Or Collins Jsaid he had. asked for the return and 'not Or -Wade ; not that he said the estimate was- wrong, but he wanted to know the details. As an amendment Cr Collins moved that the report be referred to the Works Committee to go into. Returns were asked foi- m good faith, and tlie reply should 'baftriven m good faith, and not with 'a prologue of criticism. The Mayor : If no prologue criticism wero made against. the Engineer, there would bo. no prologue m return. The Engineer had a right to defend himself. C*r Collins moved that the portion of tho report containing the figures be adopted. There being no seconder the amendment lapsed. Tlie Mayor said they should confirm the report. It was very satisfactory to find the work was being carried out 'within tho estimates. ' The report was adopted.