THE DRAINAGE SCHEME,

Colonist, Volume L, Issue 12197, 21 March 1908, Page 2

THE DRAINAGE SCHEME,

CITY COUNCIL AND MR.

MESTAYER

SPECIAL COMMITTEE'S RE-

PORT,

At the meeting of the City Council last night, the special committee recently set up to consider ,fche correspondence between the Council and its consulting drainage engineer. Mr K. L Mestayer, presented its report, which was read as follows : — "1. With'reference to letter from Mr Mestayer, asking for payment of his anccount for plans, your committee recommend that this account be paid. " 2. With reference to correspondence with Mr Mestayer, the committee begs to report that it has carefully I considered Mr' Mestayer's letter of 20th December, 1907, and compared it with the Council's letter of the 21st November 1907, and the City Engineers re.port of 12th November, 1907, and finds as follows: — "(1.) Septic tank.— Owing to the various alterations that have been nwde from time to timo both in tbe site and construction of the work, since Mr Mestayer gave his original estimate, it finds it impossible to allocate responsibility to any individual for the apparent excessive cost of this work. . "(2. )Ejector stations.— Owing to a clerical enor in the estimates of the City Engineer, this question should not have eenh submitted to Mr Mestayer, the work having been completed within Mr Mestayer' estimates. "(3). Cast iron mains. — Mr Mesayer estimated this work to cost, including laying and jointing, £54.75, and In his letter he gives tbe following dstails, viz: 625 tons of cast iron pipes at £5 per ton. stacked in Nelson £4375 Lnying and jointing same ... 1100 £5475 "Owing to certain deviations paused by the change in the location of the spptic tank,a further quantity of iron pipes was required. The

pipes actually c<ig.t the' Council at the rate of £8 per ton stacked upon Milton's Acre, although costing within Is per ton of Mr Mestayer's estimate of £5 15s per ton Lo.b. LondoD (actual cost £5 Is). When Mr Mestayer sent the specification of the pipes required to the Council about February, 1906. he showed them to cost some £5250 c.i. f. Nelson, and your committee Ciinnot understand why his attention was not drawn ~to the apparent discrSp* ancy at that time, and ah eSnlfination required-, as it must have bSen "obvious . that if the pipes were to cost £5250 a i.f. Nelson, they cduld not possibly be laid aud jointed with the small margin left of £225. Mr Mestayer's estimate of £1100 fur laying and jointing the cast iron liiaijos was apparently altogether inadequate: The lowest tender was £237 L 6s, which, after allowing for the extra length of pipes to be laid (13 chains), and the advance in the cost of labor, still leaves a considerable margin over his estimate of £1100. From all the data to hand your oeramittee estimate that Mr Mestayer nnder-estimaled this part of tho scheme by about £2300.

' ' (4. ) Contracts for areas numbers 3 and 1. — Your committee have not sufficient data before them to report definitely upon 'these contracts. Owing to the abnormal continuation of the dry weather, the No. 3;,(Wood) area is likely to be completed by day labor for & considerably less sum than that quoted by the loweaf. tenderei 1 , and should the same good fortune attend No. 1 area, tbey both ought to be completed for a sum not greafc'y in excess of Mr Mcstaver's amended estimates.

''.'l. in conclusion, your committee would submit that, owing ,to tho success that has. attended tbe; substitution of day work for that, jf contract, the engineer be" empowered to push on the. balance of tpe work in a similar manner, and if such is done, tbey have reason to believe that a workable modification of Mr Mestayer's scheme, without reducing tho area to be drained, can be given to the city, for a sum within that already voted by tbe ratepayers for this purpose.

"4. Your coaimittee would recommend that the necessary levels be take^ in order that Mr Mestayer may be able to supply all the plans of the scheme without delay."

Councillor Fiield asked, in reference to clausß 3, if the work was being- carried out under the same conditions as if it were bein£ done under contract.

The City Engineer replied that with the "exception that the smoke test was not being applied, it was. Councillor Pettit said the specifications stated that the pipes were not to be covered up uutil 48 hours, after they had been laid. He was informed "that the pipes were being 1 covered almost immediately after" they had been laid. He would like 1 to know if that was so. The Engineer said Councillor t'ettit's statement was correct: . It bad been found that small boyg had dropped stones on pipes left uncovered, and broken them. A light covering of earth had therefore been placed over the pipes. There was nothing in that to interfere with the setting of the pipes or joints. Councillor Hampson. niovod that the report be adopted, and that copies of the correspondence bo handed to the press for publication. The motion was seconded by Councillor Lightband. Councillor Pettit asked if the clause dealing with day labor bound the Council to that system for tho rest of the works. If so he would dissent from it.

The Mayor explained .why the committee had recommended day labor, which had been found very satisfactory so far. If the Council wished later to diverge from the system it would be necessary to rescind the resolution, if carried.

Councillor Pettit then moved as an amendment [that clause 3 be de« feted.

Councillor Hampson said be bad been always ia favor of contract labor when they could get compete tion. Kit their experience in this instance had shown that day labor was cheaper, find the Engineer had proved his ability to carry out tbo work.

Councillor Robertson thought tho Council should reserve power to let portions of the work in small contracts if it so desired. The fact that the contracts offered for competition before had been too large had deterred tenderers, who could not rely on securing labor. He would second the amendment.

In response to a request by Councillor Bisley, the Engineer gave details of the cost of the works in the Wood area up to the present, totalling £2122 19=s Id, the lowest tender for that area having been £7800.

The Mayor qpoke strongly in favor of the day labor system. In answer to a question. Mr Aitcheson Smitn said the total. |coat of the Wood area would bo aboutiJ49BG.

Councillor Pettit said he did not intend his amendment to mfei any reflection on tne committee, and he did not suggest that they should depart from tho present system, but he thought they should not tie their hands.

Councillor Hampson said the committee bad realised that the work couJd not have a better controlling head than the City Engineer, and the clause was inserted to strengthen his hands. Another thing was that the levels bad been very badly taken in the h'rst place, and it would be difficult to let contracts,

The Mayor again urged the system of day labor. Councillor Lightband said tne Engineer now had a good gang of men, and it would he unwise to take aoy action that would tend to disturb tbeni.

Council! lor frankly n opposed the amendment, ana Councilor Field supported it. It might, ne said, be found necessary to carry ou both systems at once. Councillor Bisley also supported tfie amendment on the same grounds.

The amendment was put and lost on a division by four votes to five. | The resolution was. carried.