COST OF TAR WORK.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16448, 4 June 1919, Page 5

COST OF TAR WORK.

ESTIMATES EXCEEDED. j|P MR. COOK’S REPORT. ||f Mr. W. H. Cook, borough engineer, reported to the council on Monday night that he. had analysed the cost of work done in the following streets and submitted a statement dealing with such costs, chiefly in connection with Avenue, Eliot, Powderhiun, Wallace Place and Tukapa Roads. In August, 1917, estimates were prepared for tar-sealing these roads to varying widths, after they had been resurfaced. The actual sealing work did not take place until the beginning of this year. For a. width of 12ft. or 88 square yards area, the estimated cost was from 8d to 9d per square yard. Certain causes contributed to the cost exceeding the estimates, chiefly: (1) Extra widths and lengths treated: (2* larger quantity and higher cost of tar and freights; (3) larger quantity of gravel used, extra handling and cartage; (4) increased wages; (5) hire of machine, supervision and office charges not allowed for. The measured lengths of the roads mentioned, to what was allowed for, added 17 chains, including a length from Robe Street to Silver Street not authorised to bo done. The number of square yards allowed for in the estimates was 29,330, and the number done 35,520, or 6190 extra. The quantity of tar allowed for was 18,826 gallons, used 24,336 gallons,.a difference of 5510 gallons. Tar delivered was allowed for at 9d per gallon, the then average price, bub as supplies did not come forward fast enough, and the boiling plant was much too limited to treat the large quantity being used daily, purchases were made - from two Auckland firms, the local Gas Company, and from Palmerston North. The average price was just over lid per gallon. 'The totals were 18,826 gallons at 9d £706, and 24,336 gallons .used at lid £lll6 14s 2d, or £4lO 14s W difference, which includes for the 6190 square yards extra. Gravelling was allowed for at the average of J cubic yard per chain, 12ft. wide, at 9s per cubic yard. The quantity varied according to weather and expert, ness in throwing over the surfaces, and averaged 1{ cubic yards per chain. The average price delivered to the work, 12s 6d per cubic yard, included double handling and carting, as although it was intended to dump alongside the roads in small lots, when the work was in hand it had to be abandoned for fear of accidents. The dumps were made into approximately 50 cubic yard lots instead. The extra cost was £l4l 14s lOd. This method raised the cost of cartage, as the carts had to be kept on the job most of the time. Labour cost £62 more than allowed, as rates rose in the interim before the work was done. No allowance was made for hire of machine, £32 being charged for this, as it had not been purchased; nor was the charge of £ll4 to cover supervision and office charges allowed for, as at the time of making the estimate it had not been customary. Teams had been charged at rates which allow of practically 25s per day profit. Whilst the amount of tar was under-estimated, it had proved to. be almost impossible to spray the exact quantity, as variation of pressure and rate of travel would make considerable differences. At the same time, for first tailing the quantity used was not excessive nor wasted, very good 1 soakage having been observed where tested, which added life to the work, portions of the roads proving more absorbent than foreseen. As the works proceeded a return of cost was made; and this was analysed, the result showing it was under the estimated cost, but unfortunately some items had ■been omitted, and was in consequence misleading; this was discovered when making up the final return. The following showed the costj estimated cost, and areas sealed:—

Estimated for Cost for 29,330 35,020 Sq. Yards. Sq. Yards. £ s. d. £ s. d. Tar 706 0 0 1116 14 2 Gravel 11l 11 3 253 6 1 Rolling' 30 19 2 35 19 4 C a r t a g o and hire machine 49 17 0 141 4 8 Labour 252 14 11,, 315 0 10 £llsl 2 4 £IBO2 5 1 (Or a difference of £7ll 2s 9d.) From this it would he seen that tar aud gravel accounted for the greater part of the difference. POWDER-HAM STREET METALLING! This was estimated at 13f chains, 15 and 24 feet wide, at a cost of £2ll 0s Id. The length done was 28 chains 33 feet 0 inches, the cost being £438 is 7d. In the rush to get all the metalling possible done before the summer season, it was overlooked that only certain lengths were to he resurfaced and the rest patched, and in view of tarring, the north side being low it was raised as high as possible, 476 cubic yards extra metal being used. The cost also included re-metalling across Dawson Street to allow of the .corner being strengthened before tarring. Although the works hud cost more they had been well done, and should not bo costly to maintain. The tar work was the second lowest in cost in the district, and hut for the extra charge put against them would in all piobability be as low as any.

REPORT BY TOWN CLERK. The Town Clerk submitted returns dealing with the position ot the above loans, as at March 31, 1919, at the Borough Council meeting on -uonday. Tho first return sets out the total expenditure upon each respective street since the raising of the loan in 1913. The second return dealt with the period from October 18, 191.7, when the loan monies were reallocated by the council. It set out tho works authorised to he charged to tho loans and showed as far as possible tho position when all the works were completed. Similar returns were submitted to the council on January 23 last. From a perusal of the second return it would be seen that there was not sufficient money available in these loans to complete the works authorised to be charged thereto. The work to bo completed was estimated to cost approximately £4239, whilst the balance of loan monies only amounted to £2569, showing an' estimated deficiency of £1670. This deficiency was duo to the expenditure exceeding the estimates. Full particulars of the streets in which the estimates were exceeded were set out. A schedule showing the stre'ets in : which the money was to be spent was also attached. The only street completed in this loan was the Frankley Road., The estimated cost was £419 and the total cost to date £566. A schedule was also attached setting out the works authorised but not yet completed on General Account. This schedule showed an authorised expenditure in connection with streets of

£6383 Is 9d, to winch must be added the anticipated deficiency upon the £42,000 and £3OOO loans, amounting to £1670 9d, making a grand total of £8053 4s fid.