UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13681, 25 August 1908, Page 6

UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE

SEPTIC TANK AT SOUTHERN OUTFALL.

THE WAGES QUESTION

The Mayor informed the Borough Council last night that) a. deputation had waited oa the committee, with regard to the touthera outfall, and they brought a resolution Jri.m a public meeting asking that the Council adhere to the original proposal and make a septic tank at that end. It was in the plan, in the scheme that the ratepayers voted for, and they might not, have voted for it had tbe> tank cot been in tbe> scheme. He aesnred the deputation that the proposed change was 800 suggested by the Council, but by the engineer, and it had been approved Mr Cuthbert and by the chief health otdcer, •who thought that the liquefying tank could not be a nuisance, but if it should be, they could put in a srptic tank. Mr Marchant, however, now said that if they put in the big sewer they could not put in itha septic tank. He. told tlie deputation what he had just said, and that he was of opinion that the Council should keep faith with the ratepayers, and carry out the original design. There was some difficulty about the levels, but Mr Marchant assured him that many large sewers were laid at a dead level, and in this case there would be five or eix feet of fall. The modification had not suggested by the Council, to save £SOO or anything eke; but they were advised by their erperte. The septic tanks were put in to eave a little sentiment, but they were told by these experts that the liquefying tank would destroy the sewage. However, the septic tank was in the original scheme, and he thought they could not do better than keep faith with the ratepayers and carry out the septic tank echeme. (Hear, hear.) The resolution passed by the South School meeting was read, and Councillors Hawkey and Sealey moved that the original scheme of an intercepting sewer and septic task be carried out. Councillor Schmidt thought that they should further consider the reports of their engineers, who said they were giving them a much better thing than the original scheme. The councillors were not experts, and they should listen to those who were, and who told them they could give better results. Councillor Parks 6aid they should have had the best at first. .

In reply 'to Councillor Mullin, the Mayor said that Mr Marchant had caid that if the liquefying tank was not a success a septic tank could be put in, he now said that it. could net, because the isea water would enter for half a tide, and the salt water wotdd destroy the septic tank. However, he was pleased that there was enough fall and that the original scheme could be carried out.

•Councillor Sealey: If they had no doubt about the ether tank they would not have said, "if it is not a success." Councillor Schmidt: That was in reply to a. question whether it could be done, not a proposal of theirs. The motion was carried unanimously. Mr P. W. Marchant, drainage engineer, ■wrote re the southern section of the drainage works, advising as follows, if the Council decided to adhere to the original proposal to lay down a . pipe sewer with a septic tank at the outfall:—To let all the street work in one contract, and the ieiercepting sewer, septic tank, and sea outfall in another contract. Under the amended proposal to construct a concrete egg-shaped sewer with liquefying tank- only, he had had prepared all the plans for letting tine whole in one contract. It would now take some time to prepare new plans for the original proposal, and meanwhile he thought they should getting on 1 with the street work from North street southwards, so that' the contract for street work could bs almost immediately advertised, and the intercepting sewer, etc., be let later on. On the recommendation of the Mayor, it- was agreed to consider this letter at next meeting of the Council's committee. THE WAGES QUESTION. A deputation of five workmen employed on the underground drainage works, accompanied by Mr Izzard as spokesman waited on the Council. .Mr Izzard explained at some length that the men were not sufficiently paid at 8s a day, the amount stipulated in the contract, for with lost time they did' not average £2 a week. One man piodneed one wage list, of a man fully employed when»work was going on.since the contract started, and it averaged £1 19s 5d a week. A single man ha 4 he said to pay 18s to 20s a werk for board, and a married man could not live without- getting into debt. Another, a married man with two children, said it took him all his time to scratch along. He could not pay his way without depriving hia family of many things they chould have. He had a pretty hard squeeze to pay his rent. The work was well worth 9s a day, and they had to buy their shovels out of the 8s a day, at 5s 6d each, and they lasted only a couple ot month.'. Mr Izzard put in the following estimate of the cost of living for a Email family:—Rent 10s, coal 3s 6d, firewood 3d, meat 7s, milk (1 quart, per day) 2s 4d, bread 3s 6d, groceries lis 3d, potatoes 1?, other vegetables 6d: total £1 19s 4d. The item "groceries" was ruu out as follows: —Tea, coffee, cocoa Is, sugar Is. butter (Üb) Is 6d, eegs, Is, facdles 3d, kerossns (1 bottle) 6d, flour

Is, currants sd, bacon Is ,rice (21b) 6d, jam 6d, soap lid, mustard and pepper 6d, salt Id, matches id, baking powder, starch, 6vrup and other sundrits Is, total lis 3d. * Clothing, boots, lodge dues (average Is 2d a week), tobacco,- wear and tear of household utensils, etc. not allowed for. Mr Izzard quoted some rentals of small places he knew —2-roomed 6e 6d and 7s 6d, four rooms with no conveniences lis and 12s. The list he put in showed that the man who averaged £1 19t> 5d had Id left for tobacco .clothing, friendly society, etc. (and most of ihe men belonged to some society). They could, he said, apply to the Arbitration Court for a rise of pay, but before the Court could hear them the next contract would probably be fixed, and they thought the Council would agree, and save anv reference to the Court. The Mayor said that the Council 'fixed 3, minimum, but that did not. prevent a contractor giving more. Mr Izzard said the contractors would make up their tenders on that basis. The Mayor expressed his sympathy with the request of the deputation, but proceeded to point out that the estimated cost of the drainage works was made up on the basis of 8s a day, and to increase this by one-eighth would add between £3OOO and £4OOO to the cost, as so large a proportion of this cost was for labour. He promised that the Council would give the matter very careful consideration, and one form of this would be the' letting of the next portion of the works in small contracts so that men could take up the job themselves. Mr Izzard said that others had calculated the 'additional cost, and made it not more than £2OCO. This he thought, the ratepayers would not object to, as the money would be all spent in the town, and the shopkeepers would be paid instead of having so much on their books'. The Mayor ran over the figures again, and found the extra shilling meant about £3500.

The deputation thanked the Council for their promise to consider the request and withdrew.