UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13941, 29 June 1909, Page 2

UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE.

ENGINEER AND CONTRACTORS

A £7OO CLAIM

At the meeting of the Tiniaru Borough Council last night the drainage engineer wrote in rer>ly to an account from the contractors, Messrs Fibbes and Clyma, for works and charges claimed from the Council in respect of No. 2 sewerage contract. Mr Marchant advised that at the end of March he made up the total measurements and values of works executed on No. 2 contract as far as he was aware of them. He handed the list to Mr Clyma asking him to go through the items and say if anything had been omitted so that it could be added and the account finally squared. Mr Clyma kept the list without making any further comment or application for some weeks. Eventually, lioth partners (after having been a*kcd by him) discussed the whole, account with him on Tuesday April 20th, and any items they could show had been omitted, were added to the account. In consideration of the miserable price they had tendered for the work, he gave them generous measurement wherever he had any discretion. Mr Clyma expressed himself as being '"perfectly satisfied" and Mr Fibbts expressed his satisfaction also at the settlement. The amount to be paid under this mutual arrangement was £4507 3s lid less some debits he had against- them. Now, it appeared that the contractors desired to Teoudiate the settlement of April 20, and claim a 15s 3d instead of £4507 3s lid. Mr Marchant detailed several extras which they claimed and said they hprl no legal or"moral right- to these. All the work done, had been raid for by fair measirre and at schedule price, and over in some cases. If the contractors had been made to niter or amend work already executed, they would have a claim, but such was not the case. "Where they had cut deeper in a certain"place the Council was willing ; to pay and had paid them for it. They i were not entitled to anything in je- | spect to their claim for £541 15s. Not a word of such a claim had been spoken of by them when souaring up on April 20. Some few items were omitted from the return of April 20. amounting to £25 or so. These would have been included it" the contractors had then let him know or had known themselves of the omissions. Mr Marchant said the matter now rested with the Council, as- the contractors had appealed to it. For himself, he would not be coerced,bu t- would certify fairly and justly for all works executed. Mr" Marchant set out some of the items he disputed: —Alterations in lines and levels, Sandietown gully £350; alterations to plans, Nelson Terrace £25; LeCren street, £22 10s: Hatton street, £ls; Lough street £67 10s; Avenue road, £46 ss; Sefton street. £ls 10s; total, £541 15s. Mr Marchant wrote that the contractors had no moral claim in Tespect of these. In some cases alterations were made in the street mains to suit cuttings and gradings to be made in futurein others culverts existed under roadways which could not be known or provided for until discovered by excavation. In the case of Sandietowr gully, its exact location could not be known in advance of arrangement with the property owners. But jn every case all the" work done had been paid by fair measure and schedule price, and over in some cases. The contract provided for all this. Certain other items of construction were individually noted. One was a claim for deep cutting where funnelling had been specified~ The contractors preferred cutting and were paid at tunnel rate. Councillor Leathwick said he would like to see this matter gone into fully. >ft would be just as well to satisfy themselves. The Mayor said the matter was entirely one between the engineer and th-» contractors;. the Council could not legally pay more than their engineer certified ti. The. contractors couh* tnke the case to Court if they thought they were net- being treated fairly. H« thought the engineer would he fair aw just to all parties. • Councillor Beck pointed out that to more Mr Marchant 'paid the contractors the higher his commission wouh be. Councillor Sinclair said it seemed l> him that the plans had been devi-itec from, and it woidd not be fair or just to ask the contractors to do the extr: work for nothing. He did not thin • the arguments of the Mayor would hj»!; water at all. The Council should gi into the matter, and not delegate ib powers to one of its servant*. He ~h.. not think that there should be am talk of law court proceedings; it woulc. be unfair to expect a worki..g man t; tight a body liKe the Borough Council in Court. He moved that t.ie mattei bo' referred to tne Works Committee for consideration and report. This was seconded by Councilloi Satterthwaite. The Mayor said it would _be a verj wrong tiling for the CouiK-ii to interfere between the contractors and the engineer; he did not feel competent to do it, and ivouid decline to have anything to do with such a proceeding. It would be a very foolish tiling. Councillor Hawney said that such a motion was tantamount to a vote o» no confidence in the engiueer.—Councillor ftcatey sooke to miuilui- efrect, and said that h tney had no confidential the drainage engineer tney had hi.--. | ter dispense uitlihiui. —Councillor \\ at i son saiu that Councillors merely wanted jto get clear on the matter. He diu | not think Air Marchant would take it as a vote ot no confidence. —Councillor I Üborn said that the claini had been j fully reported on by the engineer, and j he did not see that they could go past their professional adviser. | On the motion being put it was lost, | the voting being as follows: —l'oi ; Councillors Porter, feattertliwaite, ."Midair, .Leathwick and Uutson. Against The .Mayor and Councillors Beck, ha/ key, Sea ley, Oborn, and Gilchrist. | It was agreed that a copy of the engineer's letter should be forwarded to the contractors, and that the extra £2o certified to by the engineer be paid to them. THE FIELD BOOK. Mr Marchant, further wrote forwarding the field book for sewerage contracts Nos. 2 and 3. The book had been completed weeks ago and lie had given instructions that it was to lie taken to the Council, but it had been overlooked. THE NEXT CONTRACT.

For the construction of an _ intercepting sewer along the southern foreshore and u septic tank two tenders were received:—Hunt and Werrv £4284 9s, W. Black and wSon £4417. This was between £2OO and £3OO above the estimate of the engineer. Mr Marchant said that a liberal allowance had been made by the contractors on account of working so close to water and the liability to strike rock.

Councillor. Satterthwaite asked how ifc would do to carry the work out hy day labour. —The engineer said lie would prefer to see it done by contract; the contractors took all risk. On the motion of Councillor Hawkey seconded by Councillor Sealey the tender of Hunt and "Werry was accepted, Councillors Beck and Gilchrist to sign the contract. In terms of the

contract, the septic tank and the sewer up to (Jiieen street have to bt completed withiu six months. BRANCH MAINS.. A question • was , discussed with Mr Murchant as to .how those ,householders should be charged whose houses are served by a branch main (it being, impossible to connect their houses with the sewer in any other-way). - - It was explained that the people . who were served in this way were ,at an advantage as compared with others who had to connect with the xoad in that they had shorter lengths of pipes to put in, while the Council had to go to the expense of putting in the branch drain. —lt was decided after a full discussion that wherever houses are served by a branch drain at the rear of their premises they be charged £3 for the connection if on a chain street, and £1 10s if the property faces a half chain street.