Harbour Improvement

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20639, 30 January 1937, Page 5

Harbour Improvement

BOARD SANCTIONS SCHEME

LOAN OF £242,000 TO BE RAISED With only one dissentient vote, the Timaru Harbour Board, at its monthly meeting yesterday, carried a resolution approving the new scheme of harbour improvement, and instructed the engineer to proceed immediately with the necessary arrangements, bearing in mind the raising of the necessary loan to cover the cost of the improvements, which are set down at £242,000. The outstanding improvements are the lifting of the present North Mole and building a new alignment so as to provide more swinging room in the harbour, and the dredging of a new entrance channel to give a straight run into the harbour.

The Board had before it yesterday a joint report by the secretary (Mr F. Metson) and the engineer (Mr W. B. Charman) and a report by the Standing Committee on the officers’ joint report. These were debated for some time and eventually the reports were rdopted. Mr H. M. Whatman, the Waimate County representative being the only dissentient. Joint Report The officers’ report stated that it was assumed that the following works would be carried out:— (a) The installation of two 5-ton electric level luffing wharf cranes at No. 1 Wharf. (b) The building up of the gap In the Eastern Extension Mole. (c) The re-alignment of the North Mole as shown in Scheme No. 3. It had been further assumed that the whole of the No. 3 scheme would be carried out in random rubble. Order of Executive In order to permit the works to be carried out with the minimum of delays, the works should be executed in the following order:— (1) Strengthen No. 1 wharf to carry crane loading. (2) Re-arrangement of railway tracks on the wharf. (3) Re-arrangement of wharf lighting and capstans to suit new alignment of railway sidings. (4) CaU tenders for cranes. (5) Call tenders for Priestman dredge. (6) Call tenders for quarry plant. (7) Purchase a locomotive and sundry small plant. (8) Open up quarry. (9) Build up gap in Eastern Extension Mole. (10) Dredge foundation for new alignment of North Mole. (11) Build new alignment of North Mole. (12) Dredge new area of swinging basin. (13) Dredge new entrance channel. (14) Lift North Mole. Several of these works would be proceeding simultaneously. Estimated Costs The estimated costs of the various works as follows: £ (I) Strengthening No. 1 wharf to carry crane loading .. 5,700 (3) Re-arrangement of the wharf lighting and capstans to suit new alignment of the railway sidings 300 (4) Supply, delivery and erection of two 5-ton wharf cranes 13,000 (5) Supply and delivery of Priestman dredge and .. .. (6) Supply and delivery of quarry plant 35,870 (7) Purchase of a locomotive and sundry small plant .. 3,000 (8) Open up quarry 1,009 (9) Build up gap in Eastern Extension Mole 10,000 (10) Dredge foundation for new alignment of North Mole, (12) Dredge new area of swinging basin, and .' (13) Dredge new entrance channel 79,700 (II) Build new alignment of North Mole 48,000 (14) Lift North Mole 26,000 Cost of raising loan .. 600 Contingency Fund 18,821 Total £242,000 , It was necessary to comply with the following formalities before commencing the various works:— (1) Plans of proposed scheme to be submitted to the Marine Department for approval. (2) Special Act required to enable the work to be carried out. The Act would also contain the necessary authority to raise the loan required. (3) When Act is passed application must be made to the Local Government Loans Board In the matter of borrowing the money required. (4) Proposals placed before ratepayers.

STANDING COMMITTEE recommendations adopted The Standing Committee reported that the secretary and engineer's joint report was considered in detail, and the committee unanimously adopted the recommendations of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of “works to be executed.” ,' 1 (a) Installation of two electric » wharf cranes—has already been authorised by the Board. * (b) Building up the lower portion Of the Eastern Extension. (c) Re-alignment of the North Mole.

"The committee adopted the recommendation of the engineer, that the re-alignment of the North Mole (Clause c) be carried out in random rubble, as opposed to the alternative suggestion that a portion of the work be done in steel sheet piling, for these reasons:— (1) The consensus of opinion of the committee and its advisers, is that the alignment or me new north protecting arm will not require alteration within the life of the steel sheet piling and therefore the original advantage contemplated from the use of the latter would not materialise. (2) The estimated cost of the random rubble method is £14,000 less than if steel sheet piling is adopted. (3) A rubble wall will last indefinitely, while the steel sheet piling has a life of 60 years approximately only, and will in addition require annual maintenance. (4) The use of random rubble increases the labour proportion of the total cost, and tends to keep money within our own country. Eastern Extension “Consequent upon the decision to open the quarry, it Immediately becomes possible to build up the low portion of the Eastern Extension as much of the stone gained from quarry operations will not be suitable for use on the North Mole without further breaking down owing to its large size, but it will be eminently suitable for use on the Eastern Extension. An opportunity is therefore afforded to carry out this Important work simultaneously at a cost much lower than would be possible if the quarry had to be re-opened at a later date. "The committee adopts the engineer’s proposal to lift the North Mole by means of a Priestman dredge, that such a dredge will always have a resale value, or alternatively, a charter value, and will in addition be available for much duty in our own harbour. Quarry Plant “The committee adopts the engineer’s recommendation that quarry plant consisting of a tractor, bulldozer and ripper for the purpose of stripping the overburden, be purchased. It Is the engineer’s opinion that this plant will pay for Itself in saved costs of stripping, and the added facility in stripping will enable much of the nearer portion of the quarry (i.e. the old workings) to be reworked at a much reduced cost. In addition an air compressor, two drills, and air hose will be purchased for the same reasons. "Sundry plant, including locomotive, stone punt, etc., costing £3,000 will be necessary. Order of Executing (1) Strengthening No. 1 wharf for carrying crane loading is now in progress. (3) The cost of re-arrangement of wharf lighting and capstans has been provided in the estimates and will commence as soon as the new trackwork on No. 1 wharf is authorised. (4) Specifications have been prepared and tenders for two cranes are now being called. (5) Priestman Dredge—Preliminary inquiries have been made in England. Specifications are being prepared and tenders should be called as soon as the loan proposal is finalised. This dredge Is being purchased to carry out the following works:— (a) Lift 1,200 feet of the stonework of the North Mole, and replace it in its new position, (b) Dredging for which “No. 350” is not suitable (viz. removing the berm at all the wharves). (c) Removing rock reef at inner end of Nos. 1 and 2 wharves, thus increasing the oversea berths at the important No. 1 crane wharf. (d) The vessel will be suitable for dredging in deep water, off the end of the Eastern Extension under certain rougher sea conditions in which a ladder dredge cannot be used in safety. Estimates “The estimated cost of the proposed works were adopted, and were considered a suitable base on which to launch a loan proposal. Works Programme "The paragraphs of the secretary’s and engineer’s joint report dealing with the order of carrying out the proposed works are supplemented by a ‘works programme’ which shows diagramatically the order in which the work will be done and sets the entire operation to a time table which, if adhered to, will ensure the completion of the works by 1943. Financial Arrangements In seeking the best basis on whicn to put the loan required for new har-

bour works, the following factors were borne in mind:— (a) That the harbour rate be kept as low as possible. (b) That the new scheme be coordinated with the Board’s existing commitments, with regard to the two existing loans. (c) That the Board’s estimated revenue and expenditure be considered carefully in conjunction with the proposed annual appropriation to pay off the loan. (d) That the burden to be borne by the Board's finance be maintained at as even a figure as possible throughout the term of the loan. (e) That the longest term obtained be adopted. (f) That certain suggestions made by the secretary of the Loans Board be adopted. (g) That the harbour rate be maintained at a level figure, and extreme fluctuations be prevented. “A number of schemes have been worked out, and it has been found that the most advantageous scheme possible is one based on a term of 30 years, and requiring annual appropriations of 1937, £17,000; 1938 to 1942, £35,050; 1943, £28,250; 1944 to 1952, £20,300; 1953 to 1966, £17,360; 1967, £13,301. “An estimated income and expenditure account including all the Board’s finance to 1967 has been compiled, and it has been found that the above appropriation can be provided if a total rate of 5-32 d in the pound is struck during the years 1938 to 1966 inclusive. This represents an increase of approximately £2,750 per annum over the rate levied during the present year, i.e. l-32d in the pound increase. The committee feels that if the whole £242,000 loan can be financed by an increase of l-32d in the pound in the rate, the position will be as favourable as can be obtained. “The attention of the Board is drawn to the final paragraph of the joint report, dealing with the procedure necessary to obtain the loan. It is pointed out that each step will take considerable time, and no time must be lost in putting the necessary work in hand. Resolution Outlined The Standing Committee therefore recommends that the following resolution be passed at the meeting to be held on January 29, 1937: "That (a) The joint report of the secretary and engineer dated January 7, 1937, with works programme attached, and Plan No. 291 (Harbour Improvement Scheme No. 3) be adopted. (b) The engineer be Instructed to proceed with works, and carry out the necessary procedure, as laid down in his joint report and works programme with the utmost despatch, bearing in mind the raising of the necessary loan. (c) The secretary be instructed to take all steps incidental to the raising of the loan recommended in the above report with the utmost despatch. (d) That a copy of the secretary’s and engineer’s joint report dated January 7, 1937, a copy of Plan No. 291 and copy of works programme be attached to and considered part of this motion.”

BOARD DISCUSSION QUESTION OF COST Messrs W. T. Ritchie and R. S. Goodman, moved that the report of the Standing Committee be adopted. The chairman said that the work was going to run into a lot of money, probably £250,000. The accountant had gone to Wellington to interview the secretary of the Loans Board, and the secretary (Mr Aitken) was convinced that the scheme was a good one. Parliament would not meet probably before August, but if they got the Bill ready and had it passed by Parliament in September, they should be able to start the work next November. If they were not all in favour of every point now was the time to say so. If they approved the scheme, and it was carried, there would be no back-biting so far as he was conierned. The acting secretary (Mr G. R. Lee) then read to the Board a report covering his conversations with the secretary of the Loans Board. Mr Orbell apologised for the absence of Mr A. F. Campbell, and said that Mr Campbell had asked him to state that he had read the reports, and that had he been present, he would have voted in favour of them. Mr F. R. Flatman said that he thought they were under a debt of gratitude to the Standing Committee for the report it had presented. The order was a big one, and he had given a good deal of thought as to where the money would come from. N{r Lee had worked out what the additional charges would be to provide the necessary facilities, and the extra amounts, over and above the present rate, would be: Timaru Borough £627, Geraldine County £397, Waimate Borough £65, Temuka Borough £42, Pleasant Point £l3, Waimate County £514, Geraldine Borough £24, Levels County £437, and Mackenzie County £314. Mr Flatman said that he thought they would have to raise the rates in any case to meet their liabilities, but the extra cost to South Canterbury a year to improve the harbour was £2700, which was not a great deal. In reply to a question Mr Lee said that the .cost of ordinary dredging would come under the loan, and so in that direction they were making a saving, for they would be cutting down ordinary expenditure. Taking things all in all, he did not think South Canterbury would be handicapped very

much. He only hoped they would be doing the right thing, for South Canterbury had to progress. Mr D. C. Kidd said that there was an item of £32,000 for a Priestman dredge, and it had been suggested to him by an engineer that they should use sheet piling and pump the mole dry. He asked if the engineer had considered this. Cost Prohibitive The chairman said that the suggestion had come before the Standing Committee and he had been sat on. The system was the same as that used at the Waitaki works. The system was

practical and would be cheaper once the water was got out, but the cost of getting the piling in was out of all question. The engineer (Mr B. W. Charman) said that he had considered a number of schemes, but they were too risky. To use steel sheet piling would be very costly. At the top the mole was only 20 feet wide, but according to the contract, the base was 120 feet. No doubt the stone had spread out, and might be 130 feet in places, so that

they would have to drive the piling very wide. In his opinion everything was in favour of the Priestman dredge method. Mr Whatman asked if they would have’to provide a staff for the Priestman dredge and would it be liable for annual overhaul? The engineer said that they would need a staff of five, and the dredge would have to come under the Marine Department, and be subject to annual overhaul. In reply to another question the engineer said that he had made provision for the purchase of plant, but if they could hire plant from the Public Works Department, then the cost might be reduced. The chairman: Do you think it is safe to leave the harbour inside without dredging for two years? The engineer: It hasn’t been done for 14 years. It is quite safe to put the dredge on to the new channel. If she was not on that work she would have to be on the existing channel. Mr A. R. Guild said that he was prepared to support the scheme wholeheartedly. He had long had it in mind that they had to do something, and it was no use talking about making Timaru a port for coastal shipping. There was talk of centralisation, and if that came goods would have to go by rail, and with the present facilities the railway could not handle all the goods. At present there was a double line to Rolleston, but to put it right through would cost £1,000,600. They had been struggling for years, and now he hoped they were going to get somewhere. Support to the proposal was given by Mr K. Mackenzie. He said that the figure looked large, but £90,000 of it was for dredging, and they would have to spend that amount anyway. He thought the district would be behind the scheme. At any rate, the Board could only put it before the ratepayers. Deeper Water Needed Mr Lindsay said that what the harbour wanted was deeper water. The berths had been dredged out, and to his mind, that was all that was required. It was stated that the North Mole had to be shifted, and they were to pay £240,000 for that. The chairman: It won’t cost that to shift the mole. Mr Kidd: The loan includes the cranes and everything. Mr Lindsay said that they would have to have a dredge at a cost of £32,000 to lift the North Mole, which should never have been put where it was. He thought the expenses would be much greater when they started on the job. He agreed that they should have a straight run in and more swinging room, but that was all that was required. He admitted that they should cater for their customers, and they would do that if they had a straight run in and deeper water. Mr Whatman said that the question was what they were going to get for their money. There was such a thing as purchasing a thing for more than its value and the cost of the scheme seemed to be excessive. He could not criticise the engineer’s figures, but the cost seemed to him to be very great. He would like to see the North Mole lifted, and the purchase of cranes postponed in the meantime. He had not collaborated with Mr Lindsay, but he agreed with him that one thirtysecond of a penny would not be sufficient to meet the cost of the scheme. He was very dubious about the matter, and he did not know what to do. They were buying a pig in a bag and they were paying a lot for the pig. If they had gone to a Royal Commission they would have turned it down because the Board was not going to get value for its money. Mr Orbell: Nonsense.

Mr Whatman said that had the cost been £120,000 or £130,000 he would have gone for it, but he could not agree to £240,000. All their rates had gone up and the farmer was not in a position to pay. Though there was a wave of prosperity in New Zealand to-day most of the farmers were engaged in burying dead horses, and there were a good many of them to bury. The chairman said that they did not have to depend entirely on their engineer, for his figures would be gone into by the Public Works Department, who would pass judgment on the scheme. He agreed with a fair amount that Mr Whatman had said, but the majority had to rule. He was a bit gallied as to where the money was to come from. However, the Treasury would examine the whole position and the ability of the district to bear the extra burden. Objections in Writing Mr Ritchie said that it was only right to inform Mr Whatman and Mr Lindsay and anyone else not in favour of the scheme that their objections will be examined. The objections of any member of the Board who votes against the scheme must be put in writing and sent to the Government. Any ratepayer who objects can also state his objections in writing. Mr Ritchie went on to say that of the total cost, £BO,OOO was for dredging. Mr Whatman: New dredging? . Mr Ritchie: Yes, but if you were not doing that you would have to spend £12,000 a year on dredging so you have >

got very close to tiie figures Mr Whatma nwants, Mr Kidd: And the resale of the Priestman dredge. Mr Ritchie: “Or the charter value.” He went on to say that he was convinced and he thought the ratepayers were convinced that it was essential that something should be done. Mr D. C. Turnbull said that Mr Whatman had spoken about mortgaging his farm, but the mortgage on a 300 acre farm was 10/-, and they would spend that on wireless. If they did not do the work they would have to spend a considerable sum on dredging Caroline Bay. If the scheme was gone on with, they would not have to touch the Bay. Cost Might be Less Mr R. S. Goodman said that the cost had been put down at the highest scale so as to be on the safe side. It was probable that the dredging and the lifting of the mole would not cost nearly so much as the estimated cost. He thought Mr Whatman was worried about the rates, and from Mr Whatman’s remarks, one would think that he had to find the whole of the £SOO for the Waimate County. Spread over the whole district, the extra cost was a mere pittance. Mr W. H. Orbell said that he was prepared to pay a little extra to see the port go ahead. The Oamaru harbour rate was id, and a good many Waimate County ratepayers had to pay that rate, but he had not read of any complaint from them. If they were able to pay id to Oamaru, surely they were able to pay the small rate the Timaru Board was asking. Mr D. C. Kidd said that he would not commit the ratepayers to any extra burden if it could be avoided, but he felt that they could not put off the evil day much longer. Deducting the cost of dwredging and the resale of the dredge, the cost of the improvements would be £157,000, and that, to his mind, was not an execessive amount. He ventured to say that it would cost the Mackenzie ratepayers three times £3OO if their goods had to

be railed away. They held the destiny of South Canterbury in their hands, and it was up to them to do their duty. The onus was on the Board to say whether the port was going to progress or not. The final say would be with the ratepayers, and it was the duty of the Board to place the proposal before them. He was not going to commit the Mackenzie ratepayers to an additional £3OO a year, but he was going to advise them that it was essential that improvements should be made, and for that reason he was going to support the scheme. The chairman said that at the start he was absolutely against spending such a huge sum of money. They were taking on a big contract, and he hoped things would work out all right. There was a good deal that they had to take on supposition, but he was going to vote for the scheme and give it a go. He was very much more in favour of the scheme than he was 12 months ago. The only thing he had in mind was the revenue, and he was doubtful whether they were going to improve it to any extent. The report was adopted, Mr Whatman alone voting against it.