HARBOR BOARD.

Evening Star, Issue 4112, 2 May 1876, Page 2

HARBOR BOARD.

The fortnightly meeting of the Harbor Board was held to-day. Present: The Superintendent (in the chair), Messrs. Davie, M ‘Kinnon, Reeves, Tewsley, .'J.itchie, Turnbull. A BUSINESS-LIKE OFI ER. The Chairman read the following letter; — Dunedin, May 2. To the Chairman Otago Barbor Board. We have the honor to submit to tbo favorable consideration of the Otago Harbor Board the following alternate offers for the improvement of Dunedin harbor. Wo will undertake to construct and complete within eight (8) years the wuole of the harbor works as designed J*y your engineer for the sum of Li.86.00J, or with concrete wharves L 836.000, we taking over the Board's plant and machinery at a valuation. If timber wharves ate adopted they will be constructed of the beat iroubark jarrah, and red gum of Australia, < r totara and irouwood of New Zealand, which timber ire believe, from thoroughly reliable sources, will last over 50 years in the upper Harbor of Dunedin. As a preliminary parr, of the above work we undertake to afford a chanud sufficient to enable the largest ship entering Otago Heads to uome right up t.« Rattray street, wharf xn two years, and also to have 3,(Kioft of new wharves ready iu that time. Second offer. In the event of the Board prefer: ing a modified scheme, we are prepared to construct a channel 24ft deep at high water, and sufficiently wide for the two largest ships frequenting the port to pass easily, together with 3,000 ft of wharfage, the whole to be completed iu iwa ami a-balf years, f. >r the sum of LIBO.OOO, and the nso of the Board’s plant, and machinery free of charge. The wharves to be constructed of the timber above-mentioned, and a craned sufficient to accommodate the intercolonial steamers cut up to Rattray street wharf in fifteen mouths from date of commencement of work, no least one-half of the dredged meterial to be used iu reclaiming the Board’s endowment between Jetty and Albany streets. Iu the event of either of the above offers being entertained we ere prepared t: i furnish the following security, viz: on the whole scheme, L-’d,000; and on iho modified one HO,OOO, or any other security the Board may require. Under the first offer the work will be maintained f.>c t’oN.v. \ rat's, r.ml under the £•■ ;oud for two years -•■• 1. ,1 n,; diii.c .1 couple;ion. 7.j nMingthese offers ■■ il; •, ..•■’CiV'j iho Lest consideration of the Board, wo have, &c. a David P.touin ooT. A, J. Sjiytu.

His Honor ; Well, what do you say, gen* tlemsn ?

Mr Tewsuey : It had better be received and laid on the table.

Mr Ritchie : It is certainly a business* like offer.

His Honor : They promise to do all the work and relievo us of our trouble. It was resolved that consideration of the letter be postponed.

deepening the channel,

Mr E. Houghton, who has just returned from England, wrote that if the south channel were deepened to the extent of three feet all vessels except the large Rome ships would bo able to come up to Dunedin.—EUs Honor : That is the most sensible letter we have had yet.—Mr Ritchie : If the result he points ont is to be accomplished it is certainly what we want.—Consideration of this letter was also deferred. THE ENGINEER’S REPLY. The following letter was .read from the Board’s Engineer. Dunedin, April 28. To the Chairman Otago ITnrbor Board. Sir,—l have the honor to acknowledge receipt of a memorandum from the Secretary reforwarding letter and plan received by the Board from Mr M'Gregor, my previous letter upon the subject having been deemed unsatisfactory. In reply, 1 can only express regret that my communication should have been misconstrued, as it certainly is furthest, from my intention or wish that my duty and respect due to the Board should bo evinced otherwise than in a manner called for by the exigencies of my position. If my let! or was brief it was certainly because I believed that by being so it would best meet the wU!:es of the Board, feeling convinced that Mr M'Gregor had -.idviineed no additional evidence of a practical nature to what bad been already com* nnr.ncatedGn his tenders, and that the members

were already in possession of rll the information I could possibly furnish on the subject If taken exception to cn account of its wording, then, os I said before, I trust the Board will accept the letter as haring been written with not the slightest intention of committing any act of discourtesy. As the B rd now requires it, I make the follow iu;> expl -iiftli >u ,4 the position of matters, which I have no doubt the members will bear me out as being correct, c.wu ruing the receipt of tenders for concrete and limber, and extracts from my remarks upon 'he same furnished in my communication of .1a.;,, s the 2lst Mu ch and XOfch April. Wood the f-n' j c; of timber wharves was brought bc’orc the Board, a letter was received from a Mr John Is’api~v, calling at tention to the advantages of concrete over timber, and it was therein stated that concrete wid'a by the aid of his patent pontoon could be less expensively constructed than wharves of timber, as proposed. The Board, in order to test the question, resolved upon calling for tenders for • wharves in concrete as well as in timber, the tenders for the former to supply their own plans. Accordingly tenders were invited and received for 2,220 feet of wharfage, but Mr Napier appears nit to have tendered, or if so, not xu his own name. The tenders were forforwarded to me for examination, and my report of the 21st March shows that the lowest for concrete and timber are respectively L 53.103 and L 34,000, the former being the amount of the tender recommended by Mr M'Gregor out of three furnished by him. The following is an extract from my report touching upon concrete tenders: —“ With respect to the tenders of Mr John M'Gregor, and M'Gill and Forest, although they furnish drawings and in a manner specifications, the information supplied is not sufficient to admit of their estimates being tested to prove their accmacy. No prices are given for concrete, rubble, or excavations, and there is an absence of information generally os to the manner in which the works are proposed to be executed. The Board will, I think, see the necessity of a practical test being applied to the concrete tenders ns the bare assertions of the tenderers that they can do tho work for so

much are not sufficient in my opinion to warrant or justify their recognition or acceptance. For comparison purposes: Mr M'Gregor's tender does not include the cost of the additional width to the Gross Wharf, nor does it indlnde the cost of filling into the road level and to the timber wharf widths of 20ft and 30ft respectively. If the cost of thees two works is add< d to the tenders, it will be found th.it the amount will rdosely approach L 60.000..* From au examination of Mr Gordon's report it will be seen that he endorses my remarks in so far as th ey relate to the absence of information respecting the concrete ten lers. Mr Gordon says: "The average cost of these modes of construction suggested by Mr M'Gregor would, according to the tenders, bo L7918s per lineal yard; hut I think the Board requires more assurance that eii her plan pn-ti ha carried outfor thesumteuderedfor." The following is extracted from my letter to the Board of the 10th April:—“ The lowest tender received for timber wharves shows at the rate of L 46 per lineal yard, to which must be added Lslos, the cost arrived at from actual experience of rock filling behind, giving a total of LSI 10s per lineal ya d, which affords an available width of 63ft over all (30ft of wharface and 83ft of rock tilling)." Again: “Mr M Gregor’s tenders were the lowest for concrete, his No, 2 one (recommended) being at the rate, as shewn by Mr Gordon of L7l 15s per lineal yard, to which must be added LlO per yard (calculated as before from the present actual cost of deposit) to give the same width of roadway as provided lor iu the timber wharves, the total cost per yard will therefore be represented by a sum of Lsl 15s, being about L3O per yard in excess of the timber w!iarves.” In addition to the above I quote the following extractAs to concrete in preference to timber for wharfage, this is simply a question of finance. The matter may be put in this shape: Is the Board willing that a sum of about L2 i -K),000 should be expended upon concrete walling iu excess of that required for timber wharves, seeing that the latter may be safely estimated to last over thirty years with an annual expenditure upon maintenance of a sum not exceeding LI,OOO ?” The above period of duration of the timbers proposed to be employed is borne out to a great extent by Victorian experience. We have samples of timber iu our Dunedin jetties, which have been in the various erections for over fifteen years, and they are as sound now as the day they were put in. Even in the old portion of the Eafc. tray street jetty, which has been erected now for over ten years, we have a duration of timber consisting o< the worst class of New Zealand kinds for the purpose, equal at least to that period the limit assumed by Mr M'Gregor.

A summary of the foregoing extracts, &c., will explain the following conclusions which I Had arrived at after careful consideration .

Ist. The difference in the tender amounts of conCrete and timber is about L3O per Unt.pl yard in favor of the latter.

2nd. Mr M'Gregor gives no data npon which his tender was based, and I contend that the Board had a right to be furnished with such details os would enable its engineer to moke a recommendation if necessary. 3rd. That a duration of thirty years may safely be calculated upon for the timber proposed for the wharves.

4th. That no time was specifledfo r completion of concrete walls; an element I think very important in the consideration of wharfage accommodation. Placing full reliance upon the foregoing, and not observing any reason assigned in Mr M'Gregor's second letter wai ranting comment on my part, I did not consider it necessary in the Boom's interests to recapitulate what had already been said upon the relative merits, financially and otherwise, of concrete and timber. However, as the Board may be desirous that I should point out the discrepancies in the letter alluded to plainly, so that no difficulty may present itself in the way of making the whole question thoroughly understood. I now do so, and I trust the result will be satisfactory. Iu order to arrive at the true cost of each kind of structure let the filling-in behind the wharves witu rock material be left out of the question, as it is u > more essentially necessary for the solidi y of the roadway behind the timber wharf

than behind the concrete structure (which is four feet wide on the top according to the tracing of Mr M'Gregor). Upon the must favorable footing assume it to be in width equal to that of the timber wharves, viz., 20£t and 30ft respectively, then wo have for concrete a sum in accordance with Mr M'Qregor’s No. 2 tender (as recommended by him) of L 53.103, giving for 740 yards, tUe total length of wharfage rathe contract, n rate of L7l 15s per lineal yard, The lowest tender for timber is L 34.000, from which

must be deducted the sum of L 1.600, the value of the additional width to cross wharf (calculated at schedule lutes attached to lowest tender), so as to make the relative amounts of the tenders cover the same works; thou the value of the timber wharves will be L 3-.400, giving for 740 yards a rate of L 43 15s per lineal yard, or a difference in price her lineal yard between concrete and timber of Lot j and a difference in total cost of L2U.733. Agnit,. Let Mr M'Gregor’s corrected total amount of L&5.5 0 be taken into consideration (this sum only provides for a total width of 20ft and 30ft respectively,equal to that of the timber wharves) the relative difference in the cost will be L 21.600, and in the rate per lineal yard, L 29. The following is an extract from Mr M’Gregor’s letter; “This is an addition of L 3 5s per lineal yard to .my original tender, and not LlO as stated by Mr Simpson and L 5 by Mr Gordon.” Mr M'Gregor might have explained that the L 3 5s only gave widths of 30ft and 20ft respectively, exactly as Mr Gordon had given it; whereas the LlO per yard stated by me afforded a width of 63ft. With respect to the statement appended to the letter, I do not know whether the Board will consider it necessary for me to report upon the calculations involved by Mr M'Gregor’s comparison of the cost and durability of tinner and concrete,although I might, with consistency, object to the very first item—Hs.ooo—as being in error. The amount should in reality he L32.4U0, os this amount affords an equal width to that shown by Mr M'Gregor for Iris sum of L 55,500. With equal consistency exception could be taken,to ♦he mode of charging interest, wherein the L 45.000 i - debited with inieivst from the very commence- - mat. if She Hom'd is in doubt as to the durahijii.v of the umbers proposed to be used, 1 would request that evidence he obtained from reliable sources iu Victoria, New .South Wales, South Atth

tralia, and this Colony, as I think the adoption o! •uch a course would be productive of good results in the s’mn'* nt ,quy rate of setting at rest thisquestion of durability, xliiyug.'it tv 1 have endeavored to consider this question of concrete versus timber in a manner that would result in the Beard’s best interests being attended to. I have not been actuated by a desire to force the one in opposition to tho other; the cost of either plan must be provided for by tho Board, and if the members conclude that concrete i3_ to he adopted, there esnnot exist the slightest reason why I should not accept aod give effect to their decision. As the Board’s professional adviser on matters connected with tho carrying out of the contemplated harbor works, I have striven to put the various questions that have from time to time been brought before the members fairly; and while every effort has been, and will be made to conduct the department over which 1 exercise control iu a respectful manner towards tho Board I think I ana reasonably entitled to receive such consideration at its hands as is justly dne to th° position I held. I have, ?tc., D. J, Siarsos, Engineer. After considerable discussion, it was resolved that the communication be received. On a letter from the Board’s agents at Sydney re bonds being read, it was agreed, on Mr Tewslet’s motion, “ That the Board’s bonds (L 10,000) be transmitted to London to await instructions.” Mr Reeves said that at the next meeting a proposition would be before the Board to, cut a channel to the Ocean Beach across the Sandhills. He had been asked to move in the matter, but had refused. No doubt that before long there would be so many suggestions before them that the sooner something definite was decided on the better.

Before adjourning, Mr Davie gave notice that he would move at the next meeting that in future the Board’s meetings be held on Thursdays instead of on Tuesdays as heretofore.