Additional Costs

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 209, 20 September 1937, Page 6

Additional Costs

BREAKWATER JOB £82,750 Requii'ed To Complete Work AMENDED SCHEME The estimated additional costs which the Napier Harbour Board contemplates •will "be required for» the compietion of the Breakwater ■cheme is £82,750. This infonnar tion was before the Board to-day, when it was stated that this position had arisen due to the increased costs Jroling since June 80, 1936. Had it not "been for this it was anti&pated that the board would have had sufficieht money in hand with which to complete the work. 9ms hoard to-day decided that ihe necessary steps he taken to seek legisla&ve authority to have amended the schedtile of work in the original Napier Harbour Board Iioan Act, 1933, for i which a draft hill has been prepared hy the hoard soiicitors. On the motion of the chairman, Mr T. M. Geddis, the following motion was agreed jbo: — ''That ihe chairman be authorised to iake whatever steps may be neCesaaiy to have passed by Parliament ihe proposed "P»H amending the schedule of work in the Napier Harbour Board Loan Act, 1935, dn the lines of ihe draft Bill and draft public advertasement submitted to this meebing, subiect however, to sucb alterataons and addiflona and amendments to the wording tbereof as. may be deemed necessary on tbe . advice of tbe ioard solidtors.'t •% Speaking in support of the motion, the- chairman explained that .the dectsion of tbe board to vary tbe original allocation of tbe loan authority was made as the result of tbe recommendation of the board's engineer, Mr 6. JVB. Lowson, after close investigation of the port requirements and tbe practiCal issues involved. Hjs recommendations wero also approved by Messrs Furkert gnd Holderness, as well as by tbe board. ~ ' Exhtlng Loan Authority. Oontlnuing, he explained that tho existing loan authority for the purposes •if carrying out the Breakwater scheme totaUed £456,000, which -was made up of: ! (1) Unexereised authorities for other work diverted to Breakwater (£59,300), and Inner Harbour dredging (£11,700) making £71,000. (2) Napier Harbour Board Loan Act, 1933, £335,000; (3) Government subsidy, £50,000, making a total of £456,000. The allocation of this suto was as under Borings £1750, Breakwater- extension £55,000 dredging (Breakwater) £105,000, dredging (Inner Hasbour) £ll,700, electrical services £3000, railways and xeclamation .£20,000, roads £2500, water services £2000, concrete wbari No 3, £70,000, concrete wharf No 4, with sbeds and gear £180,000, contingencies £5050, making a total of £456,000. "The only item eliminated from the original schedule is the Western mole, whieh was to cost £70,000, and the mpplication of tMs money towards increased wharfage accommodation and additional dredging -will give the port a greatly improved scheme as xegards additional berthage and -other facilities for ships and cargo," stated Mr Geddis. "Howover, the board has now to face up to the fact that the cost of the Work will be exceeded by the amount of the increased construction costs xuling from June 30, 1936, and this additional cost -is eetimated at approximatelv £82,750. "Negotiations with' the Government »tc now proceeding with reference to these additional -costs, and the board hopes to see this matter satisfactorily arranged in due etrarse, ' 3 added Mr Geddis. * " Keferrlng to the proposed Bill, he explained that it was one in which it was proposed to eliminate the £70,000 in ihe original schedule and apply for authority to allocate "this amount for other work as set otit "in detail and approved" by the finance committee. - The motion^ moved by the chairman, was seeonded by Mr E. J. Herrick. Two Harbours Necessary. Mr. A. E. Jull, referring to the Western inole, stated it.seemed to be apparent that its need for providing prOteetion for sliipping had gone as Ihe result of the diversion of the Tutaekuri river. This, however, he eonsidered, involved a change in the = board's policy, in which two harbours would now be necessary. The adoption oi the engineer 's recommendation made it ' clear that no provision was being made for small vessels at 'the Breakwater. Such a position, he considered, was quite obviofis. Mr. Jull pointed out that the amount for contmgeneies (£5000) was extraordinarily low, and " joculariy remarked fhat it might provide sufiicient money foj legal costs for the board "with its' contractor f riends. * ' The public should get it into their hiinds that there would probably be need for further calls upon them to enable the proposed works to be completfed. In reply to Mr. Jull, the chairman explained that up till September of last year there was xeason to anticipate that the board would complete its programme with the money it had available. In the interim greatly increased costs had taken place. Conditions in the futnre were diffichlt' to foresee. Shorter hours and .increased pay had affected the position, and if there was any reversa] of the present condition the board would probably get tbe benefit. It was "not possible for the board, in lookihg to the future, to say what the position would definitely be. Subject to minor adjustments and alterations in the sehedule there was raason to expect that the compietion of the job would be fully met. The chairman 's motion was thgn put bad carried, '-v