General Purposes Sub-Committee: January 11th 1932
A letter was submitted from Messrs Lee, Longland & Co asking permission for notice of the business to be displayed on the hoarding to be erected during the progress of the building operations of the Bank site in Broad Street.
1722 RESOLVED:- That the General Manager be directed to inform Messrs Lee, Longland & Co that their request cannot be acceded to.
Bank Committee: January 18th 1932
On Minute No 4271 the following report of the Town Clerk was submitted with regard to the clause for insertion in the General Conditions of Contract for the erection of the new Central Head Office:
December 31st 1932
Minute No 4721
CENTRAL HEAD OFFICES.
With reference to this Minute, I beg to report that I have conferred with your General Manager, and have arranged for the insertion of the following clause in the General Conditions of Contract to be issued in respect of the erection of the new Central Head Offices, viz:
"The Contractors shall arrange for a Joint Stock Bank (to be approved by the Bank Committee of the Corporation) to be bound jointly and severally in a sum equal to ten per cent. of the amount of the tender."
I ask that the Minute be discharged.
4294 RESOLVED:- That Minute No 4271 be discharged.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: February 8th 1932
1731 On Minute No 1535 (erection of new Central Head Office) the General Manager reported that Mr Howitt, the Architect, had raised the question as to the lay-out of the land in front of the proposed premises. The General Manager had communicated with the City Surveyor who was considering the matter but as the land is not under the control of the Bank it would not be necessary for the Architect to make any provision in the Quantities now being prepared.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: February 11th 1932
1742 Mr T C Howitt (Architect for the erection of the new Central Head Office) attended the Sub-Committee, and explained his scheme for heating and ventilating s proposed building. He also presented the following report upon the relative merits, installation costs and maintenance costs of Oil, Gas and Electric heating systems.
BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL BANK
Report on the comparative installation and running costs for Oil Fuel, Gas, and Electric Thermal Storage System for Heating and Hot Water Supply at the above.
January, 1932
In connection with the three systems,
it is necessary to consider the following comparative data:
(a) Installation costs
(b) Annual running costs in fuel, maintenance, etc
Preliminary.
In order to deal fairly with each system, it is necessary to assume figures for average duties per annum, efficiencies of plant, attendance costs, which have been taken as follows:
Annual Heat Input.
Heating ....................... 1000 million B.T.U. (28 weeks)
Hot Water Supply .......... 72 " " (52 weeks)
Cost of Fuel.
Oil Fuel ........................ 65/- per ton
Gas .............................. 4d. per therm
Current ......................... ¼d. per unit (8pm - 7am)
do ......................... ½d. " " (7am - 8pm)
Heat Values (After allowing for incidental losses.)
Oil Fuel - 11,000 B.T.Us. per lb. (61% efficiency)
Gas ....... 80,000 B.T.Us. per therm (80% do )
Current .. 3075 per unit (90% do )
Attendances.
Proportion of Messenger's (or Engineer's) time, including running of Plenum Plant.
Winter (28
weeks)
Oil or Gas ....................... £1. 0. 0. per week
Electric ........................... 7. 6. " "
Summer (24 weeks)
Oil or Gas ......................... 10. 0.
per week
Electric ........................... 7. 6. " "
Upkeep, Renewals & Depreciation.
Gas or Oil ..................... 10% on cost
Electric ...................... 2½% do
Installation Costs.
As the greater part of the plant is common to either system, it is only necessary to compare the respective costs of the parts of Central Plants not common to the three systems, which may be taken as follows:
Equipment.
Oil Fuel.
Boilers
& Mountings, Share of Oil Fuel Equipment and Boiler connections £1070
Gas.
Gas Boilers & Mountings and Boiler connections ........................................ £680
Electric.
Electric Heater (or Heaters) & Mountings, Switchgear, Mixing Valve,
Storage Tanks & increased cost of Expansion Tank ................................... £1395
Builder's Work.
The above installation costs would be varied somewhat by the respective costs of incidental builders' work, as:
(a) The incidental builders' work for gas plant is very slightly less than for oil fuel plant, but too small to make any appreciable difference.
(b) The incidental work for electric storage is greater than for oil fuel owing to the increased accommodation to be provided for storage cylinders. This accommodation would cost approximately £600.
Annual Running Costs.
On the basis of the above data, the respective running costs would be as follows:
Oil Fuel.
Cost of Oil. 1,072,000,000 x 65
11,000 x 2240 x 20 £142. 0. 0.
Attendance.
28 weeks at £1 - £28
24 " " 10/- £12 £40. 0. 0.
Upkeep, Renewals & Depreciation.
10% on £1070 £107. 0. 0.
Interest on extra capital cost, 5% on £390 £19. 10. 0. £308. 10. 0.
Gas.
Cost of Gas,
1,072,000,000 x 4
80,000 x 240 £223. 0. 0.
Attendance.
As oil £40. 0. 0.
Upkeep, Renewals & Depreciation.
10% on £680 £68. 0. 0. £331. 0. 0.
Electric Storage.
Cost of current.
Cheap rate:
1,000,000,000 x .25
3075 x 240 £338. 0. 0.
Day rate:
13,000,000 x .5
3075 x 240 £50. 0. 0.
£388. 0. 0.
Attendance.
28 weeks @ 12/6 17. 10. 0.
24 " @ 7/6 9. 0. 0. £26. 10. 0.
Upkeep, Renewals & Depreciation.
2½% on
£1395 £35. 0. 0.
Interest on extra capital cost, 5% on £715 £35. 10. 0.
5% Interest on extra accommodation £30. 0. 0. £515. 0. 0.
Remarks.
From the above figures it will be seen that on installation costs the difference in cost is not a very serious matter, but on running costs, which are recurring every year, the additional cost for gas and electric storage above that for oil fuel on the rates taken is serious and very little advantage can be shown to offset such annual cost.
The only remedy appears to be to try and get the respective departments to come down still further in their rates.
In regard to the rate proposed to be charged for gas, I understand from a reliable authority that Manchester is supplying gas in similar cases for 1/- per 1000 cu. ft. which is equivalent to 2¾d. per therm, and if this is correct, Birmingham with cheap fuel should be able to do at least as well.
At such a rate, the cost of gas would practically be on a par with the cost of fuel oil.
To bring the cost of current on a level with the cost of oil fuel current would have to be supplied at .105 of a penny, which is manifestly impossible, but some towns have got down to .2 of a penny, which would affect a saving of approximately £70. 0. 0. per annum on the figures given above.
With regard to the respective merits of the three schemes, there is no doubt that the electric storage system has considerable advantages in being practically indestructible, and requiring a minimum of attention, but these features have been allowed for in the respective annual running costs.
It is considered that if the cost per therm could be reduced to 3d., that the gas plant should receive careful consideration, as it is less complicated than an oil fuel plant, although equally automatic in action, and there are no deliveries to be dealt with, or a watch to be kept on the amount of oil in the tanks, and no stores of inflammable oil has to be considered.
There is no doubt, however, that the oil fuel plant will give every satisfaction if decided on.
In conclusion, it is considered that unless a drastic cut can be made in the night rate for current, the decision must rest between oil and gas, with a possible leaning towards gas, as in this case the Corporation would be using their own product and not purchasing non-British oil.
There is only one point which may affect the figures given above in regard to oil fuel, viz: the cost of fuel oil has been taken at 65/- per ton, which is a good average figure for this district for ordinary supplies, whereas the Corporation may already be big purchasers and have a contract at 60/- or even less. It would be quite easy to adjust the figures to suit.
In regard to the figures taken in each case for annual heat input, these are calculated as near as is possible, but they must not be assumed to be in any way guaranteed, it is quite possible that they will be actually reduced in practice, so much depending on the period during which the plenum plant is run, but they are quite fair for comparative purposes.
I hope that I have not been into this matter in too great detail, but it is realised that an important decision has to be made immediately.
(Signed) T Cecil Howitt,
Architect & Surveyor,
Exchange Buildings East,
Nottingham.
After full
discussion the Sub-Committee arrived at the conclusion that Gas heating should be adopted, for the following reasons:
1.
That Gas heating would be more economical, both as regards installation costs and maintenance costs, than Electric heating, the latter
involving an additional expenditure of £600 on the building costs.
2. That while the maintenance charges in respect of Oil heating
would be slightly less than in the case of Gas heating, the latter could be more easily operated and would require less supervision.
3. That the Gas supply could be obtained from the Local Undertaking and would not be subject to fluctuations in price to the extent as crude oil.
It was therefore:
1743 RESOLVED:- That the General Committee be recommended to approve the installation of Gas heating at the proposed new Central Head Office premises.
Following upon this decision the Sub-Committee considered the following list of firms whom the Architect considered would be in a position to carry out the work satisfactorily:
Messrs Jeffries,
London.
Messrs Crittall, London.
Messrs Rosser & Co, Birmingham and London.
Messrs G H Haden & Sons Ltd, Birmingham.
Messrs Henry Hope & Sons, Smethwick.
The Sub-Committee deleted the firm of Messrs H Hope & Sons from the list; and the Brightside Foundry & Engineering Co, Birmingham, and Messrs J S Wright & Co, Birmingham, were added to the list subject to the Architect being satisfied, after making enquiries, that these firms could satisfactorily undertake the work. It was then:
1744 RESOLVED:- That the Chairman of the General Committee (Councillor R R Gelling) and the Chairman of this Sub-Committee (Alderman Barrow), with the General Manager, be authorised to finally approve the list of firms to be invited to tender after having a report from the Architect on the two firms mentioned.
General Purposes Sub-Committee: March 14th 1932
On Minutes Nos 1535 and 1744 (premises for new Central Head Office), the General Manager reported that he had agreed the conditions of contract and tender form with Mr Howitt (the Architect), Mr Bond (the Quantity Surveyor) and the Town Clerk, and he explained to the Sub-Committee the alterations thereto.
1748 RESOLVED:- That the conditions of contract and tender form submitted be approved, and that the General Manager be instructed, in consultation with the Architect, to invite tenders by advertisement for carrying out the required work.
1749 RESOLVED:- That applications be invited for the appointment of a Clerk of Works in connection with the carrying out of the erection of the new Head Office premises at a salary of £10 per week.
Finance Sub-Committee: March 14th 1932
648 With reference to the screens provided for the exhibit of the plans of the Central Head Office premises, the Sub-Committee were informed that the Public Works Department had taken over 20 out of the 80 screens at cost price, and it was agreed that the remainder should be stored with a view to hiring the same to other departments when required.