Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1970 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1967 - 1968

APPENDIX 34

EXPENDITURE BY U.C.D. ON LYONS ESTATE

Secretary,

Committee of Public Accounts,

When I appeared before the Committee in April, I was asked to obtain further information about expenditure by University College, Dublin, on the Lyons Estate, Celbridge. I have since been in communication with the College which has supplied the particulars given in the enclosed correspondence.

On the question of why an estimate of £400,000 in 1961 could increase to £851,000 by 1967, I would like to point out that, in addition to the information given by UCD at Nos. 2, 4 and 5 of their reply dated 24th July, 1970, the £851,000 included £75,000 for Plant Pathology which UCD do not now intend to locate at Lyons, thus reducing the sum to £776,000. If £60,000 which was included for working capital and £111,000 purchase price were also excluded, the net figure for development works would be £605,000.

Dept. of Agriculture and

Fisheries.

3rd September, 1970.

2 July, 1970.

Dear President,

When I appeared recently before the Dáil Committee on Public Accounts, I was questioned on various aspects of the acquisition and development of the Lyons Estate. The Committee also requested further detailed information on a number of points, a list of which I enclose. It will be necessary to furnish written replies to the Committee on these points as soon as possible, and I am writing to ask you to be good enough to arrange to let me have information and comments on each point so that I can reply fully and accurately.

A copy of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which was before the Committee, is also enclosed.

An early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Dept. of Agriculture and

Fisheries.

Professor J. J. Hogan,

President,

University College,

Dublin 2.

QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE DAIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS —LYONS ESTATE. CELBRIDGE.
U.C.D.

1. Students and staff have been objecting to attendance at Lyons. Has thi matter been settled?

2. The 1961 estimate was some £500,000. By 1967 a cost figure of some £851,000 was quoted. This is about a 2½ to 3-fold increase in development costs (apart from purchase price). What is the reason for this huge increase? To what extent is the increase due to

(a) increase in professional fees;

(b) increase in building costs;

(c) changes of plans or re-assessment of earlier proposals;

(d) obsolescence;

(e) error in estimation?

3. Was a positive plan drawn up in 1961, or in the initial stages? Who decided on the plan? Did proper consultation take place? Was expert advice on drainage, clearance, buildings, etc. obtained? Was the development intended for present or for anticipated educational needs?

4. In respect of monies already spent or about to be spent what was the position as regards adequacy of the consultation and expert advice on the plans adopted? Is it clear that there was not unneccessary expenditure?

5. What is the present position regarding progress on the site? What is required to be done to complete development, with cost of works to be carried out? What is now the total cost of development works, completed and to be carried out, on the estate?

6. What grants were received for housing, farm buildings, drainage and reclamation?

7. What was savlaged from Glasnevin, and value?

8. £200,000 for cattle and pig housing. This seems extremely high in comparison to an ordinary farmer’s costs for such facility per animal. A report on this item, to include an expression of the cost per animal housed, is required.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN

President’s Office,

Earlsfort Terrace,

Dublin 2

Mr. J. C. Nagle,

Secretary

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

Dublin 2.

Dear Mr. Nagle,

I have received your letter of July 2, and in reply I send you answers as follows to the questions enclosed with your letter.

1. Yes, there is now general agreement that the headquarters of the Department of Farm Management be located at Lyons. Students in the Fourth Year (General Degree) will spend about four days per week at Lyons, and the College will provide transport to bring them there—Monday to Thursday. On Friday and Saturday they will attend at Belfield, where Agricultural Economics and Plant Pathology will be housed. Special students in Fourth Year, and postgraduate students, will spend all their time at Lyons if the subject of their specialty is located at Lyons.

2. The 1961 figure of £400,000 was not an estimate related to any given property or any known acreage—it was an educated guess, based on the cost of the farms of British universities.

3. See 2.

4. Three types of expenditure were incurred:

(a) reconstruction of Lyons and provision of laboratory and student facilities.

(b) farm housing.

(c) site development.

With a view to vacating Glasnevin, farm housing was given priority. Professor Ruane, who is an expert on farm housing, in consultation with Mr. Deasy, Consulting Engineer, drew up tender documents. Later Mr. B. Morris, Architect, of Morris and McCullough, took charge of the construction. These buildings were of a very modern design and, while their cost was high, there was no unnecessary expenditure.

With regard to (a), Mr. Ryan, Architect, made a comprehensive initial report and survey. The adaptation of Lyons House was carried out by our Superintendent of Buildings, adhering closely to the lines of the report. The cost of £33,000 was the minimum possible.

On site development, we retained Mr. C. H. Clifton, Consulting Engineer. Estimates were prepared and tenders obtained for all these prior to placing of the contracts.

5. The latest estimate drawn up, in April 1968, showed a figure, excluding purchase price, of £605,000. Expenditure to 31 December 1969 was £445,000. The balance, £160,000, would require upward revision in the light of price increases. Apart from this, however, requests from Professor Ruane and his staff have been received. Other than housing, these have been costed at £420,000 by Mr. Morris, Architect. If we carry out these requests, the total would be £865,000. We have not approved these requests as, in line with our discussion in April last, we had considered that we should work initially within the budget, as modified for price changes, and schedule further development for future consideration. If you consider that there is a likelihood of further funds being made available at once for these requests, we shall have an architect appointed to prepare sketch plans and estimates.

6. These are clearly shown in the balance sheet as at 30 June, 1969. Land reclamation grants totalled £7,061.

7. I have asked Professor Ruane for details.

8. I have asked Professor Ruane for a report on this.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN

FACULTY OF GENERAL AGRICULTURE BALANCE SHEET AS AT JUNE 30th, 1969

Secretary’s Office,

University College,

Dublín 2.

21st August, 1970.

Mr. J. C. Nagle,

Secretary,

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries,

Upper Merrion Street,

Dublin 2.

Dear Mr. Nagle,

I now enclose in duplicate the replies to the remaining queries raised by the Public Accounts Committee. I am sending these on behalf of the President who is at present absent on vacation.

J. P. MacHALE,

Secretary and Bursar.

REPLIES TO THE BALANCE OF QUERIES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

1. Salvage at Glasnevin in terms of buildings has so far amounted to about £500. The only items which are transferable are asbestos or galvanised iron roofs. As most of the buildings at Glasnevin have slated roofs, the total amount that can finally be salvaged will be small. There are one or two old hay sheds which might be moved but there is a possibility that the metal is too old and rusted to stand demolition for re-erection purposes.

2. With regard to the cost of Pig and Cattle Buildings, the following is the position:—

A. General:

In view of the sale of the Glasnevin lands it was extremely urgent to vacate the farmlands and transfer farm activities to Lyons Estate. In order to obtain tenders as rapidly as possible, the Pig Buildings were specified in detail after visits abroad by Professor Ruane and Mr. Deasy, Consulting Engineer, to view similar buildings. The Cattle Buildings were not scheduled in the same detail, but rates applicable to the Pig Buildings were to apply to the Cattle Buildings. This is a normal basis of estimation and tender. The lowest tender for the Pig Buildings and the application of the same rates to the Cattle Buildings resulted in a tender of £88,864, 12s. 10d. for the Pig Buildings and a cost of £64,809 for the Cattle Buildings. This latter included £12,513 in respect of site works. After site works and temporary access road had been added to the cost of the Pig Buildings and credits given of £3,832 in respect of omissions, the anticipated total cost of the Pig Buildings was £93,139 18s. 1d., and of the Cattle Buildings, £64,809. To the nearest pound this made the estimated cost £157,949, excluding fees. Before accepting the lowest tender the Buildings Committee and the Governing Body considered the matter carefully in view of the high cost involved. They decided to proceed with the erection on an assurance from the department in question that Pig and Cattle Buildings of the most modern type were required in an experimental farm for teaching and instruction to students, and on being assured that the output from these houses of pigs and cattle would justify the expenditure. They then placed the contract.

When the final costs were ascertained of these buildings they amounted to £197,296 7s. 4d., excluding professional fees, which amounted to £18,110 4s. 6d. During the course of erection one of the pig houses was not built in order to reduce the costs. There were a number of reasons for the increase in the final cost over the tender price. The main cause was the increase in building costs which took place between the commencement of the construction to its completion. An additional factor was the increased difficulty in excavation met when this was undertaken.

B. Cattle Housing: (See L6)
Total area of buildings	..	..	..	..	..	..	38,174 sq. ft.

Buildings are made up of:
(a) Experimental	..	..	..	..	..	..	3,976 sq. ft.
(b) Commercial	..	..	..	..	..	..	34,198 sq. ft.
Total						..	38,174 sq. ft.

The costs estimated for the Cattle Buildings by Mr. N. O’Kelly in August 1964 was £64,809.

Use of Buildings

General: Purposes of undergraduate teaching, postgraduate and staff research.

Pig Buildings:

It is impossible to apply a cost per pig analysis to these houses as one could do in the case of a fattening house because there are pigs of all ages and sizes. The only meaningful figure is cost per square foot of building erected. This can be got by dividing the total cost by 32,881 sq. ft. Mr. N. O’Kelly’s analysis in 1964, showed that the cost varied from 43.58/- per square foot to 76/- per square foot (see L3 attached). The actual final figures were much higher.

The projected cost per fattening pig for Fattening House A (see L4) is shown as £41.10.3 which was considered very high at that date. The final cost was higher.

The Pig programme caters for 150 sows plus progeny.

Cattle Buildings: (See L6—Mr. N. O’Kelly’s Estimate).

Cow Housing:

i.e. £153 per cow.

House C/9 will hold from 100-150 cattle, depending on age. House C/8 will hold 48 calves.

The cost of construction rates per square foot projected by Mr. O’Kelly for these buildings shown on L6 were considered very high in 1964 and as a result only part of the cattle buildings originally proposed were finally erected. All buildings shown on L6 were erected.

The Cattle Buildings cater for about 400 bovines and 100 sheep.

LYONS ESTATE, CELBRIDGE

TENDER COST ANALYSIS

Niall O’Kelly, FRICS., FIArb.,

Chartered Quantity Surveyors,

133 Lr. Baggot Street,

Dublin 2.

LYONS ESTATE, CELEBRIDGE.

TENDER COST ANALYSIS.

PIG FATTENING HOUSE “A” (P4).

LYONS ESTATE, CELBRIDGE.

CATTLE BUILDINGS.

Niall O’Kelly, FRICS., FlArb.,

Chartered Quantity Surveyors,

133 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2.

The buildings shown above are only part of the Cattle Building proposals originally projected. All the above were erected.

*=Sq. foot.

†=per Sow and litter.

‡=includes unroofed yards, etc.

§=this item was omitted from programme and should be deducted from total figure.