BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4463, 6 September 1922, Page 2

BOROUGH COUNCIL.

SPECIAL MEETING. SEWERAGE SCHEME DISCUSSED. A special meeting of the Paeroa Borough Council was held on Monday last at 1 p.m.. His Worship the Mayor (Mr P- E. Brenan) presided, and the following members were present; Crs. Bain, Silcock, Lamb, Edwards, Marshall, Vuglar, Flatt, and Leach, and the town clerk. Mr B. A. Franklin, Health Inspector, Mr Lbckie Gannon, engineer of the sewerage contract, scheme, and Mr J. S. Anchor, the contractor for the number 1 sewerage contract, were also present. The following letter was read from the Public Health Inspector to the Borough: Council; "On making an inspection of the sewers in several of the streets I noticed that, many of the irtercepting traps are too deep down, ranging from sft to as low as lift below the • surface. This should not be allowed for the following reasons: (1) The , traps are not easy to get at should a stoppage occur; also, they would be hard to test. (2) They are in the wrong position and should be placed inside each boundary azd not at the sewer. (3) The extraordinary expense of excavating in the event of the drain blocking at any time.” The letter was forwarded to Messrs Lockie Gannon and. Worley, and their reply was as follows: “With regard to a complaint that the Buchan traps recently installed are as deep as lift below the surface and that they are placed on the sewer instead of being within the boundary of properties is contrary to fact. The average depth of Buchans is from four to five feet below the surface : only in three instances do they exceed a depth of six feet—one is 6ft 9in deep and two are 7ft deep. The object in keeping Buchan traps as deep as possible is to ensure a workable grade from the Buchan trap to the dwelling and to comply with the grade of 1 in 40 stipulated in the by laws for house connections. Blockages usually occur in the 4in house connections, and it is imperative that the best gradient should be obtained. Our greatest difficulty, especially in a flat district like Paeroa, is obtaining sufficient fall, in a number, of cases, from the Buchan trap to the dwelling, and, unfortunately, w,e are unable to keep the trap low enough to comply with the by-laws. As, however, inspection pipes are provided for house connections every 30ft apart a blockage or a nuisance is thereby reduced to a minimum. With regard to the complaint about Buchan traps not being within the boundary of properties, the coptractor’s representar tive, the inspector of works, or ourselves'are not aware of a single in-* stance where the Buchan trap has been fixed to the sewer instead of at the boundary of properties.” In a further letter Inspector Franklin said ’he ■was prepared to make an inspection of the several sewers with members of the council and point out anything that he considered should not be permitted.

After some discussion the council decided to adjourn and inspect the various Buchan traps, etc., as reported bn by Inspector Franklin, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

The Buchan traps in the right-of-way by Battson’s shop were the first to be inspected, and Inspector Franklin pointed out that it would be necessary to raise the floor of Battson’s shop and then tunnel down about six feet to make a connection, and, further, the Buchan trap was in the wrong position, necessitating t!he additional expense ofl erecting an inspection chamber; also that two Buchan traps had been put in, where one would have done.

Mr Gannon, in explaining the position, said that in view of the comprehensive scheme for drainage in hand it was far better to, put two Buchan traps in if necessary, and he advised the Council to have them put in. He also said that the two Buchan traps as inspected were necessary and correctly placed, according to the wishes of the tenants of the buildings concerned.

The Mayor and councillors then passed on and inspected the different traps at the rear of the National Bank, Gazette Office, and W. M. Cullen’s block of new buildings in Belmont Road.

Each of Inspector Franklin’s objections to these connections was fully gone into and the ways and nfeans of improvements discussed, at the conclusion of which Mr Gannon and Mr J. S. Anchor, satisfied the councillors that the work as so far done was in no way detrimental to the efficiency of the drainage scheme. Mr Gannon assured th;e Council that he had seen thousands of Buchan traps put in, and the system is undoubtedly satisfactory.

At 3.15 p.m. the councillors returned to the Borough Chambers. On resuming the meeting the M'ayor said that nbw the Council had looked into the complaints as made by Inspector Franklin, he had come to the conclusion that there was “much! ado about nothing.” There was possibly one objection to be noted, and that was that two Buchan traps had been put in at Battson’s where possibly one would have been sufficient, but that was a matter for the engineer to decide. The Mayor pointed out that it was only to be expected in a drainage scheme of tbis nature that slight mistakes would occur, and no doubt the tour of inspection in company with the engineer and contractor that afternoon had proved very interesting and instructive, but as far as complaints were concerned there was really nothing much wrong. His Worship the Mayor then mov*ed: “That Inspector Franklin bo thanked for his correspondence pointing out the mistakes and that his letter be a. guide against possible mistakes in the future. Seconded by Cr. Edwards and carried. Mr Bright, engineer for the contractors (Messrs J. S. Anchor and Co.), entered a small plea on behalf Of his firm by asking the Council if they could see their, way dear to delete the penalty clauses from the contract, in view of the exceptionally

bad weather causing much unavoidable delay. A further, delay was occasioned by the non-arrival of material to carry on with, and also the time allowed for the completion of the contract was absurdly short, especially in view of Mr Spinks being allowed over eleven months in which to complete his contract. Cr. Edwards asked if it had been necessary to employ only one pipalayer on t.he contract. Mr Bright replied that it was Mr Gannon’s wish that one man only be employed as a pipelayer on the main sewer. The reason for this was that one jnan became an expert at'the job, and the work was better done than if two or three were employed on the work.

Continuing, Mr Bright said he had heard unofficially that the Council did not intend to enforce the two penalty clauses on the contractors. When questioned as to what he meant by “unofficially heard” Mr Bright said he had been told, but had. nothing definite in writing. He understood that the Mayor for one had implied that the clauses would not be enforced. This allegation His Worship flatly denied, and said the only concession he had spoken of was In reference to fortnightly progress payments which the Council had sanctioned. Cr. Leach said he was under the impression that the matter of enforcing the penalty clauses had been discussed by the Council, and it was decided tp consider the c.ase on its merits, which he understood would be more or less favourable to the contractor. Cr. Marshall asked Mr Bright if he considered that the contractors hal taken the non-ehforcement of the penalty clauses as granted and had caused the work to be less expeditiously carried out. Mr Bright replied that the ■work Had been pushed on by the contractors as quickly as possible, taking into consideration the financial aspects of the case. The contractors had already lost money, and the work could not have been done more quickly under the circumstances. His Worship assured Mr Bright that the Council was very soft-hearted, and would give due consideration to Messrs Anchor and Go’s, request, and would advise them on receipt of the final figures for that contract. THE BUCHAN TRAP BUSINESS. The Mayor asked Mr Lockie Gannon if he considered, in future contracts, that Buchan traps be put Ln by the Council as the main sewers are put down', or whether the traps should be supplied to householders when they make application for sewerage connection, apd allow them to place them in position th.emselves, subject to the approval of the public health inspector. Cr. Flatt added that he would like to hear first what Mr Gannon’s opinion was with, regard to Buchan traps. Cr. Edwards also wanted to know the correct position for the traps. In reply to these questions Mr Gannon said that he was in favour of putting in Buchan traps. It wasnecessary to. have them, and i.t wbutd not cost the ratepayers any more now than later on. He considered it. was far, better to have one' pipelayer on the job, as his work Would be closely watched by the Council’s inspector, and that pipelayer would become, in a very short while, an expert at the job, and this fact would certainly minimise the risk to the Council of the traps not working efficiently. Mr Gannon said he was most certainly in favour of having one good man as a pipelayer in preference ’ to several, even though they may be duly licensed, as the work was most important and needed to be closely inspected. With regard to the position of Buchan traps Mr Gannon said he considered they should be placed as close to the main sewer as possible and just inside the boundary of the householder’s property, and pointed out that the Council was responsible for the efficiency of the sewerage from the main sewer to the trap. Some discussion then took plac? with reference to a resolution which was passed at a meeting held on August 28 which read as follows: “That providing it was satisfactory to the engineer, and does not interfere with the efficiency of the sewerage scheme, the matter of installing Buchans in future be eliminated from sewerage contracts, and that the Buchans be not installed until the houses are connected up with the sewer: th? Buchans to be provided by the Council for those applying to the Council for permission to link up on payment of connection fees.” This motion was carried. His Worship the Mayor and Cr. Bain were against the resolution on the grounds that it was dangerous for laymen to interfere with competent, engineers. No. 4 AREA. The Mayor asked Mr Gannon if it would be possible to dp without a pumping station in connection with the drainage of number 4' area. Mr Gann'on, In reply to this question, said there was not a possible chance of doing without a pumping station in the drainage of that area. The late Mr R. McDuff and Mr-W. H. Stevens, engineers of considerable ability, had already gone into that question and had come to the same conclusion. Station Road area was so flat that it needed a 6in pipe, and that 1 in 200 was as flat as the law allowed drainage-tp go. Mr Gannon said there was np one keener to avoid pumping than he, but there was nb chance of cutting it out for this area, unless the Council decided to modify or delete some part of the work, Cr. Marshall said he would not attempt to put his opinion, as a layman, against an engineer's, but he thought that as £20,000 had been spent on portion of No. 1 area, and the Council was about to spend a further sum of £7OOO, which would possibly only serve about 25 houses, it behoved the Council, as custodians of public money, to consider to what extent the burden by posterity could be carried. The cost of the work already done is showing an enormous increase on the engineering estimates, and there certainly is not sufficient money authorised to complete the undertaking. He thought it highly probable that a modified scheme could be form! whicn would meet the needs of this area for

very many years to come. He considered that the engineers should go further into the question of the drainage for No. 4 area and reconsider the proposals and devise, if possible, ways and means to considerably reduce the cost. He said the matter of placing 18in pipes in the main sewer and 18in pipes in the branch lines seemed very large, and the present cost of this work was staggering; the owners’ liability must be considered. Cr. Marshall, moved : “That the engineei be requested to reconsider his proposals for .the new area with a view to providing, if any means possible, a less expensive scheme in lieu of the present one, which involves apumping station.” —Seconded by Cr. Vuglar and carried. The Mayor said he also was very much concerned about the cost ofl the scheme, and did not want to have to ask the ratepayers for authority to raise more money. His Worship said that in 1917, when the late Mr McDuff and Mr Stevens formulated the drainage scheme, their estimate was in the vicinity of £37,000, and these engineers were of the bpinion that a pumping station was most necessary to the success of the scheme.

Mr. Gannon said he whs prepared to gb into the matter, and if practicable to cut a portion of the scheme out and try and gravitate the balance. He asked for time to go into the matter, and he would endeavour to submit a further scheme to the Conned about the end of this month. In reply to Cr. Marshall Mr Gannon said it was necessary to instal an 18in sewer to make provision for storing purposes, and alsp plenty of room was necessary in the event of the river flooding. If the river were to rise much and provision were not made for ample room the sewer would become blocked, and it was also necessary to make provision for several days’ storing in the septic tank-head. With regard to the drainage of No. 4 area Mr Gannon said that possibly a flushing pump might be erected for a portion of this area which would reduce the cost considerably, but he. would have to go carefolly into the matter.

With regard tp pumping, Mr Gannon did not see hbw this could be avoided- The cost of a vertical pump would be somewhere about £BOO. Mr Gannon answered a number of questions asked him as to the different depths in some streets., the information being given from the field plans

His Worship asked Mr Gannon if there was any need to cut up the centre of a metalled road to lay the pipes. Mr Gannon said it was not intended to disturb the road centre. The pipes would be laid down the side of the road.

No. 2 CONTRACT COMPLETED. Mr Gannon reported that the No. 2 contract was now practically finished, and householders can go ahead and ecnnect np. He reported that there was a good velocity, and the pipes were fresh and clean from top to bottom. A further, coat of tar is to be given to the man-holes, and in one or two places the footpaths have to be put back in order again. In conclusion Mr Gannon said he considered Messrs Anchor and Co. had carried out the work very satisfactorily, and all thanks was due to them, and to their overseer and engineer, DOMAIN BOARD. .At the Domain Board meeting on Monday afternoon a. letter was read from the secretary of the Bowling Club applying for the use of the greeiv in the Domain again this year, and asking the Council what they proposed to charge the chib for rent this year. The chairman explained how .the fees from the Domain had not been sufficient during the last year, and that the Domain account was in debt to the General account. Owing to increased cost of maintenance the Domain Board fcund that they were reluctantly compelled to charge the Bowling Club a rental of £7O for the coming season. A letter was read from the secretary of the Bowling Club making application for the use of the tool-shed in the pavilion, and that the tools of the Board be stored elsew.here. —Decided that the application be deferred. WORKS COMMiITTEB. the Works Committee reported that the work of shifting .the bank between the band rotunda and the Commercial Hotel back about six feet was proceeding satisfactorily. Mr A. Cassrels had given the Borough Council permission to move his fence along, the two sections back to the proposed.line, provided same was re-erected satisfactorily and the Council was prepared to cart some of the spoil from the bank on to' the low ; lying portion of sections 23 and 24 of block A2, wfo’ch sections are alongside the job, and would therefore be handy to tip on. The Council has decided to do this, and will accept Mr Cassrels’ suggestions, which are contained in the following letter from Mr L. E. Cassrels : “In answer to Mr Brenan’s ’request to permit the fence on A, Cassrels.’ property on the Nonnanby Road frontage of Block A2 to be shifted back from th? boundary a distance of six feet, and that the Council be permitted to remove the soil from the frontage in order to obtain a proper camber, I am prepared to agree to the wishes of the Council, provided that the council re erect a proper fence; and I would also ask that some of the spoil be tipped and spread ip the low portions of sections 23 and 24, Block A2, which sections are alongside the job, and therefore w.ould be handy to tip on.”

The letter further stated that it is understood that,, no modification on alteration in the boundaries of any section in Block A2 will be made.