HOROWHENUA HYDROELECTRIC BOARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2409, 25 March 1922, Page 4

HOROWHENUA HYDROELECTRIC BOARD.

RESIDENT ENGINEER TO BE APPOINTED. SALARY £I,OOO PER YEAR. At a meeting of the above Board at Levin- on Wednesday, the question of appointing a resident or consulting engineer was discussed. The chairman (Mr G. A. Monk) observed for his own part he felt that if a firm of consulting engineers was engaged the Board would have the value of the knowledge not only .of the heads„of'the firm, but also of subordinates. On the other hand, a permanent engineer stood alone, but against that there was the fact of the board haying his undivided attention. If the Board decided on the latter, it should not stint the salary. In an undertaking such as was in hand, where several thousand pounds would be spent, a hundred or two in the salary of the engineer should riot be worried about. It was imperative that a good man be secured on the grounds that he would save money in the long run. Mr D. W. Matheson urged that applications be called for both, and the. decision be made then. He admitted that a resident engineer ► would certainly have to be appointed later, but during the constructional period there was one point nbout a firm of consulting engineers that struck him particularly. That was that a reputable firm would doubtless have a good buying connection in England. The Board would be buying great,quantities of material, and money might be saved in commissions.

Mr A. Seifert favoured the appointment Of a resident engineer, especially if it could be arranged that his plans could be submitted to a firm of consulting engineers before they were put into operation. In any case a permanent engineer would be necessary later, and be was sure that if £750 a year was offered, with a bonus, payment at the end pf two years’ service, a reliable and efficient man could be secured. As an instance of the tre'mendous expense that would be entailed in the initial work, he had learnt from inquiries made in Christchurch that the erection of transmission cables ran up to as high as £750 a mile. With consulting engineers thex*e was the disadvantage of indirect control. A firm send an engineer in their service to carry out the work. With the permanent engineer in the Board’s employ on the spot from the commencement there would be united control.

Mr A. A. Brpwn agreed. He thought, however, that instead of submitting plans to a consulting engineer, they might be referred to the Public Works Department. The Chairman disagreed with this. It was all right to go to the Department beforehand, he said, but not when the work was,in progress. Mr A'. I. McKay was more in favour of Mr-Matheson’s scheme, and advocated caution-in embarking on the expenditure entailed in so enormous a scheme.

Mr F. Whibley said that, taking the expenditure at £IOO,OOO, a consulting engineer’s commission at 5 per cent, would amount to £5,000, and the work might b\ compressed into a couple of years., The Chairman: “And our expenditure will exceed that.” He went on to say that he could not agree with Mr Matheson’s proposal, and thought it better to-make a definite decision, otherwise it would be like a local body calling applications for a position and asking the applicants to state their own salaries. He thought that Mr Whibley’s statement in l’egard to the commission illustrated an important point in that it showed how great an amount a consulting engineer would cost in comparison with a permanent one. Mr Seifert then moved that applications be called for a permanent engineer at a salary of £BOO.

The motion was seconded pro forma, by Mr Matheson, who immediately afterwards moved an amendment that alternative applications be called for from consulting engineers and from others desirous of a permanent appointment at a salary of £I,OOO a year. Mr • Whibley considered it was hardly necessary to call applications from consulting engineers. He took it that it was the other way about. Any Ann of standing would he prepared to take the job on. The amendment and the motion were then put to the meeting in turn and lost. A motion was then moved by. Mr McKay that applications he called for a resident engineer at a salary of £I,OOO a year. This was seconded by Mr Matheson and carried. The Board then went into committee to frame the conditions of the engagement.