PUKEKOHE'S DRAINAGE PROBLEM.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 50, 29 June 1915, Page 3

PUKEKOHE'S DRAINAGE PROBLEM.

Controversy re Engineer.

An idj urned meeting of the Pukekohc Borough Council was held last evening, the main business on the agenda b< ing the postponed consideration of the Ordinate Committee's recommendation that a permanent resident engineer should be appointed for the Borough at a salary of £4OO per annum, the appointment to be for one year certain and thereafter subject to three months' notice on either side. With the vaiious schemes of drainage improved water facilities, etc., likely to he carried thioifh within tne next thr;e years, t':e committee ejrsidered that the appointimrst rf a perm ! nent engineer would etfert economy as compared with iee3 tc t); paid to a consulting erginecr, atart from the advantage of favirg a skilled official always on baud. Tne members present were the Mayor (Mr H. G. R. Mason) Councillors Hubbard, Bar'er, I. Motion, Patterson, Clarke, Bilkey and Comrie.

A SHIiLVINu MOTION

Cr Comrie led off by proposing that the Drainage Committee should be tha-ked for their report, but that r.o action at present should ba taken in regard to the appointment of a permanent engineer. He disputed the accuracy of figures quoted by the Drainage Committee aa regards expenses in the future employment of a consulting engineer and contended that instead of the same amounting to £1370 mentioned as likely to be payable within three years the amount would fall a gocd way short of the £I2OO that would be due to a permanent engineer for three years' salary at £4GO per t,nnum. The town he maintained, was not in a position to go to the expense of employing a permanent engineer.

Cr Hubbard seconded, and pointed out that the Council had already paid £llO for a report on drainage and they were cot liKely to get a bettar engineer as a permanent official than Mr Lockie Ganr.on, who mada the report. The Drainage Committee, he added, seemed to take it for granted that they would get the ratepayers' sanction for carrying out all the schemes mentioned and had framed their statements of economy accordingly, ar.d even for that reason the figures as quoted were misleading. The Mayor admitted lhat the Committee's repprt was framed on the assumption that an £BOOO loan for drainage would be sanctioned. Cr Patterson stated that whilst he supported the appointment as recommended by the Committee, he only did eo provided that it should be nada subsequent to the ratepayers approving of a drainage loan.

Tne Mayor expressed his approval of the Committee'? recommendation, and considered that as time advanced tha necessary engineering work in the borough would mcreaee rather lhan decrease. Cr Bilkey counselled that it was wise to go slow. At the present time he doubted if an £BOOO loan would be sanctioned by the ratepayers. If £4OO was to be paid as yearly salary to an engineer it would with £6OO already paid to their present officials eat up £IOOO out cf their total receipts of £I4OO. He admitted that something required to be done for draining the business area, but before the ratepayers wculd approve of drainage they vould very properly demand to know i i what manner the charge was to be provided for. Living on the Hill and therefore as one who would not benefit from a drainage scheme he would certainly object to paying full drainage rate?, although be was prepared to pay some small proportion. Jl the drainage scheme was to be carried through he advocated that Mr Lockie Gannon's report sh'.uld be adopted and acted on instead of another engineer being employed. The old Council engaged Mr Lockis Gannon after enquiring into his credentials and were fully satisfied as to his abilities. IS MR GANNON COMPETENT? Following on the remarks made as to Mr Gannon by Cr Bilkey, the real point at issue in regard to the Drainage Committee's recommendation was disclosed, namely, aa to the advisability or otherwise of retaining Mr Lockis Gannon's services as consulting engineer.

The Mayor stated that ha and a good many other people had no confidence in M'_ fjickie Gannon's report, and he did rot believe" tt'af the ratepayers would sanction a drainage scheme if Mr Gannon was to b" the engireer. Cr Bilkey stated that he had only heard two people speak against Mr Gannon, and his belief was that the large majority of ratepayers would certainly not turn Mr Gannon dowD. Cr Comrie asked on what grounds the Mayor thought Mr Gannon was unworthy of confidence. The Mayor admitted that personal prejudice might to some extent be responsible for his opposition, but he also detailed what he considered were unsatisfactory reeultH of enquiries he had caused to be made of works carried through by Mr Gannon.

Cr Conirie produced and read testimonials favourable to Mr Lockie Gannon, one of the same expressing sitisfaction with a scheme that the Mayor had reported had given unsatisfactory re£ults. Cr Clarke suggested that with such points at issue a subcommittee should be appointed to ascertain by personal interviews whether the schemes carried through by Mr Lockie Gannon had given satisfaction or r.ot.

Cr Carter was of opinion that it would be unwise to put a drainage scheme before the ratepayers on which any prejudice against the engineer would arise. He therefore favoured the appointment of a borough engineer.

Cr Conirie stated that they were

not likely to get a competent en ginser to come to them lor only one year's certain engagement, and by accepting the Committee's recommendation they would be throwing overboard an nigineer (Mr Cannon), who had good testimonials and in whom he had confidence. J lie ratepayers, he believed, had no prejudice against M» Gannon, but their objection was that before they were asked to Mile on a drainage loan tlie> should know how the financial aspect was fo be apportioned. In any ease lie considered it would be an act of folly to appoint a permanent engineer bcture a drainage loan was sanctioned. They could

c rtair.ly not get a callable er.ginerr tor £4OO per year, tut evin if they could was su h a man likely to Rive ttum a more reliable repoit than Mr I,otki2 Gannon, cr would he satisfy the ratepayers more than Mr Gannon? He maintained that it was unfair to throw Mr Lockia Gannon overboard. He quite approved of Mr Gannon being aeked to furnish testimonials on works carried through by him, and if it was found that Mr Gannon had not given satisfaction he (Cr Comrie) would fully approve of dispensing with his services.

CR COMRIES' VIEWS UPHELD. On Cr Cormrie's motion being voted un, viz., that the Committee's recommendation be net acted on, it was carried on the voices, orly Cr Barter audibly t issenhrg. SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS.

It was then agreed that Mr Lockie Ganaon shot Id te asked to furnish testimorials for the Council's guidance as to the various schemes for which he had be : n responsible, and further that in regard to hia drainage rrpo*t for Pukekohe he thould be requested to hand to the Ccuoci 1 the working plans cn which his report was based. A motion by Cr Hubbard, that the Drainage Committee should report as to the areas tl.ey recommended should be drained ar.d how such financial obligations should be provided for, was also adopted.

The meeting, which tad started at 7 p.m., came to a close at 3 0.45 p m.