HUTT LOAN TROUBLE. ENGINEER REPLIES TO CRITICISM.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 57, 4 September 1909, Page 9

HUTT LOAN TROUBLE. ENGINEER REPLIES TO CRITICISM.

SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL. A special meeting of the Lower Hutt Borough Council was held last evening, the Mayor' (Mr. E. P. Bunny^ presiding. There were also present Councillors Clere, Anson, Mowbray, Pearce^ Kempthorne, Hayes, Barlow, Mascaskill, and Baldwin. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the findings of the subcommittee recently deputed to review the evidence taken in connection with the £52,000 loan enquiry. The borough engineer, Air. Rix-Trott, submitted a reply to certain clauses contained in the report. Prior to considering the findings of the committee, Councillor Anson asked the Mayor what was the exact position of the report. Had it, he enquired, to be presented to the council ? Mr. Bunny • Certainly. "I asked you particularly," Councillor Anson continued, "when you moved that a sub-committee be appointed, for a pledge that' before tho report was presented to the council, the committee should have the power of discussing and revising it. ... There are some points of the report which I am very adverse to remaining. I, and several other councillors, would not have voted for the motion setting up a sub-committee, had we known it was not to be first discussed in committee." Mr. Bunny : "It is very singular that I should be called upon to keep a pledge that I have no recollection of making." The understanding at the tiro c, he added, was that the report should be considered in council, not in committee. Besides, the sub-committee was appointed by the council. Councillor ■ Anson : "No, by the committee." All doubt as to the point in dispute was cleared up, upon the production of the minutes of the last meeting, which showed that Mr. Bunny was correct, and the report was accordingly received in council—not in committee. ENGINEER'S REPORT. Mr. Rix-Trott reported as follows :—: — " (1) The committee's report sets out that Major M'Donald had in his evidence stated that I iniormed him that £6uu had been saved on the Bolmont Creeks diversion, through that work being done by day labour, whereas he found the real amount saved was £7. I would, however, point out that tho evidence given by Major M'Donald is to tho effect that £600 of extra work had bean carried out, and that after allowing for the additional work he found that the sum of £7 had been saved. The extra work . . accounted for,the £600, which undoubtedly would have been saved had this extra work not been done. (2) With regard to the Bnage-street drain, I have to say that thp estimate of £458 given by mo was for the work shown on the accompanying tracing and as per my report No. 32 (Bth October, 1906). Other work .was carried out under the council's instructions in connection with this drainage, increasing its cost, viz., the extenson of the 12in drain through Mr. Cudby's property, and the deepening of the creek leading through the Te Momi estate. (3) Referring to tho finding that all plans, details and specifications were prepared by the consulting engineers, I submit that this is not in accordances with the evidence given; if so, what becomes of tha fact that I placed before you plans and details prepared by myself, also details in connection with the specifications, irrespective of details of levels,, etc., prepared under my direction ? (4) Reservoir.—The report states : 'It is plain from the evidence that the pipes were not put in the solid, in consequence of which omission considerable delay and additional expense were occasioned.' As I have previously stated, no delay whatever occurred in the construction of the reservoir. The castiron delivery and overflow pipes were put in the concrete as the walls were brought up. It would have been absolutely absurd to have put in the mains loading from the reservoir to the en-gine-houee-, and overflow to creels, before the excavated soil had been tipped. As will be seen by the accompanying sketch, the pipes would have been buried under 40ft of spoil. The only additional expenditure was about £25 caused by the cracking off of a collar of one of the pipes bedded in the concrete through the settling of the excavated spoil bank." DISCUSSION. Concerning the construction placed on Major M'Donald's remarks in connection with the Belmont Creek's diversion, the Mayor controverted the borough engineer's assertion. What Major M'Donald really did say, he had been informed by Mr. Rix-Trott, remarked Mr. Bunny, was that, notwithstanding the fact that the extra work had been carried out, the work would be completed for £600 less than the estimate. , Mr. Rix-Trott, in reply, said ne still adhered to his own opinion. The position was, ne added, that the saving of £600 represented work done—not an actual cash balance. In regard to clause 2, Councillor Kempthorne remarked : It seems that we found that there was an excessive expenditure on Bridge-street drain; and the engineer does not dispute it. Mr. Rix-TroM. : Oh, yes! Decidedly, the expenditure was increased, but I was acting under instructions. , A proposal to go iiito committee was then put to the meeting and carried by six votes to four.