THE GASHOLDER

Evening Star, Issue 15020, 31 October 1912, Page 1

THE GASHOLDER

TO BE REMOVED

THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT ADOPTED.

Again last evening the City Council considered the. question of the gasholder. The Gas Committee recommended : (a) 'lhat the gasholder be removed to th© site already purchased in Percy 6 tree t.

(b) That lenders be invited in the Dominion for tlio dismantling and reerecting of the holder. (c) That the foundations be constructed by day labor under the supervision of the city engineer, and in accordance ivith plan and specification to bo submitted. (d) That the necessary plans and specifications required for calling tenders for dismantling and re-erecting the holder bo prepared by the gas engineer, and that upon a tender being accepted, the council appoint a. suitable person to supervise the work. It _ was decided to take the- clauses seriatim.

Or Clark moved the adoption of clause (a). He said that this was the recommendation the committee brought forward at the last meeting, when it was referred back for further consideration. The committee, after again giving the matter their best consideration, came forward with this recommendation, feeling confident that they were doing absolutely the right thine. In every report they had had they found that the necessary repairs to place the holder on a sound footing would cost a considerable amount of money. Their own experts said so. Mr M'Curdie, dealing with the foundations, paid that there was an element of risk in anv of the schemes that might be adopted—that there was likely to be a break somewhere. Mr Hungerford said that the element, of risk could not be entirely eliminated from any scheme of repairing the present foundations, unless new foundations were laid on the present site, the cost of which would exceed the cost of removing the holder to Percy street. It was practically admitted that there were no grpat engineering difficulties in the way of removing the holder. The committee recommend it as the most economical and feasible one of getting over their trouble. Or Carroll seconded.

Cr .Sinclair congratulated the committee on bringing forward the fame recommendation again. He was convinced that it was the wisest and most businesslike proposition under the. circumstances. The sooner ;tho committee's recommendation was given effect to the better it would be, because if they read the report of Mr Rickards they would see that a considerable amount of depreciation went on from time to time.

Cr Small said that any money spent on the. present site would only be in the nature of an experiment. Sufficient money had been spent there already. The adoption of the annular tank scheme would increase the danger in his opinion, because the whole of the weight would be brought on the outside of the foundations, and the tension on the thin bottom plates would lie increased.

Cr Shacklock said he would vote against the recommendation. He was &till of the opinion that the holder could be put in good position in its present site at a less expenditure than would be involved in its removal. With an annular tank the holder would be quite safe on its present site. Cr 'small was wrong when he said the evil would be aggravated by the conversion of the holder into an annular tank. With the weight ever so much reduced there would be nothing like the same weight on the foundations as at the present time.

Cr Myers supported the report. He said they were told that it would cost at least £6.000. to put in an annular tank, and the expert would not. say that it would then overcome all difficulties.

Cr Scott was opposed to the annular tank scheme.

Cr Marlow still believed that, the- holder could bo fixed up where it was. but he was going to give the committee his sunporf. became they hud had all the data heioie them, and had considered the matter most, fvillv.

Mayor said that all opposition to the Gas Committee's report had now practically fizzled out. The K°st course now to pursue was to adopt the recommendation unanimously.

The. motion was carried, Cr Shacklock alone dissenting. Cr Clark then moved the hdoption of clause (b). 11© said that it was simplv a question of whether the work should' be done-.dry day labor or by contract. The com mi I tee made the recommendation provided that the work was supeivised bv a thoroughly compete/it person. Cr Carroll seconded. He personally was not in favor of day labor for municipal works, generally. 'l.he motion was carried

Cr Clark next moved the adoption of clause 10). He said that the citv engineer was quite qualified to earn- out'the "work, and the, committee recommended that, it be placed in his bands.

The motion was carried. Lastly Cr Clark moved the adoption of clause id).

Cr Shaddock, referring to this matter, said he was of opinion that a suitable man ■was not m the service of the corporation at the present time. Cr Scott raid that if thev did not have a suitable man then it was'jolly near tim« they had one.

Cr Clark en id if the council Jiked to employ one of their own men they could do so. The committee had not come torward with a straight-out recommendation that any particular person should be appointed. They did not suggest that the work should be supervised W the gac engineer or by the city engineer. The motion was carried