NEW HARBOR SCHEME

Gisborne Times, Volume LII, Issue 5464, 27 April 1920, Page 7

NEW HARBOR SCHEME

BOARD DECIDES TO TAKE POLL

IS MR. G. LYSNAR ENTITLED TO REMUNERATION?

S UGG ESTED MODIFICATION O F PROPOSALS.

'Hie new harbor proposals were considered by the Harbor Board yesterday. Messrs. Wildish. Witters, Wallis and White being unavoidably absent.

in his annual review the chairman (Mr. F. J. Lysnar) said, inter alia: —“I am most pleased to be able to record here the valuable support find great assistance rendered by the conference set up to consider tile harbor problem at the instigation of the Chamber of Commerce. Its findings met with the' Board’s complete approval, and immediate action was taken to carry out the recommendations, as the Board then had ample proof that the whole community looked to it to bring- forward proposals at an early date for the construction of a harbor clear of the river and its silt, suitable to accommodate the largest vessels trading to the Dominion. The report and plan which is before the Board to-day sets forth a harbor scheme which in my opinion is the most carefully planned and considered scheme that the Board could wish | to obtain. I congratulate the Board on having secured the services of these gentlemen and trust that the necessary steps will be taken to lay the scheme before the ratepayers. Steps were taken by the Board early last session to get a Bill through Parliament sanctioning a loan ur £1,001),000. This was successfully achieved after considerable opposition by representatives of the AYaiapu arm Uawa Counties, whose objections by clauses providing that thc/Liability to furnish portion of any rate necessary shall later he fixed by a commission. it will probably he necessary for the Board to discuss at an early date the question of I bringing these clauses into operation. I The report was adopted. ! LETTERS FROM MR. G. LY&NAK. j The following letters were received j from Mr. G. Lysnar in connection i with his harbor scheme : I March 29, 1920. j “At the Ilarhor Conference held in June last year of members of the local bodies and others with it j was decided to build a harbor at Gisborne with an entrance 49 feet in depth, so as to accommodate any size oceangoing boat. The harbor scheme 1 gave you in May, 1917. showed an entrance with’a depth of about 38 feet. I wish to point out to you that the required depth can be obtained under my scheme by placing the western breakwater further out.

' In order that you might understand more clearly what I mean, I have made you herewith a sketch plan of the extension of my former plan or scheme, with an entrance of the required depth, viz., 10 feet. You will notice by tho .sketch plan I am now sending you. that .1 have altered the position and number of the wharves, also the position and size of the quay, which 1 submit is an improvement and therefore makes ilie whole scheme (if adopted) better able to cope with the requirements of the rapidly growing trade of the port. Amongst the many advantages of my scheme is the one that relief to mu' much congested port may be obtained so soon as the river is diverted and the part colored "pink" mi the sketch plan herewith is completed, together with the removal of the present groyne except say about 50 feet at the outer end, which will give about 0000 feet of wharfage accommodation. The depth fit' this inner area will (until the outer breakwaters tire completed) depend upon the depth obtainable at its entrance, viz., at the end of our present breakwater. The Admiralty chart shows 19 feet, but I understand that at the time the warship "Philomel’ entered, there was 20 feet at low water. I therefore see no reason why that dept a should not again be obtained (or perhaps a little more) and maintained at that depth, as the water within that enclosed area will be tree from silt or driftwood. It would form the first section of the larger seneme the cos*; of which I estimate at about £2OO 000. This estimate together with the following figures are rough calculations 1 have made based upon Mr Leslie KeyHolds’ estimate of the cost ot the breakwater and the river diversion as mentioned in his report of T-ebruary. IMS. Ist Section: Liver diversion with railway and traffic bridge, also the portion ot • ■ quay colored pink 2000x300ft jfewith concrete wall from quay '™to outer end of the present groyne, including cost of removing part of groyne and dredging to 18ft •••. ■■■ £-00,000 2nd Section: From end of river diversion 2100 ft. at say £3O per foot ■ ••• ••• 6 ’ s ' oon ***'&:.. 2500 .. ... Say .. 200,000 4th Section:' 1700 ft at say £2OO per foot ••• 340,00 sth Section: Eastern wall from Kaiti beach ... ••• •;• mO.OOO Plant, railway line to Yvamirere, etc., say 50,000 Total i £1.003,000 The above figures do not. include the cost of dredging beyond the 20ft at low watWr, or extra wharfage accommodation -beyond the 6000 ft, as previously mentioned, the latter, I think should be sufficient for several years, while the outer work is being completed. I previously omitted to point out to you that if my sell erne is adopted with perhaps such 'alterations as you or your <Bngineers may think necessary, it may in‘The future be still further extended as the trade of the port requires it. Ijy continuing The western breakwater

.in a south-easterly direction almost parallel with Kaiti beach, and by put- j ting another wall out from Kaiti beach i parallel with and to the east of the : one shown on the sketch plans so as to enclose any area of water required. One .of the main principles of my , scheme is that of letting the silt-laden j waters from the rivers go to the west and making the harbor to the east of same so that it would be impossible for any silt or driftwood to get into the harbor. The western breakwater could, of course, start from the end of the present groyne or from the end ; of the breakwater, but by doing so the cost would be greater and the large . area of water so near the town would be lost. j

APRIL 23, 1920. “1 have read the recent report compiled by the commissioners herein, j which 1 have since carefully studied |in conjunction with the sketch plan i' they forwarded you, and was pleased j to notice that they followed practically jail the main principles laid down in ;my harbor scheme. I regret to notice. 1 however, that they have altered my ! scheme on three important parts, with ! which 1 do not concur, viz: The first ! is the altering of the position for the j outlet, of the silt-laden waters. I sugt gested it should be diverted out on to j the Waikanae beach from the foot of I the Waikanae creek, the southern wall | of which would form part of a long j quay from which the wharves could I start. The commissioners have recommended that this outlet and quay be I placed further out in the Bay. j “The following particulars are, briefly I stated, my main reasons for say.jng that- such an alteration should, if possible. be avoided, viz: 1. They practically scrap all our present, works. 2. About one-half of the outer end of our present breakwater will be buried in the altered position of the quay. 3. Our present wharfage accommodation on the Kaiti side will be lost, except to vessels of very light draught. ■i. Most of the water area of our present, river will he lost to ns for all time, except for very small vessels. 5. The Union Steamship Company will probably have to go in for a tender of lighter draught than the Tuatea. G. If my suggested diversion and inner harbor are made, there would be enough water for vessels up to 2000 tons to come in, and such a boat would be able to get in and out while the'main breakwaters were in progress, which would be a great boon to us. 7. During the construction of the outer harbor there would be a great saving in time as well as in the cost of lighterage through vessels up to about 2000 tons being able to enter the river. 8. The length of time required for making the diversion through the Waikanae. the construction of the part of the quay colored pink on my sketch plan and wall from the quay to the j end of the present groyne, together ; with the necessary dredging, should not j be more than say fifteen months, after j which time we would he able to have j and enjoy a certain amount of comfort j during the years the outer harbor is

in progress. 9. The river outlet as proposed by the commissioners will empty into a large area of sheltered water which, judging by past experience, will silt up and clearly make it still more difficult for navigation than it is to-day. The question is can this district tolerate this for tlie period of construction ? This | phase I have specially considered in my scheme, and made provision for almost immediate use of the area protected by our present breakwater, which I suggest should not be interfered with except to dredge the silt at .present in the river to 18 or 20 feet, which when once dredged will not have to be repeated as the silt-bearing waters will have been permanently diverted. 10. The expense of an extra dredge with its annual cost of maintenance, which the commissioners say may be necessary, will then be saved. It. The risk of small vessels such as tugs and lighters being unable to work the river. 12. By placing the quays and wharves further out in the Bay as proposed by the commissioners, it not only makes the work more expensive, but the wharves are thereby nearer the entrance of the harbor, which has two detrimental effects. The first is that the nearer me wharves are to the entrance, the greater the range in stormy weather. The second point is that there is less distance for vessels to pull up in. . Captains of vessels have impressed upon', me the importance of having sufficient room in which to pull up. j 13. The extra distance all passengers, i mails and cargo will have to travel jo get to the main wharves is nearly 750 yards more than to the wharves suggested by me, which means to go to the boat and back the best part of a mile extra. - . . "1 could go further enumerating other reasons, but I think I have said sufficient, under that head for the present. Apparently the commissioners have placed the. proposed harbor further out in order to obtain deeper water and thus avoid the cost of dredg- . ing From a rough calculation I have made based upon the depths of water as shown on the Admiralty chart of our Bay. I find that; in the commissioners’ scheme there will be about. 6)6,601 cubic yards to be dredged, but if the work starts nearer the town, as I have suggested, it will only entail about an , extra 443,358 cubic yards; and estimat- ; ing same at 5s per yard, .including the blasting of papa rock which is considerably fiver your Board’s official estimate, it would be an extra £110,834. For this extra cost we can get an extra 30 acres of water with an extra 6000 feet of wharfage, more than half of which wharfage exists to-day. The cost of tins extra dredging, together with extra, cost of diverting the river nearer the town will be more than saved by reducin'' the length of the breakwaters and by reducing the size of the bulge in the main western wall. In other worus our harbor would have an area of water of about 200 acres instead ot 170 acres. We would also have about 6000 feet more wharfage than that provided by the commissioners. By bringing the harbor nearer the town the

outer end of the eastern mole would be : brought in at least COO feet. This would j enable the outer end of the western ' wall io be reduced by at least 000 feet, which at £2OO per foot is £120.000. This reduction would still leave a depth of , 40 feet at: the entrance. | “A further saving could be made byswinging the end of the western wall say about 200 feet nearer the Kaiti beach. By so doing we save about 200 . feet in fine length of the eastern mole, besides building it. in shallower water. That saving would probably be £40,000. ■ “A further great saving of probably £85,000 could be made by the straightening of the bulge in the western wall. ’ A still further saving of probably I £20.000 can he made on the northern j wall of the contour as proposed by the commissioners, if it is moved back to 1 about the position indicated on my , sketch plan, as it would be in shallower water and consequently would cost much less to construct, i “Summing up the various savings which I submit can lie made by the above-mentioned alterations, as against the cost of the river diversion at the ■ Waikanae. and the extra cost of dredging. etc., by placing the harbor nearer the town. I estimate as follows, viz: Cost of river diversion at Wai- £ 1 kanao, including railway and j traffic bridge over same, and j including cost of removing , part of groyne, dredging part ; between quay and groyne. ! and re-dredging present river 115,000 Cost of extra dredging if harbor t brought nearer the town ... 110,000 1 " _ . ] Total £22.5,000 j SAVINGS. ■ On cost of (100 feet of southern £ i end of western wall if same • is shortened bv that length and tlie end is brought in say ! 200 feet nearer the Kaiti ! beach, at say £2OO per foot ... 120,000 On cost of eastern mole if end ; of same is brought in GOO feet ; [ • nearer the town and reduced I ! 200 feet in length 10,000 ; On cost of bulge on western !• wall if same is straightened 85,000 1 On cost of northern wall of I j contour if same is placed in 1 •shallower water 25,000 j On cost of wharves and contour : as proposed by the commis- j sioner.s which require much > more material to fill them in 20,000 j On cost of an. extra suction ! dredge 10.000 . £300,000 j Savings 300,000 ' Deduct above-mentioned 225.000 Balance, saving of £75,000 ; Besides saving the inner harbor j containing at least 25 acres i of water with a depth of 20 ! feet at low water, and GOOO j feet- of wharfage, at say j £IO,OOO per acre, really worth i £20,000 per acre to us 250,000 Total saving of £325,000 “In the above calculations i have ! not gone into the savings effected by

not having to pay the maintenance of running one, two or more suction dredges, during the time the outer harbor is being constructed. Nor have . I gone into the cost of carting nearly j another mile, nor of the lighterage saved during the same period through boats being able to enter our inner • harbor carrying upwards of 2000 tons, j Nor have I put a monetary value on ; the convenience, peace of mind, and 1 safety of the travelling public, nor the 1 better and quicker handling of cargo in the inner harbor, during the years : the outer harbor is being constructed. • ; "I forward you herewith a sketch ' < plan on a larger scale than the last, : showing the proposed inner harbor , which is to form the first, section of j the larger scheme. "If at any time in the future on , ‘ complet ion of the outer harbor, deeper wafer is required in the inner harbor. ' sav up to 30 or 35 feet, it will be pcs- i sible to obtain same by driving in j piles of a proper length against, the wharf, then dredging. , 1 “If the ends of the two breakwaters ( are brought say 600 feet neareiu town and the contour and wharves back to ' j where I have suggested, that will still leave 1500 feet of shelter for vessels when entering under the lee of the j western wall before they reach the entrance off the cud of the eastern ' mole. Vessels will also have a longer ! run to the wharves, and there will be £ a greater distance for the ocean range i to diminish.” ' \ THE LETTERS DISCUSSED. 1 i Mr. Quirk moved that the letters be received. , t The chairman said he was prepared s to leave the chair while these letters v wore being discussed. , Mr. Preston thought it would be c advisable to refer the letters to the t Board’s solicitors, especially as Mr. a G. Lysuar had ail agreement with <: the Board. He appreciated tlie chair- i man’s delicate position, but he had c every confidence in him. v Mr. Tombleson said that seeing what a “good wicket” Mr. G. Lysuar was on with regard to his 1 per cent, agreement with the Board, lie should £ he treated as courteously as possible. • n Mr. G.’ Lysuar was certainly to be congratulated upon the nearness of n his plans to those produced by tho g engineers. Mr. Lysnar’s first letter s had been referred to the engineers and was considered by them. He (l moved as an amendment that Mr. 1 Lysuar he advised of this and that he he told he would have an opportunity of inspecting the final report. Mi\ Holden said that in-the presence of himself and other members tlie Board’s solicitor had said that there would be no liability on the Board with reference to the agreement with Mr. Lysnar. Mr. G. Smith said that members had no right to bring before the Board informal discussions between members. Mr. G. Lysnar’s plans had been put on one side by the con- y suiting engineers, who had drawn p

their own plans. Mr. Lysnar should be thanked for what he had done, hut the Board could not now give those plans any further consideration. A vote of thanks should be sent to Mr. Lysnar.

Mr. Holden thought it would have been helpful if the Board had had a written opinion before it from its solicitors as to the position in regard to Air. Lysnar’s agreement. Air. Preston seconded Air. Tombleson’s amendment pro forma. It would he better for the Board to have a consultation with its solicitors.

Air. R. At. ]3in-ell said that although the Board might be done with Mr. G. Lysnar it might not be th«c Air. Lysnar had finished with the Board.' It would be well for the Board to have advice. Air. J. Alouat said that the letters should be received. Then any further action would have to he made by Air. G. Lysnar. He congratulated Air. Lysnar upon his good work, hut the Board could not do better than accept the Commission’s findings. The chairman intimated that he would not take any part in the vot-

•nig. AIL. Preston protested on the maiter.

Air. Tombleson’s amendment was lost, he being its only supporter. A further amendment was moved , by Air. G. Smith that Air. G. Lysnar he informed that his first letter and l plan had been laid before the commission of engineers whose scheme had been received, and the Board wished to thank Air. Lysnar for the trouble he had gone to in preparing his plans. Mr. Holden said that there were other plans similar to Air. Lysnar’s. The amendment was seconded by Alr. Jamison, but was lost, being j supported only by the mover and ; seconder. j The Board went into committee, j and on resuming, the motion to “rcj coive” the letters was carried unaniI mously. j problem: of river entrance j A letter from Nelson Bros., Ltd., | pointed out that the reporting engini eers recommended that as soon as I the breakwater was completed and .in use and the railway bridge built i across the present entrance the latj ter should be kept dredged. Its ! means of transit from its works to the simps was by means of the inner i channel, but under the new harbor I proposals the maintenance of the j channel and entrance was to ho djs- | continued completely, closing its 1 means of transit by water from the

works. Tlie chairman said that Mr. Ferguson mentioned that tho _ railway bridge would have a span similar to the present Peel Street bridge. Mr Ferguson also said that he thought that tlie best way would lie for the company to rail their produce down. Ho (the chairman) did not know what agreement had been entered into venrs ago with Nelson Bros. The letter was referred to tlie Works Committee and also to the Board’s solicitor. Mr. G. W. Tifli'ii drew attention to the matter of improving the river entrance during the progress of the outer harbor work. A return groyne from the end of the western groyne at an angle corresponding with the thrust of the waves might result in some temporary benefit. The chairman said that the engineers had hoen pleased with the letter and had interviewed Mr. Tilfen and considered bis suggestion. It was decided to send a vote ol thanks to the writer.

CORRESPONDENCE. 1 A letter from the Mayor (Mr. G. Wildish) said that the borough would oppose any double rating. The chairman said that this matter was fixed by the Harbor Board Act and could not bo altered. The letter was received. The resolution passed by the Chamber of Commerce expressing gratification at the new harhoi scheme placed before the Board, lho resolution trusted that the Lon)d would take steps to carry the scheme into effect.—-Tho communication was received. . Mr. H. A. King wrote drawing attention to a newspaper letter by himself regarding rating.—The lettei was received. . . , A letter from the commission ol emnnoors recommended the. sale the Maui, which .would not he capable of undertaking the proposed outer harbor work. The money realised could be used towards the puroliaso of a larger dredge.— Inc letter was received. COMMITTEE’S REPORT. The recommendation of the Works Committee, was contained in the committee’s report, as follows: — , "Some suggestions for alteration or modification' were submitted to Mr Forgvison for consideration "by the comniissioti of engineers. “The committee have now to recommend that a resolution be adopted by the Board: — "That under and by virtue of the provisions of ‘The. Gisborne Harbor Board Enabling Act, 1919.’ the Board adopt and proceed with the construction of an outer harbor on the lines of the scheme recommended by Messrs Ferguson, Blair Mason and Williams in their report to the Board, dated April 10. 1920, .or any such modification, alteration or amendment, thereof as tlie Board may from time to time see fit or be advised ‘to adopt.” Tho committee also recommended that the following two resolutions be passed

“That the solicitor be instructed to prepare a Bill to amend ‘The Gisborne Harbor Board Enabling Act. 1919/ to the effect that the area upon which it is proposed to erect and construct the outer harbor in accordance with the report and recommendations of Messrs Ferguson, Blair Mason, and Williams, dated the 10th day of April, 1920, he vested in the Gisborne Harbor Board, and also that the interest on the loan for the first five years be paid out of t-lic Joan." “That the Board proceeds to take a poll of the ratepayers to authorise the Board to borrow from time to time such sum or sums of money as the Board shall deem fit but- so that

the total of the amounts so borrowed does not exceed in the aggregate one million pounds sterling at a rate of interest, not to exceed five pounds ten shillings per centum per annum. The money so borrowed to be applied by the Board in the construction of ail outer harbor within thu limits ot thu Gisborne harbor as defined in the first schedule to the Gisborne Harbor Act, 1905. Such harbor to be constructed on the lines of the scheme recommended by'Messrs Ferguson, Blair Afa.son and \\ illiams in their report to the Board dated the 10th 'day of April, 1920, or such modification. alteration or amendment thereof as the Board may from time to time see fit to he advised to adopt." “That Air Herbert A Disgrace Porter be appointed flip returning officer to conduct such poll.” “That in pursuance of section 12 of the “Gisborne Ilarhor Board Enabling Act. 1919/ the chairman of the Board is hereby authorised to request the town clerk of the of Gisborne and the clerks of the Vi aikoliu and Cook County Councils and the Alangapapa Town Board to prepare a roll for the harbor district setting forth 1 lie names of all ratepayers within such district." "That in pursuance of section 14 of the ‘Gisborne Harbor Board Enabling Act, 1919,' the chairman of the Board is hereby authorised to make the written request Therein mentioned to the returning officer, and that the solicitor he instructed to take all necessary steps to carry this resolution into effect." Air. Smith moved and Air. Alouat seconded the adoption of the first resolution. Air. Tomhleson thought the Board had done the proper thing, and lie agreed that the report was the best given to the Board. Mr. Preston supported the resolution most emphatically. 'There might be weak points in the scheme, but' there were weak points in everything. He had every confidence in the engineers and their scheme. He was largely convinced after the recent discussion with Air. Ferguson that the Board was on the right lines. I

Mr. Birrell said that for the first' time in history they were united upon a harbor scheme. Tiie chairman : That's right ; there is not one member opposed to the scheme. Mr Birrell thought that everybody was in a mood to receive the scheme. Mr Holden asked why the question of the river entrance should he brought up against the new harbor scheme. At the present time there was practically no entrance., so the matter was immaterial. The entrance was regulated hy the' river and the new harbor works would not affect it. Mr. Mount said that, from 100(5 ho had been one of the severest critics of the Board in its policy in regard to the inner harbor. Already one million had been spent, and now one and a half millions had to he spent, hut this time there would have to bo no mistakes. The chairman had always been an outer harbor man, and lie congratulated him noon the position which had now been reached. The chairman said that it was due to the action of the Chamber of Commerce in urging years ago for an outer harbor that the present important decision had been readied. Beforring to what had been done in the river, Mr. Humphreys said that then the Board did what it thought was in the interests of the ratepayers. A great portion of the money spent on the present breakwater would not he wasted. If one of the earlier outer harbor schemes had been adopted it might have proved a while elephant, and if the money spent in the river had saved i them from that, it had been well spent. All the time that the harbor j was being built there would be trouble in keening the river open. Mr. Dymock thought that whoever was to succeed him from Waikohu would do his utmost to have the scheme pushed on. Mr Smith declared that the scheme had his utmost support. The scheme would give a harbor second to none in the Dominion. Mr. Quirk did not think the inner harbor money had been wasted. "With a. good harbor now, however, the district would progress. Mr. Jamison also supported the proposal. The committee’s resolution was unanimously adopted. Mr. Mouat moved the adoption of the second resolution. The chairman said that, at the end of five years, it was expected that there would be somethingcoming in from the new harbor. The Board would have to decide liow the interest should be paid and the.fullest information would be needed before the proposal went to the ratepayers. Dealing with the third resolution, the chairman said that the Board had only statutory power to raise £1,000,000 and would then need to go again for the extra lialfv million when required. If the second instal- J ment could not be passed the works j

would cease, hut he did not think that there was any possibility of that occurring. Air. Tomhleson thought the Board should have the Act amended in orer to secure the full amount. The chairman said that the solicitor had held the method indicated by the resolution was perfectly in order and quite safe. Mr. Quirk moved that this portion of the resolution under discussion he adjourned until next meeting, to he referred in the meantime to the solicitor. This was carried and the remainder of the resolution was adopted. The whole Board was appointed a special committee, five to form a quorum, to deal with matters relating to ilie outer harbor.

LEGAL QUESTIONS. SOLICITOR'S OPINIONS. Regarding the harbor poll, the ! Board’s solicitor’s replies to the foi- | lowing questions were given out lor j publication : j 1. Can the boundaries of flic Harbor i district: be altered? Answer: 'The only method of altering j the boundaries is by Act of Parliament. Once the loan is raised and the special rate struck over the .Harbor district as a security to the debenture holders no alteration that would or could in any way diminish the security of the lenders would be sanctioned by Parliament. The area might be increased. but certainly net decreased. In any ease i; can only be done by legislative enactment. ; 2. When should proceedings he taken to obtain the commissioners’ award? Answer: Any time after the poll is carried and before the special rate is struck. The enquiry must be made before the loan is raised so that the Board may know what amount of special rate will be required to provide interest and sinking fund. The Board should if possible endeavor to arrive at an agreement with ; both the Waiapu and Uawa County j Councils as provided by sub-section 5 j of section 20 of “The Enabling Act." 3. What is necessary to prove before the commission, generally, in order to- . obtain an award in favor of the Board? I Answer: The commissioners may nci c-ept. admit and call for such evidence as in equity and good conscience they ; ■ think fir whether strictly legal evidence j jor not. This question is somewhat ! | difficult to answer, as it is really a ' question of fact and not law. Gener- | ally 'peaking the Board must be prei pared to bring as much evidence as | possible to show that both councils j will, more or less benefit by the construction of the harbor works, before the commissioners will adjudge in favor of the Board. Evidence of the character given before Parliament at the passing

of the Act will he relevant and no doubt the commissioners will to a great, extent be guided by their own observations and conclusions. It is obvious that both Waiapu and Cawa must benefit to some extent by the harbor. The main question is in what proportion (if any) should they contribute. The most prudent course would probably be to arrive at a compromise with the two counties concerned and make a certainty of it. •I. To what extent should Uawa and Waiapu contribute? Answer: To such a proportion of tlie special rate as can be agreed upon, or failing agreement to such proportion as the commissioners may find. The county nearest to the harbor should manifestly pay a little more than the other one on the principle that the more distant the locality the less the benefit received.

j 5. How long will it take to complete the poll ? Answer: The first thing to he done is to settle the scheme. This should be definitely agreed fo on Monday. The next is to request the town clerk of the Borough and the clerks of the Waikohu and Cook County Councils and the Mangnpapn Beard fo prepare the roll. ‘‘This request can bo made at once. Meetings must be held in the Borough. Cook County, Waikohu Comity and Mangapnpa. Fourteen days' notice is required. Immediately after the meetings arc held the rolls should be delivered to the returning otficyr with a written request from the chairman. authorised hy ordinary resolution of tho Boardto appoint a day for the taking of the poll. This day must not bo less than one week nor more than six weeks from the latest date appointed for any of the public meetings. The time allowed will probably be one month. This means that if the Board decides to instruct me to prepare the necessary documents at its .meeting next Monday the poll could he held in about two months’ time. (i. Can Waiapu and Uawa ratepayers vote at tlie poll? Answer: No. Section 15 expressly excludes the ratepayers of these counties from' voting. 7. What is the procedure to obtain further borrowing powers? Answer: This can only bo done by an amending Act of Parliament. If the Board decides to proceed with a further Bill I would strongly recommend that — (a) A clause to vest in the Board the land covered by the se.a over which the harbor is to be constructed. and, (b) A provision that the first five yours' interest be paid out of the loan, be inserted in the amending Bill. The first clause is necessary to meet the. recommendation of tlie engineers and the second would help tlie Board materially in its finance as it will have moneys lying idle for some time after the loan has been raised.