The Weekly News and Visitors' Chronicle for Colwyn Bay Colwyn Llandrillo Conway Deganwy and Neighbourhood

The Cowlyd Water Scheme. RATEPAYERS MEETING AT COLWYX BAY SEVERE ATTACK UPON THE BOARD A\D OFFICIALS. I On Friday evening, December 27th, at the Public Hall, Colwyn Bay, a public meeting of the ratepayers of the District, was held for the purpose of considering the present position with regard to the Cowlyd Water Scheme. Our readers will remember that following an ordinary meeting of the Colwyn Bay and Conway Joint Water-supply Board, which was held at the Clerk's offices, Conway, and at which a very lively discussion took place with regard to the delay, in oarrying-out the Scheme, and the extra costs incurred in connection therewith, a meeting of the ratepayers of Colwyn Bay and District, was convened at the instance of the Rate-payers' Association, but was subsequently adjourned meanwhile, the Chairman of the Joint Board (Rav W. Venables-Williams) had taken advantage of the opportunity afforded him at the last meeting of the Board, to make a full state- ment with regard to the position of the Scheme, and his own responsibility in connection therewith. At last week's meeting of the ratepayers, a somewhat lengthy statement was made by Alderman Thomas Parry (Chairman of the District Council), who con- demned the action of the Joint Board in several in- stances, and attacked the Chairman and officials in the most severe manner. At the hour for which the meeting was convened (8 o'clock sharp) there would not be more than about thirty people present, but the attendance was afterwards increased to about sixty. The only members of the Joint Board whom our representative noticed were present, were the Chair- man of the District Council, County-Councillors John Roberts and Hugji Offon, and Alderman Hugh Hughes of Conway, gentlemen, with the ex- ception of Alderman ffttffies, occupied seats on each side of the Chairman of the meeting (Rev J. G. Haworth). There were als-) present several members of the District Council, including Messrs John Bind, William Davies, George Bevan and Owen Williams. It was generally expected that the proceedings would be of an uproarious description, and this fact naturally attracted several persona who, perhaps, were not themselves interested in the Cowlyd Scheme. y The Chairman, with but very few remarks, called upon Alderman Parry to make a statement. Alderman Parry, who was received with cheers, said:—I am here, gentlemen, to ask whether you as ratepayers are satisfied with the statement reoently made by the Chairman of the Joint Water Board, you will, I hope, allow me to read what I have t J put before you. If the Rev W. Venables-Williams, who is considered a lion in strength and a fox in craftiness, did not trust to his memory, but read from his paper, surely you will allow me the same previlege. For what can a man do, that cometh aftar the king." First of all, I cannot understand why the Chairman of the Joint Board and his seconds should have ignored the request of the ratepayers P Why did he choose his own mount to crow ? If he was so anxious, as he said he was, to make a statement to the public, why not face the public, so that they might have an oppor- tity of asking him questions, instead of running to corners and closing doors after hiipl. Allow me to say a word or two on the origin of the Cowlyd Scheme. Mr Williams has said that he, some 10 years ago, thought first of a scheme for Colwyn Bay. Sjmetime ago, Mr Farrington said also that he was the first to find Cowlyd for Colwyn Bay, when the Estate Com- pany were thinking of extending their scheme. Which of the two will get the first prize ? Well, I do not think that either of them will have it, for they are not entitled to it As we have often heard lately, "It is all very well to be wise after the event," and trying to pluck the laurel from another mail's hand, especi- ally from that of the dead. If either Mr Williams or Mr Farrington first thought of the Scheme, why did they not bring it forward before the Umpire in the arbi- tration case—Sanitary Board v Estate Company ? Surely it would have had a great weight onQ way or the other. The fact is, they knew nothing apopt it. The true facts are these :—After the late Local Boarii had come into power, on the 28th June, 1887, we ry soon found that, although we paid X15,000 for the Water Works to the Estate Co., the supply of water to Colwyn B-ty was very insufficient. Early in the year 1889, a movement was set 011 foot with the, view of erecting a reservoir at the top of the parish, be- tween Brynymaen and Sweh. Mr JtA-i Roberts (Chairman of the Committee), Mr Frostj-aud others, visited the locality, and reported favourafeTy, and in due course we received a report from an analyst, on the water taken from the stream. Then came the awful disaster at Johnstown, by which so many lives lust. This naturally frightened sulne of u4, and we were afraid that something similar might happen to our District. One day, I was comiug from the Board- room. when I met the old veteran Thomas Hughes (Ivy House) on a spot where he usually stood,—the entrance to his bakehouse. He said to me You are thinking of having some water-works at the top th>-re, do you." and I replied Yes." Ah," he maid, You can never do it The land up there is too lo >se to make a dam, and there is not enough water for the District." And besides," he said, think of the Johnstown disaster. Why don't you go up to Cowlyd Lake? The Creator has made a reservoir for you tht-re already. It is the best in the world. Go there and see it before you do anything up there." I pro- mised Thomas Hughes that I would go up to Co.vlyd, and inspect the district The following week I did so. and, at the first meeting of the Water and Light- ing Committee, I reported upon w hat I had seen, and suggested that some of the members should go and vis t the Lake and district. The following resolution was afterwards passed :—" That the Chairman of the Committee, the Chairman of the Board, and the Sur- veyor, be requested to visit the Cowlyd Like aud district, and report thereon." Four days later, on the lltli June, 1889, the resolution was amended by the Local Board as follows: That this Board invite the Conway Corporation to join them in visiting the Cowlyd Lake, with a view of conveying water from t h same for the supplying of both Districts, a.nd that the expense of the Board be a charge on the District funds." Therefore, whatever honours are due for first suggesting the Cowlyd Lake and for starting the Scheme, it is due to the late Thomas HugLes, who was bred and born in sight of the Lake. [Hear, hear], and ilso to the Colwyn Bay and C Jlwyn Local Board. [Applause ] At a special meeting of the Board held oil the 25th June 1889, it was resolved that a Committee consisting of four members of the Board be formed, and that the Clerk be requested to inform the Conway Corporation of the appointment." Therefore, we, in co-operation with Conway were left to carry out the Scheme. Tenders were received by the Joint Committee for the best Scheme, and, if my memory serves me right,-And it does not often fail, Mr Chairman,—Mr Farrington's Scheme was not pres nted at the same time as the others. It also came in (without a date on it), whilst all the others were dated. Mr Newton, another engineer, was ap- pointed to report on the different Schemes. In his report, he states:—After the fullest consideration, and with an earnest desire to do full justice to each of the competitors, I recommend that the premium be awarded to Mr Radford." There the machine stop- peel for awhile. Mr Radford was in the way, although he had the premium, and his estimate for the whole of the work at the Lake, including pipes, mains, fit- tings, crossing the river Conway and all, with 12 inch pipes from Cowlyd to Sarn Mynaeh, was X23,500, and that was for first-class work. This estimate had never been exceeded by X100 in any premium work, but away he must go. Mr Farrington was appointed to take charge of the Scheme at the rate of i per cent, and not to exceed £750; his remuneration was al- tered if I remember rightly, three times. The last was in October 1892, not to exceed X1000. Tenders were ad/ertised for, and the following estimates were re(.-ei%-e(I ;-Sheffield, £21,975 j Wiriward, £ 22.4(52 Berth Jones, £ 22,450; Newell, 933,417; Bentley, £ 28 721; Weston, £ 26,986; Bugbird, £ 21,050. The contract was let to Mr Bugbird, because his was the lowest tender, and ample security was asked-for befure the contract wis signed. The Bridge, as you know. was a separate contract. Mr Farrington's estimate was, if I remember rightly, £1,600 to cross the river Conway, but, somehow or other (I cannot understand how it occurred, because I was not within the "Cabinet") the bridge estimate was raised to 5,000, This was a good rise at one leap. Now, the first blunder after that, was, in my opinion, to poty the contractor £ 1000 on his plants. In other words, to pay him before-hand the grand sum of 21000, to enable him to buy horses, carts, tools, etc. I never heard of such a thing being done before. Mr W. H. Roberts It is scandalous. Alderman Parry However, before long some un- easiness wa.s felt by some members about it, and two gentlemen went and saw the plants, etc and reported at the next meeting that they would not care to give £ 200 for the whole concern. The next blunder the Board made was to take upon themselves the testing of the pipes, and this cost the ratepayers £500. [A Voice Shame.]. There was no need for the Board to meddle with the pipes at all. If the work was carried-out properly, and according to the specifica. tions (which I consider were right enough, had the Engineer kept up to them), the pressure of the water would soon test them. With six mopths' high pres- sure, the strength of the pipes would be soon told, and, whatever fault there would be, it would fall on the contractor. The .£500 has been pent in vain,, and has not been well spent. Now, let me refer to the won- derful Ardda land which has been covered with gold. We cannot give the correct figures, but an immense capital has been made by some members of the Board in attempting to shield the money and the loss of time on the part of the Contractor and Engineer on this wonderful land, as to delay and extras. I am prepared to prove to you that there is nothing in it, or at least there ought not to be anything in it. If the Engineer had done his duty, there would not have been a day lost, nor a farthing extra cost Oil the original contract. It was the duty of the Engineer to get the sand, etc., cleared, for the Contractor to enter upon it. Mr Radford said distinctly, that it was pirt and parcel of his duty if the Scheme was entrusted to him. Also, so far as there was dispute, and the owner of the land would not allow the Contractor to proceed with the work, the duty of the Engineer, according to the specifications, was to give the Contractor notice to stop. But there was no need to stop the works, as there was plenty of room between the Lake and Ardda, and that should be done during the summer, and not in the middle of winter. It has been said that the Contractor was stopped for eighteen months. Say from June, 1893, to November, 1894, he has received about .610,000, I could show you almost immediately what sum the Contractor has received on the con- tract, and as extras, and, if the Contractor was stop- ped from doing his work, the money ought to have been stopped as well. [Hear, hear.]. Bit the L Contractor also received a further sum of because of the supposed stoppage. A meeting of the Board was held on Mirch 22nd, 1894, but I could not be present. There were only a few members present, --and they resolved to make the Contractor a present of .6:)00. On the following day, the C lairman met m? on Station Roid, and informed me of the fact. I complained,—as I generally do,— ind slid I could not see how they could have vote 1 the moiiev, as it was entirely against the specific itions and agreement. The Chairman replied, warmly, But you must see," and then rar. away. At the next meeting of the B )ard, I protested against such action, and the Chairman endeavoured to gag me, by asking Did I think that, bejause I was not present, 1 would be allowed to upset the business of the B -)ard' In the Weekly News for September 7th, you will find a reso. lution which was passed at a meeting of the Bnard held on the 31st of August. It is to the effect that the Chairman, Messrs K. A. Prichard and Thomas Parry, be appointed as a Committee ta assist the Clerk and Surveyor in any m Ltter that might arise, and as to the questian of witnesses, etc., necessary for the Arbitration c ise, and that the Committee be authorized to sign the cheques for whatever money that might be required in Court. Have I been cille 1 upon to sign cheques ? No, gentlemen, not one. I knew nothing at all of the way things were bel1l6 c'trried on, although I was Chairman of the Finance Committee. I was not once called upon to go to London, Chester, or any where else,—and I can tell you there is a nice little bill, I was not within the Cabinet." About two years ago, there was a Finance Committee formed, and I well remem- ber the bundle of bills that was produced—amounting to about Z50D-attliou,-h the £ 700 had been paid the Contractor. These bills were produced to the B HH,} before they had come before the Finance C miunttee, and under such circumstances I protested at the time against these being paid. Eventually, s )lne of the bills were before the Committee, and, upon my asking why all the bills were not produced, the Chairman rose and said that I had no business to ask for them. All that came before us, then, was about X260, and I protested against them being paid even then, Oil the grounds that they were not proper bills, an,1 most of them were without any name or signature. Tbey were initialed "1. W," and the Engineer and Chairman of course made a handle of that, and asked me, irionically, did I dispute Moses Williams, whom they siid knew everything about them. I challenged them all, and said that Moses Williams knew nothing at all about the bills. That same night, I went and saw Moses Williams before anyone else could see him, and he toll me that he knew nothing whatever about the men nor the materials, and that he was asked to sign the bills simply because the work was done to his satisfaction as Clerk-of-the- Works, and not as t^me-keeper. At the November meeting of the Board, M)ses Williams himself substantiated this fact. At the meeting held on December 7th, 1894, the Engineer repirted that the whole works was completed from' Sarn Mynaeh to within (mark you) six furlongs of the L tke. This was over twelve months ago. The Contractor has, therefore, sincp, received the sum of £ 3,00:) for six furlongs. [Shame], L In the beginning of the present year there was a complaint made of scarcity of water, and the blame, of course, was attached to Colwyn B LY. It has not yet been found that we in, Colwyn Bay are to blame, and it never will [Cries of No, no," and applause]. Let us have all the valves open, and-what is mote, —let us have fair play. [Applause], Let us put a sober man to look after them, and one that we can trust, and pay a trusty man a good wage. We shall then have no bother with the water. The sum of money that has to be paid for interest of money to Llan- dudno, for pumping etc., is enormous, and all this because the proper men are not in the proper places. I have mmy times protested against the extras, but three or four of us have been out-voted. I may inform you that, when these large amounts were voted, they were proposed and secon,led, as a rule, by gentlemen who thought they were scot-free from the Witter Rate. It has been stated that the extras on the two bridges, amounted to JJ800, which I consider is much too large a sum. Then, again, another blun- der was made by relieving the Contractor of his res- ponsibility. Then again we were thrown into the hands of the Llandudno Council. Valves were fixed, not to suit us, but to suit them, as you will find out before very long. This was done in spite of our objection, the Chaivmin of the Board getting wild and leaving the chair. A great deal has been said about the purchase of the turbine, what a good stroke of business it was, etc., but time will show whether the stroke is good or not. I may, how- ever, say that I do not believe much in it myself. Our Scheme has often been compared with those in other places, such as the Vyrnwy Water Works, Manchester Water Works, the Ship Canal, and I sup- pose the Panama Canal, and Saltord. Are we bound to follow them ? Is there any gentleman in the room who is prepared to stand up and say that all their deeds have been perfect? We know well how much money has been spent in many of these places. Has it been for the good of the ratepayers ? No certainly not. I will say no more on this point, but don't let us follow bad examples. Now, with regard t) the payments in connexion with our Scheme. The figures quoted by the Chairman of the Board were as follows Con- tractor, £ 21,050; extras, £ 1,600. I know the correct amounts, as paid through the B tnk, to be as follows —Received on contract, £ 19,400; extras, = £ 5,194; total, £ 21.,594. There is still £ 1,65q dm on the con- tract, so that the Contractor will have received altogether « £ 21,574. To this must be added the following items :—Salaries of Clerk-of-Works Clerk etc, £ 1563; Engineer, £ 912; Vaughan & Diamond', for Conway Bridge, £ 4,012; report of Engineer', x,593 13s Id; analysis, X5 15s 6d; advertisements, JE329 18s Id; cost of obtaining loan, £100 14s 61 Purchase of Lake, etc., t2,267 4s 6d; easement of line, etc., along main road, £101 7s 8d; purchase of land for cottage, £ 236 5s; Ardda Easement, £ 1416; loan and interest repaid, £ AS93 10s 101; turbine, £ 410; pressure-relieving tank, jE232 8s 51; 13,u¡( charges, about £250. Total, ,Cn,89ï 17s 7d. You must not ask me any questions upon these startling figures. Although I am, for the last two years, Chancellor of the Exchequer as it were, I am not within the "Cabinet." But the question is,—" Who compris-s the Cabinet? It is clear, from the state- ment of the Chairman, that there is one. rhe Cabinet, gentlemen, involves itself intJ a unit, of course the Cabinet has its officials (Clerk and Engineer), and governs the whole Cowlyd Scheme. There is another question close at hand: How long will this Empire stand ? The Chairman I think we should thank Mr Parry for the trouble he has gone into, in order to make us that statement. Mr W. H. Roberts: I will second the vote of thanks. I think that no clearer statement than the one he has given us, could not have been made. [Applause.]. The vote of thanks, on being then put to the meet- ing, was declared carried unanimously, the Chairman remarkino- that, for his own part, he wa* astonished. Alteman Parry I am grateful to you for your thanks, gentlemen. I can assure you it is not pleasant work. I am bound to create matjy enemies, but am doing what I think is justice to the rate-payers. [Applause.]. Mr VV. H. Roberts Many of us would like a little more information on one point, and that is, the reaving °f the Contractor of all responsibility. Mr Elias Owen I think it would be wise to give Mr Parry a little time before replying. Mr Weaver I think it is usual in a musical pro- gramme to put on novices first. I am only a stranger here, but I thought I may be allowed to say a word or two. I have nothing at all of the details of the Scheme, although it has been so fully discussed by parties interested. When coming into this room, j was told there would be a luke-warmness, apathy, and an unsurpassed attendance. I was also told that there would be rowdyism here, but I am pleased to find that such is not the case. Let us "-tid discuss this burning question in peace, and let ng hope that we are doing so for the good of the tovvrl The speaker was proceeding to refer to certain defects in tjciieme, and to mike allegations as to quay of the water last summer, when the Chairman aid whether he was speaking on the question at issue Mr Weaver I will come to the question afn. [Cries of Order," and Sit dùwn. Mr John Roberts It was a make-shift last Íll- mer. The gentlemen are evidently not in sympiy with your remarks. Mr Weaver I think I am perfectly justifiein making tiieiii. Renewed cries of it down ''nd Chair."]. The Chairman I quite agree with Mr Rolts, that it was a make-shift last summer, but Ccyn Bay was not to blame. Mr Weaver I was not making any charge ainst Colwyn Bay. Your energetic Engineer has do all he could have done. [Hooting.]. The au lienee refuse 1 to heir Mr We iver fder, and the chairman called upon Mr John Uobs to address the meeting. H J said;—I am not g^J to follow Mr Parry's figures, but I quite agree wihim on the question of the origin of the SehennThe award wis and the new main from :wyn Bay to Sarn Mynaeh cost t2 501). I could 110 tit at the correct amount of money paid by puttiniown the figures given by the Chairman at be last etmg of the B >ard. Tne Clerk (Mr T. E. Parry) hbJW- ever supplied me with a statement of the expciture. The Engineer put about £ 1,600 for laying fpipes across the Bridge, but the Loc d GovernmeBoard would not al'ow him to do so, and we were oje 1 to have a new Bridge. I am not here to blatnsj Cow. lyd Rjard Neither do I blame Mr Parryflless I blame him for not convening a meeting of is kmd s>me three or tour yeirs ago. [Hear, hi]. We have 110 doubt good represent itives on t B but you must remember thit three cliffe eillthori- ties are represented on it, and it is in )s t dJlllt for us to govern the lot. If C Ilwyn B LY hid t.iod the whole question themselves, it would havfeen in a nut-shell. But, as it is, whatever Colwyn y would like, Conwiy anl the other Districts opt to. I myself wis turned-out of the B )ard becaol was in favour of having a separate main for Mr/n Biy. I wanted Colwyn B tY to be independent Conway, and to let Conway have their own main. ,iave been told th it the Governuunt Engineer agH with me in this particular. We have been calle^gether as ratepayers, and we must face this quest as it now stands. We must not blame the B > to-night, because their accounts have been pasif Not one. hetlf ot the m Iney which has been p iin revenue, can we expect to get bick. Mr W. H. R )berts I say it is a sha then. Mr Parry has been fighting ill by himself..3 his done his best, and, it he h id been j jined by er meni of the Board we would not have tctcc this IX- penditure. Mr John Roberts: We did our vebest, but we were out-voted. A Voice You were not out-voted. Mr J. R )berts Anyhow, you 0 us 110 v. We cannot get the ininsy biek. A Voice Why did you riot prop >3—. L ^r'es of Chair and drller."] Mr John Blud: I hope, Mr Chnan, taat Roberts will not be interrupted. Mr Roberts: This statement, )pkie I by the Clerk, agrees with that which has h given you by Mr Parry, but I think we ought toep U1 )re in our minds the contract, and not thn fas. File Cterk and Engineer should not be blaall-or tie blunders of the Board. If Mr Farrington.pp0ns to be the Engineer of the Cowlyd Scheme, ibuld not be right for us to ruin him. This Scheme be of the best in E-igland to-day. Can yon take tbn ? Mr W. H, Roberts No, we eft". A Voice We doubt it. Mr John Roberts Put down.' figure3, and see whether he ex !Qe,te,l his eontra.etf{etdlug): Rel) )rt, of Engineer on Cowlyd Lake, 1'^ aualyst, £ j 15s 6d; advertisements, £ '31&* j co^t °t" obtaining 1 >an, 2100 14s 6 I; Ch'of-Work s silary, £ 33,0 3s; Engineer's commissiorSOO Mr W. H. Rjberts: £)4,2 aCL;Illg to Mr Parry's figures. Mr J. Roberts: It was £ ,S00- tin Boird agreed to pay him £ 200 extra, as the c(of Mr W. H. Roberts Enginect himself Mr Johh Roberts Will yalL>w tile to proceed ? (To the Chairman): This geB^an, sir, was one of those who helped to elect Mr W. H. Roberts: Pardo11, I was not. Mr John Roberts Yes, yOfovV you were. Mr VV. H. Roberts No, 1 vnot. Mr John Roberts: The f(of lfc the Board agreed t J pay Mr Farringto:300, and C209 extra. (Rsading): Pipe testing, ltqzi-, 31; purchase of Lake and Solicitor's c ha,'<1es2bi 4s 8d. r,e- Mr Blud When was the Ie purchased P Mr John Roberts We 114,1 Secure the Ltk-J first, and then the right to the VVL Mr VV. H. Roberts vVhis the actual amount paid for the Lake and everyig ? Mr John Roberts ts b l. (Reading) Easement and line of piplong main road, £11):) 17s 8 i; purchase of laud pottage, and road to Lake, £ 23J 5s Ardda e' tsitits. for pipe-line and purchase of water-right, Oii Os 41. Mr Jones of Amlwch, was the owner ole Ardda property, and he at fh-st offered it to us f<590. He subsequently required £700, and, if the trj had paid that sum, they would have saved ab two years 111 time and about £ 3000 in money. I ee that the whole Board is to blame, but you all kjr that the minority has to submit t) the majority.,q iding): Contract No 1, £ 21,821. Alderman Parry: Tnatniot be. H iw could the Contractor have receivec^t sum, and he has not yet finished. Mr John It 'burt-i Wdep about £ 2000 in hand, until the job is finished^Reading); Easements of contract, £ 2,351 lis 6 1 infract No 2 c 3,6 12 13s; easements and extras, .10 ll* Hd. They could i.ot get a foun iatio:1 uii-tiie pillars of the Bridge, owing to the fact that trocks near Conway C istle are not perpendicular, 'he excavations cost t.iern about k300. Ihjpc thitepayers ean See how the cost in connexion with i Bridge work, is so he ivy. Then, the turbine t )okaillwlI and a half gtlluns of water every twelve hot It w lS no wonder, there- fore, that the supply t->lwyn Bay and the District was insufficient. NVOI to supply tint quantity of w tter daily before Coli Bay could gee a drop. The Board, therefore, thoifc it wise to purchase it, and I believe they had a btiii-ttt'). (Heading): Bank charges, about £ 2'Ojeneral expeuses (and these must come from the is), e3,31 6s 3i outstanding loin, £ 3(5,63J 12* 7dvVe should consider our posi- tion like men. 1 "leased to be able to tell you that the Lake will b.lpped not later than Febru iry. As for the Scheme, i undoubtedly the best in the Kingdom. [Liu^1! Mr VV. H R (bei'tsVliat is the contribution of the Colwyn Bay iMsficud that of Conway towards the Scheme ? Mr John RjbertfXhe LjciI Government Board consider the pJPuon of a District, an 1 not its wealth. The Chairman Roberts wishes to know how much is paid in th- by Colwyn B ty, and how much by Conway ? Mr John lobel That, sir, is not the question. We pay, no doobfj out of every 1/ but we agreed to that when Wpplied for a Provisional Order. Therefore you minot blame us now. Mr William D.s You should, first of all, have had the consent ;he ratepayers. Mr Blud Th«hetne_ has already cost Y. Mr John Robr: t35, Mr Blud: Pve are told that it is going to cost another cLij Wnat is that sum required tor ? Mr John Hrts We have overdrawn at the B tnk, and arenpelled tj have a loan to mike that up. Mr Blud: 1 question was put to the Clerk of the Board, by Hugh Owen. I want to know why such a large m is further required, wnen the Scheme is so h completion ? The Cilaillo I dare say that some of you are. like myself, littlit puzzled. [Laughter j. We have been told fi'<the^ commencement that this Scheme has cost alrei £ 36,000, but, until now, nothing has been said a't the £ 10,000, If that amount has been overdraft the Bank, in what account does it appear? Mr John jerts We require it to pay the over- draft. Aldermanirry The total amount p tid through the Bank, the Contractor and officials, is £ 36,171 18s 41, »n'We :s a loan, which, together with the Interest thalnOunts to CI,So-) 10s 101. The tur- bine cost £ 5,735 19s 3d; and add that to the £ 36,000, it 1 re(1 11,8J7 17s 7d. We have bor- rowed if ) th'ough tne Loan Boards, and have received se-al amounts which were due from Colwyn Bay »nd Coiway Union. Those amounts were paid throij Bank. Bisides this, we owe the Bank, ove>l0,0<.0 J\Ir v aVi°3: And you are paying interest, I sUppose. p,Lr,Y Yes, of course. Jtfr Jet^s V- hat will be the total cost at the end Ql Februi, p Aiderr^ par-y So far as I know, there is no- thing I) to )ay, except the balanee ot the Con- tractoi s,c0ljic. That will be about £ 1.500, but we Dave th l00l6y in hand. That, of-course, is not jnc u edj f.|je £ db,000. We have already paid the £ ontrac-p ,->71. v Mr Bj I have here the answers given to the questions which were put in writing, to the Board by Mr Hugh Owen, two or three months ago. Ques- tion 32, was, "What is the total payment made Answer: £ 17,000.—Question 36: What is the pro- able amount that will be required for the completio-i <>f the Sjlieme ? Answer From £ 10.0)1 to £ 15 000 Altogether that would amount to £ 17,009. Another question asked is What is the rateable value of th- District," and this is given ts This beill so, the c)-it of the Scheme is likely t) equal in amount the rateible value of the whole District These are the answers of the Clerk to Mr Owen's questions. Mr John Roberts And this statement also has being prepared by the Clerk. A'derman Parry: We ought to have hid the value of the water three years ago. according to the speci- fications, we only al.ow twdve months to complete the Scheme. All the bother about the Ar Ida could have been easily avoided. Mr Hugh Owen was then asked to address the meet.ng. He said I am only a new member of the Hoard, not having been a member more than twelve moyths. U hen I was hr.st appointed, I knew but very little about the Scheme, and, very naturailv was anxious to know as much as possible. 1 found out ..ie amou.it of the contract, excluding the cost of the "jar Tlie Bridge contract was ~cW0o, and I was under the impression, from the verv oomiuen :em-:at, that the estimated cost of the Schem'-> was £ 7 0)0. Mr John Roberts made some remarks before the work was commenced, and I have here -l n'hyiof x'1" it-khj Vrin wh,c^ thty Wo"e is ed A quest.on arose at a meeting of the Lical Bji- 1 respecting th size ot the iniins, and, on th-> motion of Mr J >hn R >berts. it was decided to recom" mend to the Joint Board that the mains from th Lake be composed of 12-inch pipjs. This would mean a cost ot £ 1/,000, instead of £ 10,000 for 9-inch pip0s i was asked by one of your members, whether 9-inch or 12-mch pipes was in the specifications. 1 informerl him taat 12-inch pipes were on the specifications SU *10 keen 'k was 0-inch and' that there was an immense ditTe-ence between' the Hm's.i wi t 11 him,, an(] was a.stonished to find the Scheme running so much higher, as regards cost than the estunite. There was not much engineering' slvill lequuvd n, connexion with the line of pipe8 from nil Mynaeh t> Cowlyd. With reference to the foundations under the Bridge, the Contractor must have mide a calculation up m that. £ 300 w iS snent in m tking a st,ne coping to miteh the ex.stni, work on the oid Bridge and the C istle. This was stated in tho explanation we received a fortnight ago It wa« stated in the specifications that the wofk was to m itch th it on the old Bridge, therefore we have paid ioOj tor d .nig work which the Contractor should do ^Applause,. At least £ 100) has been spent, and there is n .thing to show for it. The whole work was very mil di^m 1 ?Unr: thf ef,orG h )W could it; amount to so monL.'i I, indeed, cannot make it out At tli;i poriE, our representative left, but we le irnt suos.quentiy that the remainder of the procee Im-s c.m.rised speeches by Messrs John Biud, VV. H R >oarts (who moved a resolution in favour of a L II,al (j > vero m ;nt BIard Inquiry), John Roberts wao wis attempting to address the meeting :l'JI'],in but Wis ruied out of order), James Mason "who seconded the resolution), and George Bevan (who taiie tj fiu [ a seconder on moving all amendment p >„p >ii.:ig _u.i.'ther action for a week); the resolution on bjiug t ten put, was carried ne>n COlt.