THE TRAM QUESTION.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LIII, Issue LIII, 17 August 1908, Page 4

THE TRAM QUESTION.

Wg suggested the other day that tlio arrangemenisi made/ far ...taking an, unofficial poll in ooauwotiioia with, the tramway question gave insufficient time for a due discussion, of the proposal. The proceedings at Kapuni on Saturday evening show the justice of our criticism, for some of the statements made there were, we venture to say, entirely misleading and no doubt have got so fair a start in that district that it will be difficult to overtake them in three or four days, M> Bridge admittedly carried the meeting with him, and one cannot be surprised at that in view of the gruesome picture he drew of the financial outlook of tho proposal. We pass over the fact that whe<reas on the 15tib. October last he told the Waimate people that he "hoped no one would think ho was against the tram ; ho intended to vote for it," on the. 15th of August following he announced that "he had bean against tho tram from tho beginning." Every mai * no doubt has a right to change his mind, though he might very well own up that ho had done so. But his very reraarkabla statements in support of his- new attitude at once challenge attention. He gave figures to show that after the tram was in running order the. vises --wouUtirt no

less than £3950 a. yeao-. That is to say. after talcing- credit far earnings totalling £6,700 arye&r, the ratepayers would have to contribute £3,300 a-year to be derived from collecting every penny of thei rata for which tlip district, would be responsible and that the County Council would still have to find another £6f.0 from somewhere to make ends meat. No wonder the Kapuni ratepayers "turned down" the proposal straight away. But one does wonder how the Chairman of the. Waimate County Road District could solemnly present them with such finances. Surely tlieire is a radical defect in his sombre ¥ oalculations arising in, respect of provision for depreciation. In Mi" Black's report 5£ per cent is allowed for interest and sinking fund on, the capital expended 1 . Mr Bridge allocates 5 per cent to interest and half per cemt to sinking' fund. Assuming that this allocation is correct the rate of interest is, wet think, over estimated, for when the money market settles down again, it will probably, be found that local bodies will be able to gel. money at from 4: toi 4£ per cent, aacl that 5 per cent will cover interest' aaid sinking furd. But the allocation made ; by Mr Bridge ia incorrect. \ The official proposal is 4J per cent interest and ! per cent sinking fund. But the point we draw special attention to is that a , substantial sinking fund is provided for. Further than that, '£780 a year is set aside in tho estimate of -working ex-'i peases for repairs and. maintenance. Yet in spite of sinking 1 fund and the substantial appropriation, lor maintemance, Mr Bridge sa.ysa that noi less than, ! £2,400 a year in hard caok will have to be found for depredation, being 4 pci- cent on the total expenditure. It is tsruei' that Mr Black does say some thing not very definite about, a, 4 pe.' cent depreciation, but if. there is*any necessity for tMsi at all in view of the provision for sinking fund and maintenance" — which, maj be doubted it can only apply to certain parta .'of the plaait which arc not specified, instead of the whole capital expenditure. "The one per cent siuking fund would pay off the whole loan in thirty years; and if in addition tho. £"2.4.00 a yca,r - were set aside for depretciaTioo! (and Mr Bridge set no limit to the payment) thei accumulations would roon, become anoimoua - Let .£2,400 a year be set aside concurrently with tlte sinking fund as Mr Bndge implied aid inyest-'^ ed a,t compound interest, aven< at, -say, 4 pea- cent, by tho t&mei tiuei loan, h,ad been axtingui&hed ' tih.tM'e . would b& jp. ' trarriway well maintadried and free of defct, and also a. cash Jiccuniulatkni big enough to build two or three more similar tramways. There is obviously something radically wrong about MiBridge's estimate of thei liability to bei undertaken. Wo call special attention.'' to this, matter to-day without going 1 in- - to ether \ points, because . ih& figure given on Saturday, if correct, would naturally alarm not merely Kapuni peorlo, but every ratepa.yeo" in tihe j reposed tiumway di«ftrict^ But they cannot be corfectl It is utterly ridiciulous to , suppose that the schemo could be weighted first, \nflc sinking fund, secondly with - a ' maintenance fund of some £15 or £16 a week and then thirdly. o» top of these, with n depreciation payment of nearly £50 ;i week. If sinking fu^d acad maintem-' ance :\xa provided theVe can bo no need for a depreciat ; oh fund, and, therefore, Mr Bridge's semsational deficit of £3950' is reduced- by £2400 a year, and would get down to an estimated deficiency, of £1500 , reference to which must be deferred till another issue.