HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 67, 18 March 1908, Page 9

HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS.

I TRE MILLION LOAN. : IEPOBT ADOPTED BY THE- BOARD. - ___ report of the sub-committee ap- ': jointed to consider harbour works and - [_ c question of linanco in connection Kith providing means for carrying out various improvements required for . ■{lie rapidly growing trade of Auckland, | fras submitted to the Harbour Board at i ■ its ordinary meeting yesterday. This i yeport, which was published last l-'ri- j day, involves a loan oi one million to j tarVV out "the proposed works. 'In moving the adoption of the re- ' tort, the Hon. E. Mitehelson (cltturma-n) 1 laid'that the whole question bad been j fflo st carefully investigated, and the tig- | iues 'showed that they began this year j mth a surplus of £3.3,230, and after the | . completion of all these works for the I improvement of the harbour, also mak- j jn<r due provision for all charges, the; whole work could be carried out without I ! the port charges, and at the 1 . w( j 0 f ISI9 leave the Board with a i credit of £12,727. In making these calculations, the committee did not take i - into - -account any probable revenue | {roni leases on tbe land to be reclaimed, j md the Board would agree with him thai | the rents from these reclamations would j jse a fair amount in the future. Neither j _id the calculations include rent Irom [ .he ferry offices aud shops in the build-1 _tr to be erected at the foot of the i wharf. Mr. Brigham and himself, in go- I •n" into these calculations, had difficulty . to°keeping the statement from looking too good. He considered the result was sne upon which the City and the | Joard could fairly be congratulated, as ■j . tt showed that after spending a million i „ money the Board would still have a I jredit on the general account, after I ) -.woviding for interest at the rate of 4_ j jer" cent, and a sinking fund of 1 per lent. He did not think they would reipire te pay as high as 4* per cent, but Jhat rate was put in as a measure of ' gafety in making the calculations. The j important point was that all this! l>ould be done without increasing the j sort charges. The expenditure of the I taoney would be distributed over 12 rears, but he thought it might be found advisable to spend more the first twoj rears than .the scheme suggested, in or- i fier to provide accommodation that was 1 jugently needed, but if that was clone. I ftjss would be spent towards the cud of She 12 years. It was a pity these works bad not been undertaken earlier, but then, perhaps, the fins.uces of the Board ivould not have warranted such a large •jcfleme being gone on with. When all •fcese wharves were completed they | jrould hear no more of the dan-' ger of berthing vessels on the tactern side of the Railway Wharf, ; is the finishing of the wharf to ■ .he east of the present Railway SVharf would put all the wharves In practically smooth water. It might le that some objected to carrying out ! ill these works in ferro-concrete. He teas against, it himself at ■ lirst, but he was perfectly satisfied now that the "Board -could not adopt a better system ef wharf construction. The depreciation of wooden wharves, and the great an- . taa/cosf- of maintenance fully warranted , ~'. Bskg ferroconcrete in the future. Lust, year. £1,500 was spent on the mainten- ' ance of Queen-street Wharf, which was I , aearly interest upon £ 50.000. j Mr. W. J. Napier seconded the adop- I iion of the report. He understood it was not proposed to raise the whole i Bullion loan at once. The Chairman: " £ 100.000 a year." Mr. Napier said it was simply getting whole loan authorised in one bill Instead of several loans by separate bills. He'was afraid the amount allowed for • Jontingencies was scarcely sufficient. The Chairman: "In addition to £77.- ---■ .00. there is another £46.000 iv properV Mr. Napier said the Board might have .Undertaken some of these works before ia3 it not taken off 6d. a ton in charges for the benefit of grain merchants. By .'that the Board had lost about £200.000 in 20 years. The tide of prosperity had j only set in during about tbe last five years, which warranted such a large scheme as the proposed one. being undertaken. The way Auckland was pro- . gressing they might find that another £500,000 was required before the cud t)f 12 years. He congratulated the committee upon the report submitted. ' ' Mr. J. B. Macfarlane said 70,000 tons H grain came in last year, so that Mr. Napier was wrong in his calculations, is in 20 years the loss to the Board by the concession granted would be £ 60.000 and not £200.000. It did not matter lo grain merchants what the charge was, as they merely passed it on to the citiiffins, but still he considered .the present rate quite high enough. As one of the • Bnb-comn_ittee. he need hardly say he ... strongly supported the adoption of the report. Mr. A. J. Entrican said Mr. Gunson r /and himself strongly advocated putting .•r.the extra sixpence on grain. He eonsid- . ered that J per cent sinking fund would .be better than 1 per cent, and it would give an extra £5.000 a year for contingencies. That was a matter which could be considered when the bill was being drawn up. Mr. Napier: "One per cent sinking fund Will pay off the loan in 36 years." Mr. H. Heather supported the scheme, as the works were needed and could be done without increasing the port chargers. The report of the sub-committee waf ■then adopted.