BOROUGH COUNCIL’S QUARRY PROPOSAL

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 12821, 16 August 1939, Page 5

BOROUGH COUNCIL’S QUARRY PROPOSAL

Sir, —In reply to Mr H. J. Sommers' letter of August 14, I am prepared to answer his five questions to the best of my ability, also to express my opinion and pass a few comments. I feel that'he is entitled to this information, as speedily as possible. His questions in regard to the latest Borough venture concerned were:

No. 1: Cost of opening quarry? Answer: nobody knows. No. 2; Quality of metal? Answer; Not tested; soft rhyolite. No. 3: Quantity of metal? Answer: Not prospected. No. 4: Saving to Borough? Answer; Not gone into. No. "5: What was the Engineer’s report? , Answer: Nil. Now, Sir, my own private opinions and comments:

No, 1: had the Mayor’s assurance that it would not cost “much.’’ Well, Sir, £ 500 is not much compared to the national debt, hut £ 500 is “much” compared to most, ratepayers’ rates. Work this out Mr Sommers. We have passed a resolution to install the plant on a verbal assurance of 3d per yard royalty. No other information was given to the Council, so far as I know. I suppose, now we are committed, the other fellow will make his terms. There may be two eigbt-wire fences, a first-class road, etc., and gates at every paddock asked for. I do not know, but it is to be hoped that it is a good agreement when finalised.

No. 2; As'l have said, to my mind, on a casual inspection it is a soft rhyolite, hut you cannot tell without having a shot put in. No. 3: I should say sufficient of that class of metal —if we get the sole rights—to fill Tauranga’s need for some years. Probably in a year or so, we will not need this soft metal; it is useless for tar-sealing. No. 4: In putting the case for the motion, the Mayor stated: “that the Borough had used nine thousand yards of metal in the last four years and if we could save four or five shillings a yard it would he a big saving to the ratepayers.” So I have only his remarks to quote as authority. My own opinions are these. Sir: Cost of removing crusher, bins and screens, putting same in order, reopening quarry, fencing 50 chains, reading same, providing electricity, etc., a considerable sum. Cost of quarrying, say 3s 6d to 4s 6d. Cost of Crushing, say, 2s to 2s 6d. Cost of cartage,, 5| miles, say, 5s 6d to 6s. Interest, maintenance, repairs, etc. Royalty, 3d per yard. The present contract with Mr Duncan is 10s 6d per yard, less 3d for use of crusher", 10s 3d, Work out, Sir, the saving. By the way there was no engineer’s report because he had not been, j asked to report on the scheme. j I was sorry that I could not sup- | port the Mayor’s proposal, especially' as we were assured that “we should j have faith in this proposal,” as he | “had confidence in it,” and said “we ; should go right ahead.” Sir, we shall see what the next month or so shall bring forward. C. S. MOFFATT, Councillor. p.S.—Can you answer this question. Sir: Why does no one come along to see the Council in action? — C. S. M.