TIMARU HARBOUR EXTENSIONS

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22004, 30 January 1937, Page 14

TIMARU HARBOUR EXTENSIONS

LOAN OF £242,000

PROPOSED

RATEPAYERS’ APPROVAL

TO BE SOUGHT

WORK ESTIMATED TO TAK^

SIX YEARS

j XII k PRESS Special Service.!

TIMARU, January 29.

To improve facilities at the port, the Timaru Harbour Board decided today to submit to the ratepayers a scheme involving a loan of £242,000, to be spent on works which it is estimated will be finished in September, 1943. The works to be done include; —(1) The installation of two five-ton electric level luffing wharf cranes at No. 1 wharf; (2) the building up of the gap in the Eastern extension mole; (3) the realignment of the North mole.

The resident engineer (Mr B. W. Charman), and the secretary <Mr F. Metson), in a joint report, estimated the costs of the works as follows: • Strengthening No. 1 wharf to carry crane loading, £5700; rearrangement of the wharf lighting and capstans to suit new alignment of the railway sidings. £300; supply, delivery, and erection of two five-ton wharf "nines, £13,000; supply and delivery of Priestman dredge, £32,000; supply and delivery of quarry plant, £3870; purchase of a locomotive and sundry small plant, £3000; open up quarry, £1009; build up gap in Eastern extension mole, £10,000; dredge foundation for new alignment of North mole, dredge new area of swinging basin, dredge new entrance channel. £79,700; build new alignment of North mole, £48,000; lift North mole, £26,000; cost of raising loan, £600; contingency fund, £18,821. The standing committee reported having adopted the recommendation of the engineer that the realignment of the North mole be carried out in random rubble as opposed to the alternative suggestion that a part of the work be done in steel sheet piling. The proposal of the engineer was adopted that the North mole be lifted by means of a Priestman dredge.

Suitable Basis for Loon

The estimated costs of the proposed works were adopted and were considered by the committee to be a suitable basis cn which to launch the loan proposal. , , , A number of schemes had been worked out, and it had been found that the most advantageous scheme possible was one based on a term of 30 years, and requiring annual appropriations of: 1937, £17,000; 1942, £35,050; 1943, £28,250; 1944 to 1952, £20,300; 1953 to 1966, £17,360; 1967, £13,301. , . . . It was recommended that the ]omt report of the engineer and secretary, with the works programme and the plan of the harbour improvement scheme, be adopted; that the 6nfU' neer be instructed to proceed with the works and carry out the necessary procedure, bearing in mind the necessary loan; that the secretary be instructed to take all necessary steps as soon as possible incidental to the raising of the loan. _ _ . , ■ The chairman (Mr T. B. Garrick) said that the acting-secretary (Mr_ G. Lee) had been to Wellington, and had seen the Government authorities, who appeared to like the scheme. It was pretty certain that Parliament would not meet till the end of August or the beginning of September, so that if the board went ahead with the preparation of the bill there was a possibility that it would go through in about two Mr Lee said that the poll might be taken in December. Mr F. R. Flatman said that he had worked out the cost in rates to the various contributing authorities in the district on the basis of l/32nd of a penny, as follows; —Timaru Borough Council £627, Geraldine County Council £397, Wgjmate Borough Council £65, Temuka Borough Council £42, Pleasant Point Town Board £l3, Waimate County Council £514, Geraldine Borough Council £24, Levels County Council £437, Mackenzie County Council £314; total £2700. In answer to Mr H. M. Whatman, the engineer said that a coffer dam would not do for the work of lifting the mole, the Priestman dredge being the safest for the job.

Requirements for 50 Years.

Supporting the scheme, Mr A. R. Guild said that it was necessary to make the harbour suitable for all classes of vessels. All with whom he had discussed the position in South Canterbury favoured the maintenance of the harbour. He asked the board to consider how inadequate it would be if, in' the event of the harbour being abandoned, all produce had to be railed to Lyttelton on a single line, < Mr K. McKenzie said that the scheme should meet all the requirements of the district for 50 years or more.

“I had thought that the work could be done for less.” said Mr Whatman, who added that he was of opinion that the proposed rate would be found to be insufficient to meet the position. “I think that had we gone to a Royal Commission it would have said that we were paying too high a price for what ■we are getting,” said Mr Whatman. “He was dubious about the matter and of the ability of the farming community to meet the extra costs to be put upon them.

Mr D. C. Turnbull said that on a 300 acre farm the extra cost of the scheme would amount to 10s a year. If the work were not taken in hand, it would cost a -rate of l-16th to dredge Caroline Bay. Saying that the Oamaru harbour rate was Jd, Mr W. H. Orbell said that although some Waimate producers used that harbour, he had not heard of any complaints that the cost was too much. If they could pay id to Oamaru, they could afford to pay a small rate to .Timaru,

The report was adopted with one dissentient, Mr Whatman’s vote being .recorded against it.