Heathcote County Urged To Borrow For Capital Works

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27670, 28 May 1955, Page 2

Heathcote County Urged To Borrow For Capital Works

Heathcote county needed much capital work in all its areas, and the only way to do it was to float loans, said Cr. R. A. Young at a meeting of the Heathcote County Council last evening. Amenities had to be provided or “sooner or later there will be amalgamation proposals,” he said. The council was considering'its annual estimates of works.

The list suggested by the council officers was estimated to cost £15,610, and the amount available after salaries and other usual expenses and general county maintenance had been provided, for was £12,602. After considerable discussion council timembers reduced the list to one costing an estimated £12,307.

“I took no part in the discussion of the works estimates,” said Cr. Young. “In my opinion they are on the conservative side. Unless this county is prepared to make progress and provide amenities sooner or later there will be amalgamation proposals. “There is nothing in these estimates about the park we propose to establish in Cashmere, and there is no mention of our very defective water supply system,” he said. “It is always said that the little local bodies have no plant. We should have the equipment, and we should buy it and use it.

“We owe £15,000 against a security of £4.ooo,ooo—that is no more than an ordinary mortgage. If we do not borrow money to improve our county it is certain there will be a move for amalgamation. We should not go cheeseparingly through our works estimate. It is a suicide pact not to supply water to our ratepayers.” “We can’t paint our county as black as you want to,’ 4 ’ said the chairman (Mr F. W. Freeman). ‘‘We are holding our ground. It is our job*to run this county to the satisfaction of our ratepayers.” “But the ratepayers are complaining,” said Cr. Young. “It is absurd that we should be lifting rubbish by hand in the county because we lack a

loader. The list of works we have had is only maintenance —the only item of capital expenditure on the estimates is the truck.”

Cr. A. E. Amyes disagreed with this summary, and said that of the £12,000 on the estimates £4OOO was to be spent on capital work.

“Why should the people of today be rated for posterity?” said Cr. Young. “If the work is capital the cost should be spread over years.”

“It is not money that is the trouble, it is labour,” said Cr. Freeman. “The city was allowed to take part'of Mount Pleasant with all the houses, our depot, and all the rest, and we were left with the back land. Once we develop those areas amalgamation will loom up again.” Discussing the problem of supplying water to ratepayers the county clerk said that the scheme proposed by the county’s consulting engineer (Mr H. G. Royds) for the Cashmere area would cost about £15,000.

“Whatever we do in the water line we will have to go to the ratepayers.” said Cr. Freeman.

“Cashmere could carry a £15,000 loan quite easily, but whether Mount Pleasant could carry a £ 10.000 loan is another problem,” said Cr. J. S. Scott.

Ratepayers in Upper Huntsbury received only their water supply for the rates they paid the council, said Cr. Amyes. , “That is a new subdivision that should never have gone through,” said Cr. Freeman.

The county inspector (Mr E. F. Johnson) said that £250 would be ample to provide extra Water tankage for that area and to lay a wider pipe from the tanks to the reticulation. The council approved the expenditure. On the motion of Cr. Amyes the council also approved the transfer of £5OO to the plant fund, where £3OO was already on credit. It was also agreed to discuss again Mr Royds’s Sian for the supply of water to the lount Pleasant area.