CITY WORKS LOAN

Evening Post, Issue 52, 2 March 1935, Page 10

CITY WORKS LOAN

REDUCED BY BOARD

£150,000 TO £100,000

PAVING- FROM REVENUE

Stringency in advancing money for works which local bodies consider to be of importance was evidenced yesterday when the Wellington City Council received a letter from the Local Government Loans Board advising that a J proposed loan of approximately ] £150,000 for city works would be ap- J proved only if the total amount was ' reduced to £ 100,000. Items which the ] works committee decided, in view of < the board's letter, could be cut down 1 were footpath improvements in Up- '• land Road and in Wilton Road. The '. regrading of Mills Road was recom- • mended for inclusion to the extent of , £3000. The attitude of the board was : severely criticised, especially by , Labour councillors. ; Councillor T. Forsyth (chairman of , the works committee) said that if the amount of the proposed loan were re- : duced to £100,000, subject to the items being referred to them, the board was prepared to consider it. The chairman of the Local Government Loans Board (Mr. A. D. Park) wrote stating that the board was prepared to sanction a loan of £100,000 for submission to a poll of the ratepayers. The board had not selected a , definite schedule of works to be carried out from the loan, out it expressed the opinion that stormwater drainage for Kent Terrace and vicinity, Hataitai, arid North Kilbirnie should be included. The board also expressed the opinion that further consideration should be given to the advisability of undertaking in the meantime, the proposed sewerage works at Breaker Bay, as the cost was high in comparison with the value of the land to be sewered. As far as loan's for sealing and footpaths were concerned, the board would have to impose a very short term for works of that description, as it considered the time had arrived when such work should not be done out of loan money. Consequently, the items should be excluded from the loan proposal. The board's sanction of the loan was conditional on the term being 35 years for earthworks, etc., 25 years for constructional work, and 35 years for stormwater drainage; that interest should be £3 5s per cent, with other conditions governing sinking fund, brokerage, and domicile. FALLING INTO LINE. Prior to the council meeting the works committee met for an hour, and had further reduced the loan proposals. Cduncillor Forsyth (the chairman) said that the committee, in view of the board's attitude, recommended that the new schedule for the proposed works loan submitted by the City Engineer, amounting to £105,371, be amended as under: Footpath paving items, amounting to £2269, to be deleted- item "improvements Upland Road, £2900," to be deleted; item "improvements Wilton Road, £6000, to be reduced to £3000; item "regrading Mills Road" to be added in the schedule, £3000 to be provided for this work If these amendments were approved the total amount of the proposed loan would be £100,202. Councillor R. Semple, M.P., spoke of the needs of the city, as pointed out by the Engineer's department. ihe council had yielded to the pressure of citizens that certain necessary works had to be done, and then .the matter was handed over to three or four old gentlemen, who knew nothing of the needs of the city, but were not prepared to • give consideration to proposals which were the result of months of deliberation by the coun, cil. The thing was a joke. _ Councillor T. Brindle said that the schedule had been frequently cut down. It seemed ridiculous that this attitude should be taken up by the board. Looking through the list he could see no item that was not essenCouncillor L. McKenzie said that wheft the proposals were before the council before, he had stressed that some of the works should be done out of revenue. The board had given authority for the most essential works. Councillor Semple: We thought we got our authorities from the ratepayers, not from the board. WORKS OUT OF REVENUE. ■ Councillor McKenzie contended that many of the items should be done out of revenue. There were some things that had to be faced in May. Some ratepayers were hard pressed, and there were projected expenses that could be cut down. ~„, ~' Councillor R. McKeen said that the council should enter an emphatic protest against the attitude of the Loans, Board. The rates had been reduced so much during recent years that necessary work could not be undertaken. Other work that had. been proposed to be done out of revenue would have to be curtailed. Councillor W. Appleton said his view was that they should get the loan through, although he doubted if the ratepayers would agree to it. He suggested that they should go to the Loans Board again and ask for a shortterm loan, say for ten years, .of £50,000, as it was impossible to do the necessary work of the city out of revenue. The Mayor (Mr. T. C. A.'Hislop) said they should accept the loan as it stood. He was not pessimistic about it going through. He believed the ratepayers would agree to,the loan as the Auckland ratepayers had done. The procosed loan there had been carried by a big majority. PAST OMISSIONS. Councillor P. M. Butler said that the proposed works had been lying waiting for years, and the point had been reached where the. people would have to have them. The chairman of the works committee had done his best to meet all needs. The works should have been done but of revenue years ago. That had not been done, but he was confident that the ratepayers would agree to the work being done out of loan money while money was cheap. Those who objected to loans being raised were those who had objected to the work being done out of rates when it should have been done. Councillor P. Fraser, M.P., said that the matter should be determined by the people of Wellington, but they had to accept the decision of the Loans Board. They had to realise that if they were going to do the work out of revenue they could not undertake the work without increasing the rates. He believed the ratepayers were willing to pay a little extra to have the work done. The council would have to accept defeat and tell the ratepayers that they wanted to do the work but had to bow to the Loans Board. ARBITRARY ACTION. Councillor J. Burns agreed that the board was not treating the council as it should. When the board was established it was for the purpose of correcting the errors of the smaller local bodies and harbour boards. It was remarkable that the city should be confronted with a setback like this. Not much had been spent latterly, and the streets needed attention. He understood Councillor McKenzie to mean that the council should borrow only for major works, and that others

should be done out of revenue, with which he agreed. In regard to the curtailment of works for the city, he thought the board was acting arbitrarily.

The Mayor said he did not see why the more or less permanent work should have been cut out. Then the terms of the loans were much too short. About sixty years should be allowed for a loan to mature, but they had been reduced to twenty-five years.

The report of the works committee was adopted.