CITY COUNCIL.

Evening Star, Issue 12881, 2 August 1906, Page 1

CITY COUNCIL.

The Mayor (Mr G. Lawrence) and Crs Grust, Arkle, Loudon, Walker, Connor, Wilson, Cole, Rutherford, Harrison, Piddis, Small, Scott, Brinsley, Gore, Shacklock, White, Burnett, and Riley attended the meeting of the City Council last night. —Miscellaneous,— The manager of the Bank of New Zealand forwarded a form of resolution which he asked should be passed by the Council authorising the Council to borrow by wav of overdraft. In it the liailities to date were stated as £95,258 Is 9d.—The resolution was adopted as submitted. Mrs Seddon wrote acknowledging the Council’s letter of condolence. —A Twofold Protest.— Mr Breen forwarded the resolutions of the I rades and Labor Council protesting against the Council allowing portions ot ' °. IVU *’ elt to bo use d by individuals for private purposes, as the T. and L. Council have reason to believe has been done; also protesting against the policy of the City Council in giving twelve mouths’ leave on full pay to some of the high-salaried men in the Council’s employ, while dismissing low-wages men in the dead of winter and pleading that the finances of the Council would not permit of their being employed. The Mayor! Received, gentlemen? Cr Crust: I think that requires something more. The charge of allowing portions of the Town Belt to be used by individuals for private purposes is unwarranted. The Mayor : I do not know what they are referring to. So far as I know, the Council are not intentionally letting anybody occupy portions of the Belt. We have not given permission to do so, and 1 do not know what the letter refers to." Cr Crust moved that the letter bo referred to the Reserves Committee, and this was carried. Cr Scott moved the adoption of the Water Committee’s report.—Cr White opposed the clause recommending that a poll of the ratepayers be taken on the proposal to borrow £25,C00 to reticulate Roslyn and Momington. Such a poll would cost £IOO, and the ratepayers would not have any time to go into the merits of the thing.—Cr Small moved that the following be added to the clause ;—“ That in order to enable the ratepayers in voting on this matter to do so with a full knowledge of the facts, the town clerk be asked to furnish a report dealing with the cost of supplying the suburbs until water in bulk (filtered or unfiltered) per l,ooogal, and cost of. reticulating the various boroughs, the working expenses in connection with each, borough where reticulation is carried out, the profit or loss likely to Be made by the-Council where they reticulate, and any other information b,e may. deem it necessary to place before the : citizens to enable them to come to a right decision on this, matter, and that the report when received he published. Further, that be be asked to express, an opinionas’.to the advisability of carrying out this reticulation and all other new. works connected with the scheme under the supervision of the Council’s engineering staff.” This reticulation of the suburbs 1 and completion of the scheme meant committing the ratepayers, to an additional cost of £65,000. Cr A ride considered that they bad had enough of municipal trading. He objected to such a recommendation going before the ratepayers as’ if it were a unanimous vote of the Council.—Cr Gore thought that they should have more information than at present,—-Cr Loudftji

thought it wrong that they should reticulate boroughs in the present state of the nuances.—-Cr Riley considered it would be Tre P roc oed with reticulation if the Louncil had a guarantee against loss.'— Ur Wilson thought that they ought to reticulate their boroughs.—Cr Shacklock con-, side red that the waiter ought' to be supplied in bulk to the borbugbs at prices fixed so as "to-be just remunerative.—Cr Connor supported the report. The bor r cughs did not borrow and reticulate; they uerc not in a position to borrow.—Cr Bosley supported the’ addition suggested by Cr Small.—This addition was carried.— Cr Loudon moved an amendment that the clause referring to the water supply of Roslyn and Mornington be deleted.— Cr Burnett supported this. It was time that this reckless expenditure were stopped. Round'him were members who, many of them, had been put in to check reckless expenditure. There was plenty to do to put their house in order before entering into further engagements. Mr Begg’s statement had proved to him that the Council would do a foolish thing in taking on work that the boroughs should undertake at their own risk.—Cr Loudon’s amendment was carried. , Cr Scott, in the course of his reply, said that he was perfectly indifferent as to whether reticulation was carried or not. The thing he was sorry for was that one of the members of his Committee should have voted against a vote given in that Committee. He trusted that such an experience would never be his again. Cr Cole: Does that refer to me? Cr Scott: ,Nq,. it is Cr Rutherford that it refers to.. Continuing, Cr Scott said that he agreed with Cr Small that all these matters should he laid definitely before the public prior to the vote being taken, hut Cr Small was wrong in stating that the extra, cost would be £65,000. That, was not in accordance with the Council’s information. . The Mayor said that he was sorry the matter had taken this turn. The Council had lost a splendid opportunity; they would have a lot of surplus water bn hand, and would now have to pay the whole of the interest. The report as amended was then adopted. —Other Reports.— The Works, Reserves, Gas, General, Electric, and Finance Committees’ reports were adopted without alteration. —Tramways Committee.— Or Loudon said that the Orders-in-Coun-cil authorising the extension of the Anderson Bay and the amendment of the Northeast Valley tramway lines were now completed. In regard to the Bay line, he understood that the building at Ross’s corner would he removed in time for using the extension to Samuel’s store. The only question was whether the Public Works Department would allow the cars to run before the widening was completed. As to Mrs Lena Gartner’s claim for compensation in connection with the widening of King Edward street, the original claim was for £225, and two hours. before the case was to. come on the mayor and himself took the chance of settling for £165. As to the tramways traffic, the latest returns showed an improvement at the rate of £4,000 a year. The motion for the adoption of the report was adopted.