ALL ABOUT THE NEW DOCK.

Evening Star, Issue 12943, 5 May 1908, Page 7

ALL ABOUT THE NEW DOCK.

AMALGAMATION DISCUSSED. The Harbor Board held a special meeting last night to consider the question of amalgamation with the Otago Dock Trust. The members present were—Messrs W. Barclay (chairman), G. B. Bullock, W. Belcher, E. Q. Allen, M.P., E. F. Duthie, D. A. De Mans, J. A. Mackerras, J. Watson, C. W. Rattray. W. Gow, and W. Wilkinson. Mr J. Loudon, who forwarded an apology for absence, attended during the course of the meeting. It wasunanimously agreed that the business of the meeting should be effected in open board. The report of the Board’s delegates to the conference with members of the Dock Trust and a letter from the latter body respecting the proposal as to amalgamation were received. The report of the Board’s delegates (Messrs C. W. Rattray, E. F. Duthie, and G. B. Bullock) stated that the following resolution was unanimously agreed to at the conference: That this conference of members of the Otago Harbor Board and Otago Dock Trust are of opinion that in the interests of the port of Otago the Otago Harbor Board and Otago Dock Trust should amalgamate, and that the Harbor Board should thereafter carry on the business of the. Dock Trust, and the following are the main questions which would form the basis of amalgamation (a) At least £IO,OOO would be required to finish and equip the dock. (b) The responsibility of final settlement of dock contract. (c) Reduction of interest on debentures to 4i per cent. (d) Transfer of existing guarantees to Harbor Board. (e) Necessary legislation to carry amalgamation into effect. Your Committee are agreed on the principle that it is advisable, in the interests of the port of Otago, that the functions of the Dock Trust should ultimately be assumed by the Harbor Board. In view, however, of the present difficulties surrounding the completion arxl equipment of the dock, particualrly in regard to the questions (a) and (b) of above resolution, yonr Committee are of opinion that the Board should not consider amalgamation until the dock is completed and the accounts in connection with it axe finally adjusted. —The Trust’s Proposals.— The following is the resolution passed by the Dock Trust at a special meeting held on the 10th nit. regarding amalgamation with the Harbor Board: 1. The Harbor Board to take over all the assets of the Dock Trust, including all the guarantees now in force and all statutory privileges and authorisations now enjoyed by the Dock Trust, and to accept responsibility for all the liabilities of the Dock Trust. 2. The Harbor Board to find the necessary funds to thoroughly complete and equip the new dock. 5. The Dock Trust to join with the Harbor Board in taking steps to induce the debenture-holders to accept interest at the reduced rate of per cent., the acceptance of such reduced interest to bo a condition of negotiations for amalgamation. 4. The Harbor Board to join in procuring legislation to effect amalgamation on these terms. Mr Allen thought that if the latter part of the report of the Board’s Committee were accepted all proceedings would be entirely- stopped. If the Dock Trust complete the dock and finally adjust all accounts, there would be no object in the Trust approaching the Board. It would be well if that part of the report were deleted.—(Messrs Duthie and Rattray: Xo.) Then, if adopted, we cannot go any further, because all negotiations must” cease until the dock is completed, and all financial arrangements are finished between the Trust and contractors. The Trust’s object in approaching the Board was to get over a difficulty about equipment and the possibility of being short of money for the equipment of the dock. Mr Wilkinson: Are we to understand that the Dock Trust are in financial difficulties? Mr Allen said not at the present time, but delay in the work had prevented the Trust from collecting moneys from vessels for docking, and the Trust, therefore, would probably be pressed for money for the equipment of the dock As to the dock, there would be no trouble. The concrete work and caisson would be com pleted this month. There was a sum of £15,000 yet at fixed deposit, which would suffice for the completion of the dock, but would allow nothing for equipment. Mr Wilkinson : Will £15,000 finish and equip the dock?

Mr Allen said it might and it might not.

The Chairman asked Mr Allen if he were in a position to move a resolution regarding the Trust’s proposals. 3 Mr Allen desired to know if there could ba a slight modification in the Trust’s proposal. The resolution was passed at a very small meeting, only five out of eleven members being present, and it was by no means unanimous. The Chairman said that no alteration could be permitted. The proposal was the result of a special meeting of the Trust called for a specific purpose. The Board had nothing to do with the personnel of the meeting. Mr Gow moved—“ That the Harbor Board, with a view to conserving the interests of the port of Otago and of the community to whom the whole interests of the port belong, agree to accept the proposals of the Dock Trust as a basis of amalgamation, and appoint a committee to further deal with the matter and report.” He thought that in the interests of the port of Otago and the interests of the people connected with it, it Was desirable that all the operations earned on within the port should be under the control of one body. The completion and equipment of the dock would have to be done in tlie interests of the port, and it was obvious the Harbor Board were in a better position to do so than the Dock Trust, which might not be in monetary difficulties at present, but was perilously near it, Mr Wilkinson seconded the motion pro forma. 1 Mr Allen mentioned that it was the wish of the people of Port Chalmers to be rid o. their guarantee to contribute £1 000 a year. He wished to make it clear that they were not going to repudiate anything, but they looked at it from the point of view that they should not be expected to tax themselves for the benefit of the whole district to the extent of £I,OOO a year On the question of finishing the dock he read the following report from the Trust’s engineer (Mr Robert Hay), dated February 28,1908: The cost of equipping the graving dock depends very much on the ideas that the Trust may have with regard to the facilities they consider desirable to afford those using the dock, as workshops, sheerlegs, cranes, electric lighting, and power are all part of a dock should such additions be thought necessary, but I think what I have provided for my estimate should be sufficient for economically operating the dock. I have, inter alia, provided for a 10ton crane, as any heavier lifts would be taken out of a vessel at the sheerlegs before entering the dock. The estimated cost of the dock, inspection, engineering, etc., when the wonts are completed, is closely approximate, and the estimate for the actual cost of the completed work is based on the contractor’s tender, less the penaities accrued to the Ist March, 1908.

The penalty for non-completion with in the specified time is £ll per day

Estimated Cost of Dock Complete. Contract for dock £58,719 Less penalties accrued to Ist March 4,334 Contract for cement ™ 13,083 Contract for engines and pumps... 2,015 69,483 Contingencies .„ 1,817 Actual cost of dock 71,300 Engineer’s commission and salaries of inspectors ... .„ „ ... 3,175 Total cost' _. „. ... £74,475 Equipment of Dock. Ten-ton travelling electric crane ... £2,250 Timber shores and planks and rails for crane and extra blocks for special docking 250 Wharf at dock for mooring caisson 350 Electric lighting RX) Substitution of concrete for timber in shecrlegs and foundations ... 1,700 £4,650 A good deal of the equipment estimate would not be necessary, and the new foundations for the sheerlegs would not be required for ten years. On the question of the Dock Trust being in a position to enter upon such an undertaking as the construction of the new dock, Mr Allen quoted figures showing that for the two years ended 1906 and 1907—that was, after the dock had ben started—the profits from the Trust’s businesses were : Profits. Freezing works... .„ _ ... £979 19 3 Small dock ... ... ... 194 17 4 Electric light _ 254 8 8 Sheerlegs ... „ ... _ ... 77 ig 9 Wharfage „ „ _ _ ... 18 17 6 _ 1,526 1 3 Rents of endowments 938 10 0 Estimated Revenue. Dock dues (new docks) ... 500 0 0 Rents from land reclaimed in connection with new dock ... 500 0 0 TT , 3,464 10 3 Harbor Board contribution _ 1,000 0 0 £4,464 10 3 The expenditure was £4,500 a year-. That was a recent calculation," and to his mind showed that they were practically in a position to carry on. They recognised, however, that the work they as a Trust were created for was done. The dock was practically finished, and they did notoffer any objection to the Board taking it over. Mr Dntbio : That is a nice way of putting it. j.ur Watson : It is the proper way. Mr Allen said that when the Trust asked the public to advance them the money for the construction of the new dock in 1905 the financial position was : Profit and Income. Profit on the freezing works £1,500 Profit on electric light ... „ _ 150 Rents of endowments 934 Probable rents from lands to be reclaimed 599 Profit on new dock 599 Harbor Board contribution 1,000 £4,584 Interest. Interest at 5 per cent, on £75,000 £3,750 Sinking fund, 1 per cent 750 £4,500 Net profit £B4 Mr Mackerras considered the motion somewhat in the direction of shelving the matter and making a committee responsible. The Board should b© prepared to deal with the question now. They approved of the principle that the dock should be controlled and managed by the Harbor Board, and the only question was the terms on which the dock should be taken over. He was not inclined to accept the 1 rusts offer ns a basis, and ho suggested that the Board .should proceed forthwith to deal seriatim with the points raised in the report of their committee and the Trust’s proposels, which were before the Board.

-Mr Rattray considered that the Harhnr Board were the proper body to control the dock, but he could not support amalgamation at the present time, as difficult questions concerning the amount of money required to complete and equip the "dock and the reduction of interest in debentures had to be faced. Why should the Board’s officers and solicitors be burdened with the battles of the Trust?

Air Duthie endorsed and supported Mr Rattray’s remarks, and pointed out that the Board had had no report from their engineer regarding tho condition of the Trust’s plant. Mr Bullock said that it was clear that the Trust were not in a position to finish and equip the dock, and it was certain that some body would have to complete it. Unless they said “We will” or “We wili not amalgamate” soon thev would lose this session of Parliament, and tho dock would stand idle. The dock was of vital importance to the trade of the port, and if the I rust could not finish and equip the dock the Harbor Board were the only other body to do it.

Mr Belcher said he would oppose the motion. The Board should sav either “yea” or “nay” to the Trust. ‘He was desirous of seeing the port go ahead. The dock would help to make the port, and the sooner the Board got hold of the dock and everything connected with it the better it would be for the port. Concerning the debentures, he thought the holders would jump at a certainty of 4£ per cent, from the Board in preference to an uncertainty of 5 per cent, from the Trust. In the matter of equipment the Board, it seemed to him, must assume a certain amount of responsibility. The dock would be no good unless it was properly equipped and that master, he took it, was one of the responsibilities that would have to bo faced by the Board if amalgamation took place The beet, thing to do was to take the whole concern over. No doubt it was in Queer street, otherwise there would not'be any attempt at amalgamation. Let them bring a little common sense to bear on the matter, and try not only to benefit the port, but also to relieve the Dock Trust. If £IO,OOO or £15,000 would be required yet in connection with the contract, it would became a burden on the port, and the community would have to bear it. He believed that both the Union Company and the Port- Chalmers Council would he prepared to let their guarantees go, notwithstandin" what Mr Men had said. As he had said, the Board had all the information before it that it could possibly got, and members should come to a decision that night on the master, and with that end in view ho moved—“ That this Board accept the offer made by the Dock Trust with a view to amalgamation.” Mr Watson seconded the amendment, which was put to the meeting and lost Messrs Belcher, Watson, and Do Mans being the supporters. After Mr Gow had replied on the main question the motion was put and carried by six votes to five, as under: —For Messrs Gow, London, Wilkinson, Watson Allen; against—Messrs Duthie llattiay, Dc Mans. Maekonras, and Belcher. In terms of the motion the following were appointed as a committee:—Messrs London, Duthie, Belcher, Allen. Gow, Bullock, and the chairman (Mr W Barclay).