HARBOUR BOARD.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 175, 9 July 1912, Page 3

HARBOUR BOARD.

SPECIAL MEETING

LOAN PROPOSALS DISCUSSED

The Harbour Board met yesterday afternoon for the purpose of considering the Bill proposed to be submitted to Parliament in connection with the loan of £30,000 for reclamation purposes. Present: Mr. Jull (chair), and Messrs. Ellison, Parsons, Niven, Dolbel, Langridge, Butler, Carnell, and McGrath. Mr. Kennedy U.E., and Mr. Campbell, solicitor, were also present to advise the board upon engineering and legal questions.

Mr. Jull opened the meeting with an explanation as to the necessity for consideration of the Bill which they proposed to place before Parliament. The draft of the Bill was before them, and he read a letter from the solicitors showing that certain formal steps had to be taken before the Bill was presented. Acting on instructions from the board he had, with the secretary, waited upon the solicitors to have the Bill drafted. But a section of the press had raised objection because no poll was to be taken. He had therefore sent a message to the secretary suggesting that clauses should be inserted making provision for the taking of a poll if it was wanted. He might say that personally he had no feeling in the matter. He had no desire to prevent the ratepayers expressing an opinion except that it was unusual to take a poll where no rating powers were asked for. If they had marie provision for the striking of a Irate then they ccnlld appeal to the ratepayers. The cost of a poll upon the question, he pointed out, would be about £6OO, ,or ,say, 2 per cent, on the £30,000. To his mind this was rather an expensive expression of opinion. No question of propriety was involved. When the last Bill was placed before Parliament a clause providing for a poll was inserted, but on that occasion the ratepayers were considering where the harbour should be placed. (There was a great controversy.) Moreover, the beard as then constituted, was not an elective body. Since then the board had been elected, and one of the factors in that election was the necessity for making their reserves more productive of revenue. The board had entered into negotiations with the syndicate and had come to an agreement to purchase the interest oi the company for £17,000. Obviously they could not do this without money. It was important that they should receive the maximum revenue possible. That is why the board, rather than take the money direct from the ratepayers, was acting so as not to encroach seriously either upon revenue or rates. The committee had been through the Bill and were acquainted with all except the clause which the solicitors had prepared with regard to the sinking funds. The Bill actually provided for the raising of. £30,000. If they now paid £4OOO to the syndicate it would be refunded from the loan. They already had, by the powers conferred upon them in 1899, the right to borrow £13,000, and they therefore proposed to take advantage of the Bill. There was no provision in the Bill for a rate, but there was provision for the taking of a poll if it was so wished. Mr. Carnell wanted to know what was the difference between revenue and rates. If there was a deficiency it would have to be made up out of rates.

Mr. Jull pointed out that rather than take the money out of the general account, the board decided to borroxv.

Mr. Carnell declared that the only feeling he had in the matter was that they should take the ratepayers into their confidence. The chairman had pointed out that a poll would cost a lot of money and that should be taken into consideration. THE BILL READ.

Mr. T. Butler then asked that the Bill should be read, and in compliance with his request it was read and explained by Mr. Campbell. Mr. Jull remarked, on the conclusion of the reading, that he had asked Mr. Campbell to state, so far as he knew, what the procedure had been in other places with regard to such loans.

Mr. Campbell gave a list of places where important loans had been raised without polls. Without the amounts borrowed the places were as follows : In Auckland, 1899 and 1908 ; Otago, 1880 and 1907; Lyttelton, 1878 and 1897. Mr. Campbell pointed out that time was not at his disposal to quote further cases, but speaking generally where the work to be undertaken was speculative, such as making a new' harbour, a poll was taken, but where it w'as merely a question of improving endowments no poll was taken.

Mr. Jull pcf'nted out that in the last Bill there was provision for a poll, but no provision for striking a rate. He looked upon the present proposal as so outside the ordinary and was so satisfied that the ratepayers would appreciate the object that lie had no hesitation in going to a poll, only it was asking the ratepayers to pay £5OO or £6OO. But he was quite prepared to take a poll if desired. MOTION TO ADOPT THE BILL. Mr. McGrath said in most things he believed in going to the ratepayers, but not on this occasion, as it was purely a reproductive work, and was on the platform of the board when it was elected. It would be better to reclaim another ten or fifteen acres than spend six or seven hundred pounds upon a poll. It meant waste of time and money to take the poll. The people would wi 1ingly give consent and the proposal would be endorsed by every section of the community. lie had met a good number of people in connection with the loan, and without exception they were in favour of having the money raised and the land reclaimed.

He moved that the Bill be presented to Parliament at the earliest opportunity, with the exception of the poll clauses.

Mr. Carnell interjected that the board was returned to protect the ratepayers.

MR. KENNEDY’S ESTIMATES. Mr. Jull then asked Mr, U, D. Kennedy to explain to the board what was proposed to be done, Mr. Kennedy displayed a plan and pointed out the areas which it was proposed to reclaim and the uses which could be made of the river and dredging. He held that it was a great pity to see this land lying idle and not make use of the floods to secure reclamation. Part of the land could be fully reclaimed in four or five years and other parts would take ?ight or nine. A formal letter from Mr. Kennedy was then read as follows :— Herewith I enclose, as instructed by you (a) Approximate estimates of the cost of reclamation. (b) The estimated values on completion of expenditure, with present values for comparison. (c) Estimates of increased and pre sent revenue. You will note that all these estimates are connected with the Whare-o-inaraenui block.

I am unable to supply you with particulars concerning the 543 acre block, or the lagoons at the Spit, as I am not ill possession of the necessary particulars. Concerning the former I would respectfully suggest that any reclamation works should be done in conjunction with the River Board, as it has at present under consideration the construction of an overflow chan nel which could be utilised for reclamation.

Concerning the lagoon at the Spit. I think the late Mr. Napier-Bell supplied estimates. Tn the event of an Inner Harbour scheme being proceeded with, the material excavated from the harboui could be used for filling up the lagoons, or in the case of the Breakwater Harbour, there would be a quantity of clay', etc. that could be utilised. RECLAMATION OF WHARE-O-MARAENUI BLOCK. Estimated Exoenditure. £ Due C. D. Kennedy & Co. 4,000 Dredge 3,00 C Dredging charnels (per.).. 8,000 Dredging channels (temp).. 5,000 Erection of embankments.. 4,000 Excavation overflow chan’ls 2,000 Engineering and contingencies 4,000 £30,000 Estimated vjdae of property on completion of Expenditure. 140 acres at £3OO 42,000 60 acres at £2OO 12,000 1100 acres at £45 49,500 £103,500 Present Values (According to Harboard Board Valuers.) 600 acres at £l9 11,40 C 200 acres at £5 1,000 500 acres at £lO 5,000 £17,400 Increased value £86,100 Estimate of Increased Revenue. Present Revenue: — 600 acres £450 per an. 500 acres £250 per an. 200 acres £26 per an. £726 per an. Estimated revenue on completion of expenditure £5,000 per an. Estimated increase of revenue £4274per-an. THE MOTION SECONDED.

Mr. C. Ellison seconded Mr. McGrath’s resolution and quite agreed with what had been said. He understood that, the board should do the work and that they could not do it without money. If they wanted it to make a new harbour they should ask the ratepayers, but in the matter of a small sum for reproductive works it was quite competent for them to do without a poll. They might do as others had done and say it was not adx'isable. AN AMENDMENT.

Mr. Butler moved as an amendment that the matter should go be fore the ratepayers. Everything should go before the. ratepayers, otherwise their liberty was taken from them. It was not for the board to say what was right. Every man in Waipawa was against the proposal. The proposal was not selfsupporting without the rates and,the ratepayers were the best judges. In reply to an interjection from Mr. •Jul), Mr. Butler said he could not understand the scheme and therefore could not say if it was a good one or not, but he held that the ratepayers ought to have a say. He was not against the loan but he wanted the ratepayers to have a say. They came 60 miles from Waipawa to attend the meeting and should have a say. He reminded Mr. Jull of his own wards upon the occasion of the last Bill. Mr. Carnell seconded and said he opposed the motion. They should take the ratepayers into their confidence. It was a matter of speculation. He hoped and trusted they would go to the ratepayers. Mr. Niven said Cr. Ellison had put the matter in a nut shell. The board had come into office pledged to carry on reclamation and the ratepayers could not expect them to do that without money. This did not apply to Mr. Butler or Mr. Carnell, but the rest of them had come in pledged to support reclamation. Mr. Langridge thought that the matter should go before the ratepayers, and so far as he was concerned he would do his best to get it carried. It was in the interest of the board to do this ; he would not like to see them break a democratic principle. He was a Liberal and did not care who knew it. Mr. Butler: “Hear! Hear"’

Continuing, Mr. Langridge said that he wanted the ratepayers to see the board was above board in all cases. There was no difficulty in getting the proposal passed as it was only a contingent liability and as shown it would recoup the ratepayers. He had no hesitation in adopting the proposals and none in going to the ratepayers. To refuse to take a poll made them look as if they were ashamed to let the people ‘ what they were doing. He was

lever afraid to let anyone see wha’ ae did. The Chairniail: I Still pifeased t< neet you. (Laughter,) Continuing, Mr, Langridge point ?d out that they would presently have a report from the engineer! md should have to ask for mucl more money. Therefore they shouk ay their proposals upon a soum 'oundation. The Chairman re-iterated that h< lad no personal feeling in the mat er whatever except that he ob iected to cost and delay. He pointet >ut that Mr. Butler considered they .vere asking for £43,000 but the; tlready had the power to raise £l3, 700, therefore why take a poll fo' :he other £30.000. In such case ob jection might be waived. But he em phasised the fact that if a substan ;ial minority of the ratepayers want jd a poll he was quite prepared t< give it to them and keep the cos' down as low as possible. It migh' oerhaps. he remarked smilingly, ge /hem into the way of saying yes t< 1 harbour loan proposal. He sug gested to Mr. McGrath to withdraw his motion and thus permit of a pol beinr taken. THE MOTION WITHDRAWN. Mr. McGrath said he would no give wax- one point. He had no* heard one single argument whicl would show- they were wrong in no' asking the ratepayers. As to Mr Butler’s remarks, he pointed onthat a rate was being pledged whet the chairman supported the holding of a poll. However, he would agree to withdraw his motion.

Mr, Ellison agreed to the with drawal of the motion but though' the real danger lax* in lack of inter est at the poll. Those opposed t< L he loan xvbuld vote while many ii favour of it would not take th bother. There was no provision foi meetings or anything.

Mr. Parsons said he was sorry t( see the motion withdrawn. The peo ole did not want to be bothered wit] the matter, but perhaps it was jus: as well. But he held it xvas then duty to spend the money. Mr. Jull then moved that the Bil as drafted be presented to Parlia tnent and the members for Napier Haxvke’s Bav, Waipawa and Pahia tua be supplied with copies of same Mr. Langridge seconded and the meeting then rose.