HARBOUR INQUIRY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 30 August 1927, Page 8

HARBOUR INQUIRY

BOARD’S SECRETARY GIVES FURTHER EVIDENCE

ANSWERS TO COMMISSION'S QUESTIONS.

Mr. J. I’. Kenny, secretary to the Napier Harbour Board, continued his evidence before the Napier Harbour Commission yesterday, when lie dealt with further questions put by the Commission.. If you had up-to-date facilities ami a shed on the overseas wharf of the Outer Harbour might not the ships be expected to supply the labour for handling and sorting?—Yes. but the modern way is to do it as is done at Wellington, that being the harbour board in all cases to supply the labour. 1 named 'Wellington, but 1 understand what I suggest is not done at Auckland or Lyttelton. What is the distance over which meat is hauled from the Harbour Board stop block to Nelson Quay?— About 350 or 400 yards. In my opinion it is as much trouble as hauling to the Breakwater through shunting. This has h e «n a temporary arrangement during reconstruction of West Quay. What is the distance from the stop block to the proposed new Inner Harbour quays?—The railway arrangements would be likely to be e arranged and a charge would probably be made. Mr. Barton: It seems to me that the railway is particularly wide awake where they can make a charge. At this stage Mr. Candy was ic called and questioned as to lighterage rates. Mr. Grant: When were these rates in force—mutton and lamb 1/10 per lb. less 6 per cent., less 5 per cent., making the nett charge 16/8 per con; on beef 1/10 per lb., less 6 per cent., less 15 per cent., nett 14/11 per ton. Mr. Candy: I could not say just now. It looks like last year's rates. What lighterage is charged to those who ship through you?—The lighterage is all charged to us.

Mr. Kennv •'■■■ -«wered further questions as follows: — Mr. Barton: Me are informed that the sum of £168,000 has been expended on the following works at the Inner Harbour— embankment, rebuilding quays, and deepening portion of the channel between the moles What are the details of loan expenditure against the various items?—A total of £248.000 has been raised. On the embankment has been spent £84,340, rebuilding quays £39.000, plant, cement, etc. £14,000. A total of £71.965 is still unexpended, while authority remains to raise a further £52,000.

To the Chairman: 1 am referring to the statement of income and expenditure for the year ended September 30, 1926. On the expenditure side there appears for narbour works, wharves, and railways the sum oi £5.669. It i.s under that heading that there has been debited the amount that item which has Hen described as being spent out •>! revenue.

Mr. Barton : 1 see mat the revenue account shows a deficiency of expenditure over income of £8.087. it is therefore clear that even if none of this money has been spent on wharves etc there would still be a deficiency of revenue?—Yes. Where then did the revenue come from for expenditure on this work?— We borrowed it from the bank overdraft.

It it a fact that the bank overdraft can be repaid in tne future?—Oniv out of surplus revenue. Can vou see any immediate prospect of repaying it out of surplus revenue?—No. Is it a fact that what is called spending money out of revenue is obtaining a loan from the bank against the prospect of future surplus revenue ?—Yes. As no future surplus revenue is in sight it will appear that the bank must be repaid out of loan moneys. When that is done the cvcle will be complete and the work done out of loan moneys? —Yes.

RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE

Mr Kenny produced a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure for the year ended September 30, 192 A, which showed an estimated deficiency of £15.000. In ids opinion this would have to be met bv increasing dues on the rates under the board’s rating powers. Items were included which would ordinarily be done out of loan money, thus tending to increase the deficiency shown on the balance sheet. Continuing. .Mr Kennv said with regard to the statement in evidence that £lOOO out of revenue had’ been expended on reclamation, the nosition was the same as in the actual cash account. The money .as received from the bank by wav of overdraft. In the annual account the amount was debited to the reclamation account under the heading of reclamation. The position was that without that item the expenditure exceeded the revenue. With regard to he £l9OO received from the Napier Borough Council, it was credited to the revenue account when received and debited when expended. Mr Barton: Is the cost of reclaiming land charged to reclamation account or partly due to harbour works ?

Mr Kenny: Dredgings from the Inner Harbour placed in south pond years ago were charged to dredging account and paid for o'ut of the general account. Reclamation of north and part of south ponds from Breakwater quarrv was charged in Brekwater contracts against reclamation account and paid for out of loan money rentals derivable from such reclaimed areas being credited to the general revenue of the board All expenditure on the reclamation of the ponds since the Breakwater loan money was exhausted is from genera] account.

As the demand for reclaimed land must lie in ratio to increasing trnoc and population, what factors are likely to contribute to such incease, and is the increase likely to continue during the next ten or twelve years at tile same rate as for the period just passed?—Factors likely to eontibute in my opinion would be. i improved harbour facilities if coupled with reasonable harbour dues on goods and ships I see no reason why we should not reasonably ex. poet an increase in our trade during the next ten or twelve rears equal to, in fact, more than that, of the like period just passed, but here again the question of harbour facilities and dues arises. With a continuous increase in reclaimed land are rentals likely to ad vance as rapidly as in the past, and will not the natural tendency be foi the supply to overtake the demand? —lf reclaimed land is placed on the market in large areas and at fre-

quent intervals, the supply is likelv to overtake the demand. It all depends upon the prosperity of the district and increase in population Statistics in the hands of the Com mission on these points will be the best guide What prospects have vou for leasing land at the West Quay reclamation area for industrial or commercial sites?—l have not seen the plans of the proposed berthage and reclamation which I understand have been prepared by Messrs Holmes and Son, therefore I cannot answer as fully as otherwise 1 might do. Seeing that Messrs Holmes and Sop say that a wharf to provide ftp railway and stores thereon must be 2UO feet wide, the first call on any reclamation will be for that purpose. As to the present West Quay, which is about 1296 feet long this is only some 75 feet in width at its widest (the portion now under construction), and there must be some provision made for sheds, which can oniv be done bv acquiring the land along the quay front. Allowing for the advantages of proximity to an overseas wharf, do you consider these advantages would be sufficient to induce the owners of wool stores and other bulk warehouses to move to the proposed West Quay reclamation? Would thev not prefer to remain where thev are al ready established ?—lt would be competent for the board to build stores and undertake wool dumping, etc., byt the question then arises-., would the sheepfarmers and others give their business to the board, seeing their associations in other directions with the merchants ? I have mv doubts. 1 think it would take a lot to shift them from their present sites unless, of course, the board acouires the sections abutting on the West Quay. The area involved herein is 34 acres freehold (over 4-acre of which is not built upon) and 1 acre 1 rood 10 perches held under lease from the Harbour Board —the rental obtained for our portion on a 5 per cent, basis works out at the rate <:t £6220 per acre. To the south of the old bridge the board as an area of 2 roods 10 perches, which is at present unlet. The board has for some years at intervals discussed the advisability o f supplying and charging for labour on cargo at the Inner Harbour, but as no space is available for shed accommodation on the West Quay the question is deferred.

COSTS OF STONE AND CONCRETE

Dealing with the comparative figures in stone and concrete, Mr. Kenny said-’that'the board had had considerable experience in regard to its costs. Much work had been done by day labour. He could not say offhand the cost of the work per cubic yard.

Mr. Kenny, in referring to the statement published that the cost of the timer Harbour could be cut down to £170,000, or only £46,000 more than the loan money now in hand for the purpose, he said that that inferred that the sum in hand was £124,000, which was not so. The amount in hand was £71,000. The balance ol £52,900 had still to be raised. Out of that amount had to come the contract price for the eastern mole. Some of this might be included in Inner Harbour construction. If the board’s endowments were undulating grassy lands they must raise the cash to construct a harbour by debentures, ft was also a fact that the help that reclaimed lands can ordinarily give is to produce rents that are available to pay interest on the debentures. If the commission collected the best evidence available as to the amounts of rents to be produced by the endowments it would be able to judge howfar the endowment lands would be able to assist in harbour construction. The commission should also take into account the prospective values. At the best the critical period would be for probably ten years after an active policy was commenced. In regard to the condition of the Glasgow wharf Mr Kenny stated that it was in much better condition than it was in 1924 when Mr Huntley reported. Many repairs had since been

made, and it had not been let to get below the safety line. In regard to Breakwater maintenance Mr Kenny said that if it was suggested that 40 concrete blocks were wanted per annum for the Breakwatei apron, that was more than had been put in of recent years. Assuming that 40 such blocks were required per annum and the cost of the Breakwater was £250,000 the cost would not be one per cent. Seeing that the Breakwater was essential for either the Inner or Outer Harbour he considered stlch expense for maintenance was most reasonable. “It doesn’t matter whether it is Inner Harbour or Breakwater. I am neutral,” added Mr. Kenny. The committee then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.