TAR-SEALING ROADS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 31 January 1930, Page 4

TAR-SEALING ROADS

PROPOSAL FOR LOAN

MOTION DEFEATED IN COUNCIL

At the special meeting of the Nelson City Council last evening Councillor Gibbs proposed that a loan of £37,500 for tar-sealing roads be placed before the ratepayers. The mover, in urging that the work should be done out of loan in preference to being paid for out of revenue, said that nine months' maintenance of the streets had cost £3069, and were now in a worse state than before the money was expended. The work could be done without any increase in the rates.

In seconding the'motion Councillor Washbourn expressed the opinion that a small work of a few hundred pounds might be done out of revenue, but he was against such a big scheme being done except by loan. Councillor Page said that the cheapest means of doing the work would be out of revenue. By this means £13,284 would be saved by way of interest. Under loan it would take 18 years before the rates were reduced and the petrol tax liberated, while under revenue the rates would be reduced after |seven years by £I3BO less than by the other proposal, and after the eighth year the petrol tax would be available for a further reduction of the rates to the extent of £IOOO. Councillor Page said that the Main Highways Board was paying for its work out. of revenue. If the loan proposition was a logical one would not the Board have adopted it? Under the loan scheme posterity would get the benefit of it as it would be 18 years before the rates could be reducedwhile if the work was done out ot revenue the present generation would get the benefit. An objection to doing the work out of revenue was that there would be a lack of continuity • but he asked what guarantee there would be of continuity if the work was done out of loan? No Council could bind a future Council. Councillor Page went on to say that under the revenue scheme a saving of £l5O per mile would be made as there would be no interest to pay. In answer to Councillor Moynagh Councillor Gibbs said the loan proposal would be put along with others and not separately. He wanted the Council to decide one way or the other how the money was to be raised. Councillor Page then moved an amendment that the work be done out of revenue as an experiment for 12 months. '

Councillor Stringer seconded the amendment.

The Mayor said the Council should consider tar-sealing only a certain width of the streets. The calculations had been based on doing the whole width. This point should be considered before going any further. Councillor Watson remarked that if a loan was carried the work would sure to be done; but if by way of revenue what about future councils? If the Council wished to see the roads completed it should be done bv way of loan.

In reply to a question'the City Engineer said that some of the streets were not more than 18ft. in width. It was imperative to have watertables. There were some streets where traffic would not warrant the full width being done, but the maintenance in looking after watertables would be considerable.

The Mayor was in favour of seeing what could be done for one year out of revenue. He mentioned that the city's indebtedness at the present time was £298,975 and the interest and sinking fund charges totalled £19,487. Interest charges were gradually going up, and in view of other undertakings it would be wise to experiment for 12 months. Councillor Huggins favoured the Mayor's proposal. In replying, Councillor Gibbs said the Council had been experimenting for a considerable time and had got nowhere. Councillor Page's assumption in regard to the saving of interest was a ridiculous comparison. As to the Main Highways Board he pointed out that it had expended about £922,000 out of loan. Surely the Council had had enough of experimenting with the roads. Those advocating that the work should be done out of revenue must know that they were advocating an increase in the rates. A loan proposal did not bind the Council and only gave the ratepayers a chance of saying whether they wanted it or not. He did not think the ratepayers would favour an increase in the rates.

The amendment was then put and carried by 7 votes try 3. Ayes: Councillors Huggins, McConchie,' Stringer, Russell, Page, Moynagh and the Mayor. Noes: Councillors' Watson, Washboum and Gibbs.