RODING RIVER SCHEME

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 2 April 1938, Page 2

RODING RIVER SCHEME

MORE QUESTIONS ASKED

ITo The Editor! Sir.—l wish to thank Mr Page for his very doubtful compliment re my intelligence. His reply shows that either he is unable to grasp a simple question or else it is the usual camouflage, or an attempt at bluff. It didn't require no rh consideration re the water loan. Yc gods and little fishes; over £123.000 to give Nelson a few hundred thousand gallons more water over two months of the year, and they tell us they have given this matter serious considera'ion. Mr Page slates: "I have ro ue re cr need to correct any statement, which 1 have made.’’ Exactly, Mr Page, and you have stated that £25.000 of the Government grant was to be spent on the head w orks, and now you say a tender under £15.000 has been received Would Mr Page have us believe that a job estimated to cost £25.000 or over can be done for well under .115.000’' Now. Mr Page, why was the time extended for receiving tenders < silently as far as Nelson was concerned* li*>m 10th January to 4th February, ard what took place at the Council rivetings during these intervening weeks'* ! It appears to me that there has been n distinct breach of faith with the ratepayers. and as I stated in my previous letter in last Saturday's "Mail." the City ; Council has no right to accept a .coder for this work, as it seems there has been some vital alteration in the propo .ed , works since the poll was taken and it is not the same project on whicn Ire voting was recorded. Mr Page goes off on a tangent «•< ‘Hit the reticulation amount. What i r v A ied herring? I never menlined re--5 ticulation; what I am concerned übout !is the total amount. Is it n**t ivll er I singular that in the Mayor's stfci runt to ’’The Mail" of the 17th March, the only reference to the hcadworks he makes is that "the tender received will leave a sum of £15.000 for the ir+Jd&e dam (which has been deferred in t.vp meantime"i. etc. Why deferred? Why was the tendef not accepted, and v.hy ; keep the ratepayers in the dark 0 Now. Sir. will Mr Page tell us the amount allowed for the hcadworks in the City Council's application to the Local Bodies Loans Board? I cordially invite Mr Page to hold a public meeting of ratepayer* t • explain matters and answer questions, and I can guarantee him a good attendance. It is a splendid opportunity of opening his election campaign —I am. etc., H. BARLTROP Nelson. 31st March.

MAYOR’S REPLY TO MR BARLTROP

In reply to the above letter the Mayor • Mr G. L Page) said: "I can assure Mr Barltrop that 1 have no desire or need to use any camouflag >or bluff. My sole desire i* i to give al! available information and to make the position as clear as posj sible to ratepayers. No good purpose I would be served at this stage by reopening the discussion on the merits of the scheme. The proposal was submitted to ratepayers who voted for it with a full knowledge of all the facts and of the estimated cost. ► "The whole of Mr Barltrop's difficulty ! seems to be due to a misunderstanding of the terms on which the Government . grant was made, and he bases his ar , gument on the assumption that it was made for the hcadworks. meaning the i intake dam as distinct from the other essential parts of the main-works which ‘ | also include the tunnel, main pipeline , and reservoir. I have no recollection I of my having given such a wrong im- ■ pression of the position. If 1 have. I can only express my regret at having 1 ! misled anyone. If Mr Barltrop will ! refer again to the advertisement which I he quotes in his former letter, he will ee that the Government grant is de ducted from the total cost of the main > j works as follows: 1 Land purchases hcadworks, tunnel, main pipeline and other incidentals £95 000 Less Government grant £35.000 Leaving the amount of the loan in respect of the main work at £.60.000 If any further evidence is required to show that the grant was for the whole of the main works and not merely for the headword (or intake dam) 1 would quote from the Minister's letter in which the grant was made. The

Hon. the Minister writes: "I am now- in a position to advise that assistance to the extent mentioned hereunder will be available to your council towards the cost of carrying out the approved scheme.” "Mr Barltrop asks me to state the amount allowed lor the hcadworks in the application to the Loans Board. As this part of the work is still under consideration. I do not leel justified a‘ this stage in quoting any figures I have already stated that the balance of £15.000 is ample to cover this work | wheti let its cost is based on the amount I a Mow ed in the application to the Loans Board or on the tenders received for this part of the work "The reason why the date for the closing of tenders was extended is that several intending tenderers asked for [ an extension on the ground that they j had had in.-ufltcient time to prepare their tender** owing to the intervention ot the Christmas holidays. I am also asked what took place at the council meetings during the intervening weeks. The answer is "nothing whatever." "The suggestion that there has been some vital alteration in the scheme since the poll was taken is simply un"l am accused of going off at a tangent abo.it the reticulation, and vet the j w riter says that w hat he is concerned j about is the total amount. How can anyone arrive at the total amount without including the reticulation withcut which the scheme would be useless’’ "In conclusion I may say that I feel sure that the information which I have supplied from time to time has satisfied ratepayers generally that the council has not been guilty of any breach of faith.’