MEETINGS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 662, 31 October 1884, Page 1 (Supplement)

MEETINGS.

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCILA meeting of the City Council was held last night week, there being present—His Worship the Mayor (in the chair), Councillors A. "W". Brown, S. Brown, McKenzie, Williams, Richardson, Petherick, Quick, Miller, Wilsod, Newman, and Fitz Gerald. FINANCE COMMITTEE. The report of the Finance Committee was adopted, on the motion of the Chairman of the committee (Councillor S. Brown), and seconded by Councillor Richardson. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE. The report of the above committee, which ha 3 already been published, was then submitted to the meeting. Some discussion ensued-ou Mr Andrew Young’s application for the relaxation of the building regulations, and this application, together with a similar one from Mr W. Chalmers, were referred back to the committee. The rest of the report was adopted without discussion. ACCOUNTS. Accounts amounting to £78 7 19a Is were passed for payment. His Worship the Mayor here asked permission to vacate the chair in favor of Councillor A. W. Brown, on account of being fatigued by the long afternoon sitting of the House of Representatives. This was consented to. FENCING AND BUSH-FELLING. Councillor Richardson, seconded by Councillor Miller, moved, “ That the resolution passed at a meeting of the council on 11th September last, to the effect that the council will pay to Messrs Manns and Burrows such portions of expense of fencing and bush-fell-ing as the Act requires, be rescinded, and that a clearing one chain wide be made on the council’s side of the fence.” The motion was agreed to. THE TE ABO RECLAMATION AND THE HARBOR BOARD. On this question Councillor S. Brown put the following motion, of which due notice had been given :—“ That this Council, while they are desirous of assisting the Harbor Board in anything for the good of the ci.y, regret that the finances of the city are not such as would justify them in giving away any of their endowments, but they are willing to meet the Harbor Board by reducing the front line of the present reclamation, and ceding to them that portion (3£ acres) on payment of reasonable sum. Furthermore, if the Harbor Board are in a position to commence -a graving dock, they wilt meet them in a friendly spirit for the site of same.” In speaking to the motion, Councillor Brown, after touching on the history of the Te Aro reclamation, referred to the fact that although the Harbor Board had paid Mr Napier Bell £SOO to prepare a plan of reclamation, they had not communicated with the Council since 1881 until three weeks ago, when they submitted a totally different plan, proposing that the Council should cede to them all what is termed No. 2 of the reclamation, and also three and a half acres of that part situated between Cuba-street and the wharf. The value of the latter part had been put down at £150,000. Out of this the board expected something like two-thirds for a proposed expenditure of £2OOO or £3OOO. They then went to a public meeting, and submitted some curious figures. Their chairman stated that the cost of reclaiming the whole would be £67,000, while that of reclaiming the part proposed by the board would be £26,000 less, the area only being two and a half acres smaller. Mr" Duthie, who was supposed to represent the interests of the city in the Harbor Board, followed with a queer difference in his figures. He stated that the corporation scheme would cost £9300 per acre, and that proposed by the Harbor Board £3OOO, or iu other words, that the total cost of the City Council’s reclamation would be £105,000. They said two acres less would make a difference of £26,000, while the city engineer estimated the cost of reclaiming four acres, not two, at only £26,000. The Harbor Board had stated that there would be. plenty of valuable land left according to their plan, but in reality there would only remain acute angular blocks totally unfit for cutting np into building sites, and not valuable enough to pay the City Council for reclaiming them. The grant was vested in the corporation for the purpose of being reclaimed, but the Harbor Board wanted it for the use of ships. The latter body made its revenue out of the water as the corporation did Qut of the land. The Harbor Board further forgot to inform the councillors that they proposed to put a wharf 30 ft wide, covered with Bheds, outside of the reclamation, and take that portion from them. The corporation, owing, as it did, £430,000, was not in a position to give land away to a hoard which was very much wealthier thau itself. The harbor would in a few years be one of the wealthiest iu New Zealand if the charges were not reduced ; aud the. reduction of charges would simply mean additional profit to the merchants, as the public would not pay a shilling less for its • sugar, . &c. To show that the Harbor Board was iu a better position to pay for what it wanted than the city to give, the speaker gave the following figures : —ln 1871 the income of the Corporation from general rates was £3770, from the wharf £3OBO ; in 1883 the income of the Corporation was £11,815, while that of the Harbor Board, which had since taken over the wharf, was £25,086. The question of a site for the proposed dock, the speaker considered more remote, and he was more inclined to give that for nothing, as the board would not be able to make a profit out of it. He concluded by advising the council to give, up the reclamation altogether rather than cut it up as suggested by the Harbor Boatd, and stated that a street and some reclamation could be got without imposing an additional rate. Councillor Newman seconded the motioD, not because he entirely agreed with it, but

because he approved of the main principle He was of the opinion that they should try to make some arrangements with the Harbor Board, as the harbor was as essential to the city as though it were still under the control of the City Council, but he would only sell the* land desired by the board for a great consideration. Supposing they could get a fair price for it, it would make things easier for the board, and would at the same time relieve the city of part of its debt, aud enable them to reduce taxation. At the same time he strenuously objected to give any decision before the matter was fully discussed by the council and the ratepayers.

His Worship the Mayor complimented Councillor Brown on his speech, and made a few remarks to the effect that he would rather that the council should not touch the matter at all, as the subject had been thrashed threadbare two years ago. The Harbor Board never seemed to be decided Id its opinious. After pay * ing £7OO for a plan, the latter had been cut and hacked about until there did not remain one portion of Mr Napier Bell’s scheme. Let the council go on with the reclamation, and let the people themselves decide whether there should be a reclamation or not. He did not think the City Council, being an impecunious body, could afford to give anything away to a rich body like the Harbor Board. Councillor Richaidson did not think the resolution definite enough. Something would have to be done to the reclamation ; £II,OOO had been spent, and was now partly being washed away. It was necessary to take steps to preserve the work already done or to go on with it. The space was already limited for the laigesteamers, which, when they approached or left the wharf from the Te Aro side, stirred up the mud. The Mayor explained that he did not mean the council to do anything at all ; he merely did not wish it to enter into negotiations with the Harbor Board. Councillor McKenzie moved as an amendment, “That the matter of the Te Aro reclamation be referred back to the Public Works Committee for reconsideration, the committee to meet on Monday next, and to report on it to a special meeting of the council on Thursday next.” He went on to charge the Harbor Board with mismanagement on the wharf and on Waterlooquay, not having put up posts and chains at the latter place. He did not think that if toe council had managed wisely they would have to ask for a loan of £75,000, and did not believe that the ratepayers would consent to another 4d in the £.

Councillor Williams seconded the amendment pro forma. He stated that he came prepared to support Councillor S. Brown’s motion, bub regretted that the latter had not touched upon the main principle of the motion. He thought popular feeling was in favor of a modification of the line of the reclamation, which he considered was the principle of the motion. He did not think it the place of the council to discuss the affairs of the Harbor Board. Councillor Quick thought the resolution breathed a spirit of sublime magnanimity, and committed the council to do nothing. He did not, however, think it business-like, enough for a body like the council, and he objected to it for that reason. He did not believe than the ratepayers would submit to the proposed loan. Councillor Wilson did not understand how the reclamation, which only went into twelve feet of water, could interfere with steamers drawing twenty-one feet of water. His Worship explained, in answer to Councillor Williams, that the calculations of the council had been upset by the failure of two contractors, and made some further remarks on the subject of reclamation. They had given a hulk, weighbridge, &c. to the Harbor Board, but what had they ever re» ceived in return?

• Councillor Petherick did not agree with tne principles introduced, at the public meeting by allowing the Harbor Board to come in and propose a resolution at a meetiug held merely for the purpose of asking the consent oE the ratepayers to a loan of £75,000. He thought a number of votes had been lost to thecouncil through this action. He would not consent to give the Harbor Board property valued at £120,000 in exchange for work valued at, say £4OOO. The meetiug on Friday last was nothing but a sham. Councillor Brown congratulated the council on the manner in which the discussion had been carried od, and thought that Councillors Quick aud Williams, when they began to find their feet, would be found valuable additions to the council. He put the amendment, which was carried by a majority of seven to four. Councillor Fitz Gerald gave notice that at the meeting of the Public Works Committee, to be held on Monday, he would move that if a loan be raised for the purpose of the Te Aro reclamation, the seaward line of reclamation be not extended beyond the line suggested by the Harbor Board. The council then adjourned.