Huia Dam May Cost Another £150,000

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 538, 15 December 1928, Page 13

Huia Dam May Cost Another £150,000

fourth edition

COMPLETION IS FIRST CONSIDERATION ANOTHER £200.000 LOAN «*The Huia dam may cost £.150000 more than the original estimate, but the work must be completed. This statement was made by Cr. A. T Entrican during a. discussion yester- ,* v when the City Council decided to to the Local Government Loans Board for permission to raise the final £200.000 authorised by the ratepayers for waterworks extension. The proposal was objected to by Mr. H P- Taylor, a ratepayer, details of whose objection were published in The Sun on Thursday. He stated that it appeared as if the dam were going to cost £150.000 to £200.000 more than the estimates, and pointed out that the Nihotupu dam had cost more than twice the amount estimated. He also suggested that money was being taken for the purpose of developing the Hunua schemes, though the ratepayers had never had a chance of voting on these schemes* and that the council should consider whether it was getting the work done In the most economical manner. This letter caused the discussion. Cr. Entrican moved that the letter be sent to the Loans Hoard, together with an explanation by the town clerk. Cr. J. A. C. Allum considered, however, that there was a necessity for a public reply to the letter. The letter suggested that they were using the money to avoid going to the ratepayers to sanction the Hunua schemes. There was not a vestige of truth in this suggestion. There had been too much of this irresponsible talk, and it was*time the council countered it. The time for any objections such as Mr. Taylor raised was in 1926, when the loan was before the ratepayers, not now, when the raising of the additional amount was merely a formality. The town clerk, Mr. J. S. Brigham, said no money had been used from loan funds for Hunua. Special provision had been made in the waterworks account for investigations in the Hunua area. Cr. Entrican then made the statement quoted above, and said it was well known that a large sum was taken from the waterworks account for Nihotupu in addition to the over-expendi-ture on the estimates. “I must quite disagree with Cr. Entrican that the overspending of estimates is of no moment so long as the works are completed,” remarked Cr. W. H. Murray. "I consider it a very serious matter indeed.” Cr. O. Mcßrine pointed out that there was bound to be over-expendi-ture on Huia dam owing to the double shifts decided on last year after the water shortage. Nihotupu was completed in a war period, when prices ajnd materials were far from stable. It we a pointed out that even if the dam were only one-third completed, the building did not absorb all the money spent on it. All the excavations, pipe-lines, purchases of property, etc., had been completed, and the actual running up of the dam wall might not account for a greftt deal more money. Finally, it was decided that the Town Clerk formulate 9. reply and submit it to the council on Thursday next. MR. TAYLOR’S OBJECTION MATTER TO LOANS BOARD In addition to the letter conveying his objection to the raising of the additional £200,000 for waterworks extension, Mr. H .P. Taylor is forwarding a covering letter to the Local Government Loans Board, and has handed a copy to The Sun. He states in the covering letter that the information given him concerning the estimated cost of the dam and the assertion that £414,000 had been spent in May with the dam estimated to cost £489,000 a third completed, came from the Avondale Ratepayers’ Association. Referring to the statement in his objection that he was informed that a considerable amount of the £200,000 now’ required had v already been spent out of the general funds of the council, Mr. Taylor, in his letter, states: “It appears to me to be an objectionable practice to anticipate sanction being obtained without question from your board, and it is evident to me and from information received that as most of the £200,000 has been out of the general fund, according to the personal explanation of the town clerk on December 12, the bank is bringing pressure to bear to obtain your sanction so as to adjust the °'’ er draft and secure it (the bank) by the special -rate provided under the terms of the original loan for £400.000. There are two alarming aspects contained in my objections: “(1) The disparity of the engineer’s estimates and the actual cost. . “(2) The proposal to sink money mto the Mangatawhiri and Mangatangi scheme (estimated to cost and commented upon recently by Mr. Dare, of Sydney, between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000) to such an extent that R will mean, as in the Huia scheme, n °.. a R erT *ative but to complete. With regard to No. 1, I am not an alarmist, but the Auckland public, as indicated by its refusal to grant Joans to the present administration, m becoming seriously alarmed, and though I have no desire to hamper the finances of the City Council, I "ould seriously suggest if it is poss*ble, to postpone your sanction until the new council is elected in May next, or, if circumstances are such that the withholding of your sanction "'ould seriously embarrass the coun- . • then to insist upon full information being given as to the actual Position.” 4