Borough loan Proposals.

Taranaki Herald, Volume L, Issue 11881, 1 February 1902, Page 2

Borough loan Proposals.

SPECIAL. MEETING ON FRIDAY NIGHT. The Borough Council held a special meeting on Friday night to consider. Mr Mestayer 's reports on drainage., electric light, and waterworks extension, etc ; and also to consider i the loan proposals- in connection with . these and other works. Present : The . Mayor, Mr E. Dockrill (chairman), Messrs Connett, Clow,. Lealand, Brooking, Collis Carter,' Tisch, Webster, and Stohr. LOAN PROPOSALS AND ESTIMATED REVENUE. The "Works.* Committee brought down the following- loan l-econiinend-ations :— Waterworks', £18,000. Electric Light, £6,000. Drainage, £9,000. Streets', Machinery, £12^000. ' Expenses z-aising loan, £1,000. ■ '• -Henui Bridge, approaches, ' etc., £3,500. Baths, £1,500. Total, £51,000. Present loan, £29,0.00. Grand total, £80,000. Interest on £80,000 at 4£ per. cent., £3,6.00. REVENUE. Special rate »on £40,000 at lOd, £1,666. Extra revenue on £2,000 (increased valuation, 1902-1903), general and water rates at 2s, £200. General fund relieved from new works as estimated 1901-1902 :—: — Contracts'— Gover-5t.,£600 (£600) ; metal, £250 (£850); labour, £200 (£1000)— £1050. i (The amounts in -brackets are those voted in the estimates last year). : Waterworks, saving by gravitation scheme/ £2OO. Estimated increase extraordinaryi water charges following on drainage' being adopted, £100. . Electric light to pay interest at 4,f per cent, on say £9,000— £405. Total— £362l. The Mayor explained the object of the meeting, and said that . the Works' Committee had adhered to the promise given by him at last meeting that, the loan proposals would be considered at an early; date. This meeting was the outcome of that promise. He thought the work would be facilitated *y going into » -committee to consider, the proposals. Mr Brooking : Why should we go into committee ? The Mayor ; So that the rules of debate need not be strictly adhered, to. . Mr Brooking : Then I think we often go into, committee. (Laughter.*, Mr" Connett thought that as the loan proposals -were of great inter?tt to the public the press should bo given every opportunity ""to' report -the discussion. > Mr Collis, took the same view. Finally it .was decided on the Mayor's r-p.<ion, seconded *by Mr Webster, to go into committee, ' but to allow the reporters to remain and report the 'discussion. WATERWORKS' EXTENSION AND ELECTRIC LIGHT SCHEME. Mi- Brooking, the chairman of the Works' Committee, then addressed the Council. He said the Committee had fully considered the various schemes as dealt with in -Mr Mestayer's reports, and had now to place the result of their labours before the Council. The total cost of the suggested improvements was £51,000: He would deal, with the schemes in order, and wpuld just refer, to the proposals to extend the waterworks supply. The scheme of "Fiat, Lux"' two y«|\rs ago had been accepted for such an extension, and ratepayers at the poll sanctioned a loan of £8000. That right of the Council to, a J aise a loan was allowed to lapse for reasons he need not detail now. He detailed "Fiat Lux's" scheme. At present the want of pressure was very, acute, escecially in the west end of the town. (He quoted from Mr Mestayep's report on this aspect* of the case), Mr Brooking then referred to the fact that the engineers who had sent competitive schemes had pointed out the need of a second reservoir, and on this need Mr Mestayer had also reported at length.. He went minutely into Mr Mestayer's scheme, which would give the Borough an extra pressure of 58$tbs, an up-to-date water -service and " two more filter beds. He considered the scheme outlined by Mi- Mestayer was an excellent one, but the cost would be £24,000, an outlay the Committee considered was too much to xe<-' commend. The committee had. there- • fore cut down the scheme by deleting a 10 inch main down the Junction Road, and also providing two. instead of four niter beds. ' The proposed reservoir at Petrie's corner would hold I,ooo*ooo gallons of water, and four filter beds would "be capable of filtering 1,000,000 gallons of watey per day, or three would have the capacity of 750,000 gallons' per day. The committee had reduced the cost by £6,000, which would bring the cost of the waterworks extension to £18,000. The scheme the committee recommended was best that could /be suggested) and would be. capable of meeting -all requirements of the Borough, for years to come; and moreover 'the scheme iVas capable of easy extension. (3fr Brooking then gave details of the cost of the scheme). Ho then referred to the installation of an electric lighting service. "Fiat Lux'« and "Verax" had bath, sent in competitive schemes for this installation, but Mr Mestayer did not consider either' was suitable. "Fiat Lux's"'* scheme was estimated to cost £12, 656 i and "Verax's" at £10,486 ss. It was decided to raise a loan of £13,000 for this service, but this was allowed to lapse. Since then Mr Mestayer had reported on - a scheme which was estimated to- cost £10, 180; but if taken in connection with Mr Mestiayer's naw water- power scheme this sum oould be reduced to £5680, Wihich the committee had fixed at £600Q in round figures. These figures would about equal "Fiat. Lux's" estimated cost for the two* schemes. If the electric light "was. thrown out the Borough would pasc £18,000 for the extended water supply, but if electric lighting- was taken in conjunction tbo whole cost would be £24,000. He moved, That the Council approve of the Waterworks Committee's recommendation for improved water service and electric light at a cost of £24,000, and that the ratepayers be asked to sanction a loan for the works. Mr Webster seconded. Mr Collis : Do you intend to separate the two sums when placed before the ratepayers* for sanction ? Mr Br.-oking said as far as he was personally concerned he favoured the two going together. „ Mr .Collis said as far as he could see the £wo schemes were so dependent on each other that he was in favour of the two being joined when placed before the ratepayers. Mr Connett said that after Sir •Brooking's exhaustive and lucid explanation he would favour the. two schemes being taken together., Mr Lcaland favoured v water scheme that would give more pressure in case ol live; and as the electric light was treated by Mr Mestftyer in conjunction with the water; scheme s« far hs cost • was concerned he was* i« favour of placing the, two together before ' the ratepayers'. H© thought the ratepayers .would . sano- N> tion such a loan. . - - Mr Tisch said he would favour the. scheme as fully outlined by Mr Mestayer, and not cut down. Hatepayers on the. higher levels would appreciate «uch a scheme. He suggested moving -an amendment. The Mayor said that it must be >o»ne in mind -that the loan of £80, 006 would have to be raised without extra rating. Should any extra amounts be added, which would ivtvolve extra rates then the ratepayers would, probably reject any* loan. He was sorry to see; that the. Council were evidently determined »ot to> sopnrate the water . and electric- light, schemes. As far as the water schemewas concerned it was the, best they could adopt. Ho considered that, electric light did not ftuure the Gas: Companies, and h^ instanced Wellington, where tfce Harbour Board? recently, aftor a trial of electric light . had. decided to Kght thewhnrvesi for five years by lneandos^ cent gas burners. Therefore as a freeholder in the Gas Company he did not oppose electric light for fear that it would- reduce gas consumption; but he still considered the is, sues ahQultf be put separately before tfcA *atep«y a^ *

Mr Stohr said. lie. was surprised at • the Mayor contrasting the el?ctric light and gas services of ' Wellington, he did not thir.k it was right to do so. Wellington got their power for electric light from coal, whereas here the power would be obtained from water. He held that the schemes should not tie separated when placed before the ratepayers. Mr Carter iavoured the two schem-es-being, taken together, but he held that the estimated loan of £80,000 for, all proposals . should not be exceeded, as such a course might wreck the whole scheme of improvemnet which it was necessary to carry into .effect. He considered t,he joint scheme as recommended by the Committee would suffice for some years to come. Mr Connett , thought it would be wise to adopt the Committee's recommendation, but if Mr Tisch's idea to carry out Mr Mestayer s full scheme was adopted the whole loan proposals might be imperilled. Mr Tisch said that in view of the opinions expressed, he wouTS not move any amendment en Mr Ifrookihg'Sv motion, but would fall into line with the rest of the Council. Mr Webster opposed ajiy increase in the loan proposals that would on- - tail extra rates, as that would im- . peril the loan, and he therefore fay- j oured the Committee's iecommenda- ! Mr Lealand said at Wellington and j other places coal had to be obtained j per motive power for electric light, -•but here they would practically get their motive power free. Mr Brooking said, like the. Mayor he would like to see the water and electric light schemes separated when placed before the ratepayers : but as the schemes were so intimately associated he could not see how it could Mr Collis pointed out that according to Mr Brooking's figures the two schemes should be joined. The water scheme and electric light' combined Sould cost £18,000 and £6,000 respectively, as the tunnel would serve footii purposes ; but if the ratepayers rejected the water scheme then the cost ol the tunnel would have to be added to the electric light sum, whicK would bring the cost up tc £10,000. . ; , „ His Worship said he quite, saw the force of that, and as a matter o fact he desired to make the electric light 1 proporal as tempting as posThe motion to ask the ratepayers for a loan of £24.000 lor 1 water* and ■ electric light scheme, combined was ihen put and carried. DRAINAGE SCHEME. Mi? Brooking then explained Mr Mestafter'sT report on drainage, givSg the area to be dealt with, etc. He pointed out that the scheme proTided for tbe . sewage being draine< . into septic tanks that it was pro nosed •to erect on the land on th< Hfcatoki river bank at the loot o " GUI-street. Mr Mestayer's estimate of cost of the scheme was £9.010 'or if only one tank was built A.7. 610 (Mr Brooking quoted copious^ from the report). The committee „ recommended the scheme in. its entirety to the favourable consideration of the Gouucil. ... The Mayor said the scheme woulc have to get the approval of the Health Department, but Mr- Mestayei * had consulted the Department be fore he reported so that there wat every reason to believe there woule be ,co difficulty in getting the. Department's sanction. <• , . In answer to a question Mr Brookine read a. letter from Mr Mestayei stating that he did not think there would be any royalty for .the sept|c tank., a»< bacteria beds were not pro--vided in the scheme, which beds * would probably be worked by patented machinery. Mr Brooking then moved, That the scheme be adopted and placed before the ratepayers for their sanction for a Mr a? Connett seconded the, motion, expressing himself in favour of haying the scheme with two septic tanks-- „ Mr Collis supported the motion. Mr Lealand : In. .case the scheme is rejected by the ratepayers what scheme would be provided to drain the Central Ward ? The Mayor : I can't say as that would be .forestalling the scheme. Mr Lealand said he asked because dome people dn the extreme part* of the East TVard might oppose the scheme, and therefore he wanted to knouTil the Central Ward could take the scheme alone if the present scheme was rejected. Mr Stohr : I am surprised at> you raising such questions. The scheme will only embrace a part of the West Ward yet I 'have not heard a complaint from any ratepayer in the ' Mr Lealand : But you don't live in the -East Ward. You have no agi tators up your way, - • - Mr Stohr : A good job I don t live . Mr 3*3 * Carter said it was time a drainage scheme was adopted. It had become a common saying that the town was behind the times xn sanitary matters. Mr Tisch. said that for sanitary reasons- he would support the scheme which he considered a good one. Mr Clow also spoke on the quesIMr1 Mr Connett said he lived in the East - Ward but had not heard- complaints there as suggested by Mr Lealand, . , ' Mr Coins' J»aid that outlying places in the town could be connected with the scheme year by year out of ordinary revenuef The Mayor :— That is so. SJr Brooking's motion to adopt the recommendation was then put and Carn »rBEET IMPROVEMENTS. Mr Brooking said the committee recommended tbe sum as stated. He Sure -details where the £12,000 was proposed to be spent partly. Then there was the question of protective works for sea erosion which could be provided out of the loan money. He moved tfoat £16,000 be raised for streets, machinery, expenses of raising loan, and Hemii bridge. Mr Carter objected to the Henui bridge being included, in the- scheme. - Mr Stohr did not believe in lumping all the items together, but he would second the motion. pro forma. ' Mr Brooking said it was suggested to spend loan money a# follows :rHigh School and Cameron-street hill £2rooo, Standish'js lull £800, Devon-street £1000, Vivian^treet and bridge £800, St Aubynfstrcet £500, ijjorley-street to Wa.lace Place £500, machinery £2000, h»-a erosion It was also j.roposett to 'Jo King-st. culpert and street from Eg-mont-st. t6 Queen-st.; formation of Krng-street to i*i pugham - street ; public urinals in King-street. Ho pointed out that some A.) 600 had already been expended on the roller and stone crusher machine. Mr Collis> said the Uenui bnage should not be included ; but the original proposals of the committee should be adhered to. , He moved an amendment, .That the estimate for the Henui bridge be separated.' Mr Connett twitted Mr Collis with consistently opposing the building of the bridge at the Henui, The issue was being falsely placed before the ratepayers-. It was stated the bridge was to cost £3,500. Mr Collis it is here in the estimate. Mr Connett said that included ap- ,, proaches, etc. He hoped the .bridge .would be built. lb Mr Collis : I am not opposing the building of the bridge,' but 1 certainly think the bridge money shou,d' lK> put as a separate issue. ]Mx Carter seconded Mr Collis' a- ' jnendment. It was only fair to put the bridge issue separately. Mr Clow supported the items being lumped. Mr Oollift' amendment was then put and lost. Ayes <&), Messrs Collis, Carter, and Stohr ; Noes (7), The If ay or. Messrs Connett, Clow, , Lealand, Brooking, Tisch, and Webster. Mr Brooking's motion was then | put and, carried. * I The Mayor said, that the items for expenditure would, have to be aporovod by the Council later on. PUBLIC BATHS: Mr Brooking then moved, That £1500 be raised by loan for public Mr Tisch seconded the motion, which was carried. Mr' Connett made a remark about the Henui bridge which Mr Collis said imputed selfishness to him m asking that the Henui bridge estimate should be separated. Mr Collis resented such a remark. He had £8 much right to express bis

opinion 111 Mr Connett had without selfishness being imputed to him. lie came "to the Council to give his opinions and he was determined to express his views. He could impute selfishness to 3V£r Cowcett if he desired, but he did not care to do so. For instance hp could say Mr Connett had Ca "fine residence just beyond the bridge. Mr Cocnett said he was sorry Mr Collis was so thin-skinned. Mr Collis : I ana not ; but I have a right to my opinion-. I maintain, this bridge business will be fought out bitterly. ••• , r Mr Connett said if Mr Collis felt aggrieved at his remark he would withdraw it.' The Mayor said that with regard to the Henui bridge the proportion ■to be borne by each local body would bo fixed by the Govornor-in-Council as provided by law. There was nothing inequitable in the Borough Council's action in such a matter. In dealing with the financial aspect , of the loan proposals the Mayor said that from reliable information they could raise the loan at 4$ per cent. He analysed the reveoue figures as set out above. He said .that they could safely guai - antee that no* extra rating would be required tqcarry out the improvements that they asked the ratepayers to sanction. There was a. great increase in the valuation of the Borough without the Council effecting improvements except out of ordinary rtjven-, ue. ■ The Council then resumed. Mr Brooking - . moved, ~ That' the various recommendation's '' o£" ' thl Works' Committee be adopted . aSicl" referred to the ratepayers to sanction, the loan moneys required at not exceeding 4£ per cent. The Mayor said that it would be better to say 5 per cent, so as to allow some anargin to prevent their work being all upset. Mr Brooking, said he would make it 5 per cent., but he did not see the necessity if they could get the. money at 4$ per cent. Mr Stohr said' it was wise to leave a margin. ' Mr Connett seconded Mr Brooking's motion, which Was put in legal form, and carried. , The Finance (Committee will give effect to- the. resolution. Other, formal resolutions were carried in connection with the loan. ' The Council cose at 10.50 o'clock.-