Harbour Board Loan.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXVI, Issue 5013, 20 September 1906, Page 1

Harbour Board Loan.

Mr Jull’s Motion Lost. (Own Correspondent.) At the meeting of the Harbour Board, Mr Jull was granted leave to separate his motion into four parts, and moved the first clause as follows^—“ That the board’s solicitors be instructed to arrange that the clauses in the proposed empowering bill relating to the taking of a poll of the ratepayers and the levying of a rate for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the proposed loan be deleted from the bill when it is before the House, and that any necessary modifying clauses to give effect to the above be prepared.” In moving as stated, Mr Jull urged that the board had never had a proper opportunity of discussing the bill as prepared by the solicitors, not bocause of any fault of theirs, or of any of the officials, but simply because the matter had been too hurried. So far os he was concerned, and so far as the people he represented wore concerned, there was no objection to the loan being raised so long as it did not cast an additional burden on the ratepayers. He had consulted the two bodies who had appointed him a member of the board, the VVaipawa Oounty Council and the Patangata County Council, and both had suggested that every effort should be made to prevent further rating powoi’B being given to the board in connection with the now loan, and he was convinced that to secure unanimity and the support of the people generally the rating powers should be deleted from the proposed loan bill. At the present time, the ratepayers were primarily responsible for interest and sinking fund on £500,000, and that was as much as ever had been expected or calculated. The fact was that the burden was being cast upon the property owners because of the rise in value of the lands, because the board looked upon it as a sort of act of God that values should increase, and that, therefore, they were not called upon to reduce the rates. The board, howevor, did not apply the same arguraont when the business of the port increased, but considered it was then a proper thing to reduce the tariff. Further, he argued, it was not essential to strike new rates, since the board could borrow money in the same way as other Harbour Boards had done, and he thought that would bo the fairest and most just way, as out of the total of £700,000 liabilities the board would have incurred when the new loan was raised, the ratepayers already bore the burden of £500,000. He hoped the board would consider his proposal and accept it ; if not, the passing of the bill and the -raising of the loan would be endangered. Ho suggested that the board should rise to the occasion and delete the rating clauses from the bill, thus showing that in the statements they had made that no increased rates would be necessary they were determined to keep faith with the ratepayers.

Mr Russell seconded the motion without comment.

No discussion took place, the motion being at once put and lost. The voting was as follows :—For : Messrs Jull, Harker, Bussell and Macdonald. Against: Messrs Carnell, H. Williams, McVay, Ellison, F. W. Williams and the Chairman. When the ypte was taken, Mr Morris had left the meeting.

In reply to the Chairman, Mr Jull said he would not move the other clauses into which his notice of motion had been divided. They were as follows :—“That a clause bo prepared making it clear that the Sinking Fund Commissioners shall have power to invest any sinking funds now or hereafter in their hands in the debentures of the board. That similar provision be inserted as is contained in the Timaru Harbour Board Act of 1903 to enable trustees to invest funds in Napier Harbour Board debentures. And, further, that provision bo made that during any time tho board is collecting above £21,000 in rates the wharfage rates shall at least be equal to those adopted on July 181, 1901, and, with that object in view, that while and so long as the harbour rates for tho purpose of payment of interest and sinking funds on the two present loans of £500,000 and the proposed loan of £200,000 should in the aggregate exceed £21,000 per annum, the wharfage rates should not be less than as set out in the schedule, such schedule to contain tho wharfage tarilF rates that came into force on July Ist, 1901.”