THE OUTER HARBOR.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2334, 28 October 1908, Page 2

THE OUTER HARBOR.

RIVAL -FINANCE REPORTS

MAJORITY REPORT ADOPTED

At the meeting oi : the Gisborne Harbor Board yesterday two reports were received from the Finance Committee, on the Outer Harbor question from a financial point of view. The majority of the members submitted a report, which was published in Monday’s “Timesj” and the minority, Messrs. Alatthewson and Lysnar j submitted the following report: — (1) That the written statement put before the Finance Committee by the Chairman and adopted by the majority of the Committee,- Messrs. Townlev, Thicker, and Sievwright, is objected to for the following reasons:—(a) The engineering questions raised by the statement' were not referred to the Finance Committee, but that of finance only, (b) The statement was adopted without any consideration whatever —being merely read to the Committee and approved by a- majority without- consideration, (c) \\ e also think that if the engineering aspect was to be considered our overseer’s report regarding the suitability of the W-aihirere scone should in fairness to the whole scheme have been considered and submitted with this report, especially so as the overseer has already told the Board that, in his opinion, the stone is suitable, and that it can bo brought an well within Mr. Alarchant’s estimate. U.j Regarding paragraph 3 under the head of finance, that £BO,OOO shall be held and ear-marked as a special reserve to liquidate the balance of the £300,000, this should only be £4O 000, as under the section of tiie Act ’it is only the balance of tlie loan and accumulating sinking fund due at maturity of the old loan that must be retained. (3.) We also consider on the statement of Mr. Coleman that bis admission that by the alterations of the tariffs there is an increase of £IIOU on the two accounts oi wharfages and port charges, i.e., on the new as compared to tnc old tariffs that this item should be. added to the itiOOO per annum for the annual average increase and that - tlie m creased tariff together with the natural increase- should bo shown as a least £2OOO. (4) We also think it quite unfair not to have allowed in trie estimate something for the m creased value of the Tauwhareparae endowment as from 1906 until IJII, when the present leases fall m, and .for this reason the suggested £obU9 is very much. within roßSonsblG Jl The following statement made by Air T A. Coleman, in. reply to Air Lysnar, at the Committee meeting of the Board on October 24, was also 1 e The estimates of receipts have been made on the present rates of charges. Our statement only goes back to 1903 because the statistical returns of trade in the office only go back to that date. I have looked at statement No. 3 in the Board’s accounts for 1907. I have worked out the average annual increase ’in the receipts from all sources except rates since 1898 as shown in that statement, and it works out at £1063 per annum on actual receipts. In working up the statement now submitted we have done so on the present tariif of wharfages and port charges. We have not assumed a decrease from these sources, bearing in mind that some reduction in the rate of port* charges comes into force next year, but ’rather an increase on the two accounts jointly of £llOO. In 1903 the Board received £10,386 for wharfages under the old tariff, white under the oresent tariff the amount would have been £7743, showing that for that year there was a working difference between the two tariffs of about £3OOO. AVe -have taken the port charges and pilotage at £sooo per annum under, the present tariff right through from 1909 to 1915, while under the old tariff the actual average for the years 1903 to 1906 was £I4OO, showing an increase on port charges of £4IOO per annum as ! between the old tariff and the new. I have. estimated the probable rent of Tauwhareparae at- 5 per cent on the Board’s interest in the present Government valuation. I have assumed the tenants’ interest at 1 £15,393, being 10s per acre on the improved land. I am aware_ that the present valuation is practically three years’ old. I have made no allowance for that nor for the possible increase in the amount of the next valuation when the leases fall in in 1911. In fixing the expenditure on the river as £BBOO per annum I have taken this year’s expenditure as a guide. I have taken the actual expenditure for the first nine months of the year, and have estimated the requirements for the remaining three months. I have assumed that the Board will not undertake new work. In making up the estimate I have not included anything for expenditure, in the nature of new works. In fixing the additional amount of £SOOO for increase in port charges in 1916 I have assumed that on the completion ;of the breakwater the Board will | make some such further charge. I I -have not gone into - the charges of ! other ports in order to assess the ; £SOOO. I had it in my mind that in | 1916 the Board might strike a rate I to liquidate the deficiency of nearly !£i 3,000- The rate would probably i be something less than one penny in the Borough and a half-penny in the County.- When the deficiency of £15,000 had been liquidated the Board would probably be able to carry on without striking a further rate by increasing the port charges by £SOOO. per annum, or such larger or smaller sum -as might be needed. In assessing the £4OOO for new harbor expenses I have worked on the basis of the Napier Harbor Board’s expenses. Their expenses amount to something over £6OOO, hut their trade is greater than ours. The Napier expenses include the haulage by rail of cargo from ship’s side to goods shr-J and also -receiving and delivering cargo, and I have assumed that this Board will have to adopt some such method of dealing with cargo. - i have allowed for this in the £4OOO. I have not taken into account in any way the question of saving of lighterage, or any saving that might he effected by the direct discharge of Home goods at this port, instead of their being transhipped from the larger centres. I have confined myself to the consideration of the Board’s finance.” Air. Lysnar moved that the report of the minority of the members of the Finance Committee be adopted, together with the other statement from Air. T, Coleman, It was

not the function of the committee, he said, to deal with the engineering side of the question, and' the majority "report had only been proposed to prejudice the public mind, against the ichomo. Unjustifiable reductions had been mado in regard to the Board s future revenue. Mr. AVhinray : The revenue will not increase if wool remains at a low price. . , Captain Tucker : AVool is going to be lower in price, f Mr. Clark: Yes, and frozen meat land other produce with- it. | Mr. Sievwright: AVhat is the quesition before the" Board? f Mr. Lysnar: I am speaking to my (motion. I move that the financial 1 statement with Air. Alarchant’s report be put before the ratepayers. The Chairman: The statement is absolutely misleading. In your report you have included the lightering for the freezing works, and I am quite sure the freezing companies do not pav 5s per ton for lightering. Mr. Sievwright moved that the report furnished by the majority of the members of the committee be adopted. The committee had, lie said, carefully considered the position and had furnished a complete report. It was of no use putting a report on the outer harbor before the ratepayers until the Board was satisfied that >a scheme was efficient, and even the e engineering reports could not agree on the efficiency of any one scheme, or on tlie cost. The Board had no proof that Air. Alarchant’s scheme was efficient, or that it could be carried out at the estimated cost. The Chairman seconded the amendment, and held that the Finance Committee was competent to report on the engineering aspect of the scheme. The report showed that a harbor could not be constructed within seven or eight years, and tiie Board would have to pay i torost cn money during that time which would not-bo earning revenue. The ratepayers were entitled to -all the information that could be placed before them. - . Air. Alatthewson asked if the majority report was adopted would the scheme be placed before the -ratepayers? The Chairman : . Tho adoption of the' report wlil not prevent it. Captain Tucker: AVhat is the use of discussing the financial position of a scheme until the most practicable scheme has been found. Two schemes have been left entirely out of consideration. . . , Air. Alatthewson said the majority report had been prepared with the intention of misleading the Board and the ratepayers. Mr. Lysnar thereupon moved that all the reports together with Air. Alarchant’s scheme he submitted to the ratepayers. Air. Hepburn said the majority report- was rather • favorable to- Mr. Alarchant’s scheme. In -eight years only one extra rate would he needed. Mr. Lysnar’s previous motion was not seconded. Captain Tucker: AVhat about Air. Leslie Reynolds’ scheme ? Air. Lysnar: That scheme is too good. It is building a castle when we can only afford a. moderately sized house. Captain Tucker: Your resolution is not an amendment, it is an entirely different motion. Tlie Chairman ruled that the report must be either adopted or rejected. Mr. Lysnar: I move then that both reports be received, so that they can be placed before the ratepayers. Air. dark: How can two reports be adopted ? * Air. Sievwright: The Board is getting into a muddle. The Chairman ruled that the majority. report alone was before the meeting. Air. Clark said' he did -not think Air. Alarchant’s scheme provided sufficiently for the wants of the district-, and no other engineer agreed with Air. March ant. He thought the larger scheme alone was worth consideration, if the people were able to finance the cost. Air. Alatthewson seconded the motion to adopt the minority report. The majority report was adopted, Alessrs Lysnar, .Alatthewson, Hepburn, and Harris voting against. Air. Lysnar then moved that the minority report be also adopted, but the amendment was lost.