The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1911.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3280, 27 July 1911, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1911.

Tlie “City Fathers” came to a, very

important decision last night. It will be seen that it was in effect resolved to consider—

The Borough Works.

in committee of the whole Council—what additional amount of money will be 'required to complete the works at present in hand, and to undertake further works which are deemed to bo of an urgent nature. According to Cr. Collins, who brought up the matter, the total amount required for these purposes will aggregate not less than an additional £113,000! It is of course well known that the various works which have already been authorised are to a more or less extent under-estimat-ed. Should it turn out, however that Dr. Collins is any where near to the mark, the position must, we feel, prove to most of the ratepayers a “staggerer.” Why, in addition to his assertion that £28,000 will be required for new works, lie avers that it will take £90,000 now to complete the works in hand, which, apart from some amendments in the proposal's which would east some thousands, it was originally claimed could be undertaken for the £175,000 which was raised for the: purposes in question. It would indeed he interesting to know what the Mayor has to- sav on this important matter. (Mr. Lysnar, it should be explained, had left the meeting before the matter came up for discussion.) For the present it will suffice to confine our attention to* tlie •‘old” works. As regards the road works it must be agreed that when the loan proposals were formulated, it was not sugested that the ccst of a tramway to Pa tutah i would be a charge

against the vote for this particular purpose. For the high cost of the sewer age works up till the time the recent contracts were let, Mr. Lysrrar blames —and rightly wo think —the adoption of the day labour, system. Although Mr. Lysnar may not acknowledge the fact, the amount of money voted lor trams is certain to he found much on the low side. And so, we venture to think,, it will be found in regard to the other works in hand. But we trust that Cr. Collins is wide of the mark. If, however, it should, as we have said, prove that a considerable sum is still required to finish the works in hand, from whom can many of the ratepayers expect sympathy? To put the matter fairly, they should have more carefully investigated the facts and figures upon which they were asked to support the undertaking of the works in hand as was proposed under the loan of £175,000. There was undoubtedly far too much assumed by Mr. Lysnar when the proposals were before the ratepayers. By raising the money in one sum, he told the ratepayers it could be obtained at 3 1 per cent., instead of 4 \ per cent. That, he said, would effect a saving of £1750 a year, which would pay interest and sinking fund on a sum equal to £38,750, which would give the borough the tramways, bridges, recreation grounds, etc., estimated to rest £36,450

for nothing and £2300 to spare! But the money was not raised at 3£ per cent., and the ratepayers will find that they will have to pay at least 20s in the £ for every stick of all the works. Other “savings” which were promised by Mr. Lysnar appear to be equally unsubstantial. Here, for instance, is one: “Saving in cost of interest on loan of £25,000 for tramways if same is not taken out of rates but out of profits, £1207, and estimated profit on trams over and above interest and working expenses, £923.” Can anyone tell us when the suggested tram system will ever prove such a profitable concern? Hr take this assertion which was put forward. “Upon the question of loss of interest by taking up the loan in one sum, no less should he occasioned on this head, as any money not immediately required would be placed on fixed deposit. The banks at present are paying 4 per cent for two-year deposits, and 31 per cent for twelve months. Would Mr. Lysnar venture to say that the Council is getting more than, say, 2 5 per cent on the still unused loan moneys? It would be interesting to have a statement as to how much of the £75,864 which Mr. Lysnar promised could be “saved” within the first nine years will be actually “'saved” in the light of experience. All this should go to make the ratepayers insistent upon getting very much more reliable data before they are asked to authorise further loan moneys.