The Feilding Star. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1885 Public Works of the Borough

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 101, 10 February 1885, Page 2

The Feilding Star. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1885 Public Works of the Borough

Our attention has been drawn to a matter which ought to receive the serious consideration of the Council and the ratepayers, as it is one which affects the whole question of the expenditure of the loan funds of the Borough. At the last meeting of the Borough Council a contract for £299 16s was accepted for the construction of Manchester street bridge, although by the schedule of works to be executed out ofthe £6,000 loan only £150 is allowed for this work. A discussion afterwards took place as to the disposal of the balance of the loan, with the ways and means, probably with the view of taking the extra £149 16s also from the loan. Here, as in the case of the Warwick street bridge, the Council are again treading on dangerous ground in suggesting to take or even borrow from the loan fund. To support such probable intention, an estimate of the balance of works to be effected under the loan, from the next year's instalment of £2,000, was laid on the table by the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. This statement, which was apparently approved of by the Council (without properly weighing the subject and its bearings) is somewhat misleading, if not incorrect altogether, for the reasons that, among the works still to be undertaken there are several roads requiring culverts and bridges, but the fact of funds being necessary to build these is quite ignored in the estimate of the Public Works Committee, and the CounciUors vainly congratulate themselves that they can take the balance falsely shown to be available and use it for the extra cost of the Manchester street bridge. The Council surely cannot believe that the ratepayers wiU be satisfied to have the roads scamped by putting on less gravel on those yet to be constructed (as was suggested by one Councillor), and giving £150 of the money allocated to road work to pay for the extra cost of a much larger structure than that provided for in the loan schedule. When aU the schedule works are completed, which are valued at £4,860, it ought to be time enough to think about any balance which may remain. By the schedule £550 is allowed for expenses and contingencies, and when the cost of engineering is deducted from this, the balance will bo small. — Ratepayers must take into consideration the fact that the present CounciUors will not all be in office next year, and their successors may not agree to any money borrowed from the loan fund being paid out of ordinary rates. Should, however, this contingency occur, each and every CounciUor who voted for the illegal expenditure could be sued by any ratepayer and a verdict for the amount obtained against him or them. — Councillors will pardon us for reminding them that the powers of auditors in matters of mis-application of funds to any other purpose than that for which they have been raised, are very arbitrary — fortunately for the ratepayers — and they should be careful not to put themselves in antagonism to a power even greater than themselves. That the Manchester Street Bridge is an absolute necessity is not questioned for a moment, neither would the ratepayers object under any circumstances to pay for its erection. What is now contended for is that an illegal action should not be done for a temporary benefit. The foUowing is an extract from the schedule as voted by the ratepayers on June 2nd, 1883: — 810 chains, at £6 per chain, £4860;. Kiwitea embankment, £40; Manchester, street bridge, £150; expenses and contingencies, £550 ; bank overdraft, £400; total, £6000.