THE FOXTON WHARF.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1005, 15 June 1911, Page 3

THE FOXTON WHARF.

PROPOSED PURCHASE

MEMBERS UNANIMOUSLY FAVOUR RATING AREA.

A special meeting of the Foxton Harbour Board was held iu the Council Chamber, Palmerston North, on Tuesday, tor the purpose of considering the Chairman’s proposal in connection with the proposed purchase ot the Foxton wharf and the creating of a rating area in connection with same. There were present: Messrs P. J. Hennessy (chairman), A. J. Gibbs, J. A, Nash, W. T. Wood, B. R. Gardener, and W. E. Barber. The Chairman briefly introduced Mr W. E. Barber, the newly-appointed member for the Manawatu County.

The Chairman’s report, which had been previously circulated among the members, was then considered. It was as follows : “ The suggestions that I have to make for the serious considera* tion of the Board, and which 1 am satisfied must form the basis of any further treaty with the Minister, and likely to lead to satisfactory results, are as follows: That a rating area must be decided upon, over which a differential rate must be struck, as security tor payment, not, as I will show, necessarily to be collected. It this point can be settled, the next will be to have a Bill drafted to submit to Parliament, giving the Board (t) power to borrow up to and not beyond the purchasing price of the wharf, say ,£20,000, (2) rating powers over districts agreed upon, representing a capital value of about .£7,000,000, and power to pay interest and sinking fund out of revenue, as is done in other districts. I believe such a Bill would receive favourable consideration by the Government, and the House, and that the district showing such a capital value should have no hesitation in guaranteeing so small a sum as ,£,20,000 for a purpose which should prove for its general welfare. In addition to the purchase of the wharf, the question of a suitable dredge to keep the bar and river navigable for vessels at all times, and enabling them to carry large cargoes at reduced freights must be considered. This I estimate to cost £ 7,000. To show why the rate need not necessarily be collected, I submit the following figures, which are partly approximate, yet based on reliable information obtained ; Revenue.

“The sale of gravel dredged, and the anticipated profit on lighting the river has not been included in revenue. lam submitting this proposal with every confidence that members will carefully consider it, and at the meeting will arrive at a decision which will enable the Board to get nearer the object desired.’’ The Chairman then moved that the following districts be a rating area for the purpose of securing by differential rate, interest and sinking fund on a loan of ,£20,000, viz., Mauawatu County, Foxtou Borough, Feilding and Palmerston iSorth Boroughs; that such interest and sinking fund shall be paid as far as possible out of general revenue, and that a Bill be drafted by the Board’s solicitor, to be considered at a special meeting before being advertised, giving effect thereto/’

Speaking to the motion the chairman referred briefly to the work of the Board up to the present time and said that ever since its establishment, the chief aim had been to acquire the wharf, as it was recognised that the main source of revenue for all Harbour Boards was the wharfages. During the time he was agitating for the formation of a Board, he had contended that if a new Board were constituted it would be entitled to the same endowments as the old Foxton Harbour Board, which included the wharfage dues. However, since the old Board had been dissolved the Railway Department had spent a considerably sum of :money on the construction ot •wharves in connection with the railways in other parts of the Dominion, and on acount of this the Foxton wharf at the present time was in the same position as other railway wharves, consequently the Railway Department could not give Foxton what it was asking for without creating a precedent. If Foxton were granted the wharfages then other ports similarly situated would expect to be treated the same. Tne position in regard to the Foxton wharf now was that the Board would have to buy it or ,go without it. He was of opinion

that the Government was prepared to treat the Board generously provided that it could had the security necessary for a loan to purchase the structure. In his opinion there was only one way out of the difficulty. He would impress on Board members that they would not have another chance of getting control of the wharf if this opportunity were not taken advantage of. The Minister ior Railways had offered the wharf to the Board for ,£20,000. This was the capital value based on earnings in the past. Had the Minister bas;d his calculations on the earnings for the past two or three years the capital value of the wharf would run out at about ,£40,000. Then, again, the wharfages were increasing every year and would continue to increase. When the Board was formed he had submitted a financial statement and the basis then laid down had worked out satisfactorily as the Board had a credit balance at the present time and had also given better facilities to shipping than had been the case under the Marine Department. He proposed that the rate struck as security for the loan should be a differential one and in this connection he had put Foxton down to be taxed eight times as much as any of the other local bodies. He had done this because Foxton would reap the most benefit and also to show the other districts that Foxton had confidence in the scheme and was prepared to take in proportion to valuations a far larger share of the taxation than the other local bodies in the proposed rating district. He concluded by seating that he would be prepared to answer any questions. Mr Gardener said he took it that each member of the Board would have to get permission from his local body to agree to inclusion in the rating area. The Chairman agreed that that was the position. Continuing, Mr Gardener congratulated the Chairman on the statement he had brought down. He took it that the figures were based on present returns, and he had no doubt that these would greatly increase in the future. It appeared to him that the Government was getting a very good price for the wharf at ,£20,000, as in its present condition the value of the structure would not be more than ,£5,000, so that the Government was getting a goodwill of ,£15,000. He noticed that the Chairman had made ample provision for interest and sinking fund on the loan, and also for the construction of a new wharf if it should be found necessary. He considered the scheme a very good one, and as far as Devin was concerned he did not anticipate there would be the slightest difficulty in getting them to agree to inclusion in the rating area. At the present time the Foxton port was largely used by Levin people, and there was not the slightest doubt that iu time to come the port would be of much greater benefit to Levin. The Chairman said that in the estimates he had allowed ,£4OO tor interest and sinking fund, which would be sufficient, even if they had to provide a new wharf. It was a contingent amount, and was put iu because the present whart had been in existence for 30 years It was possible, but not probable, that the wharf would have to be re-built within ten years.

Mr Nash said he wished to personally congratulate the Chairman on the very able statement he had brought down—it was a very good one indeed. In connection with the purchase of the wharf, the Board had advanced the matter to a certain point. The members knew that the Railway Department was prepared to sell at a certain price. It might appear that the price asked was an exorbitant one, but the matter had to be looked at as a business proposition. He agreed with Mr Gardener that it was desirable that the members of the Board should have an opportunity of putting everything before their own Councils. As far as the rate, etc., was concerned, and the estimate of the receipts and expenditure he considered the Chairman had amply provided for everything, and in making up such a statement it was as well to do so. In making up the proposed area, he pointed out that the Kairauga County had been omitted. The capital value of the County was ,£2,111,674. He was ot opinion that if the Mauawatu County and Feilding Borough was interested then surely the Kairauga County was also interested, as it was all round Palmerston. Then, again, there was the Rougotea Town Boardcapital value ,£33,9B7—which should certainly be included. There was also the question whether the Oroua and Pohaugina Counties should not also be included. With all these additions to tire area, it would make the rate very small. In any case he was confident that no rate would need to be collected, as the revenue vvould meet all expenses. He felt sure that the Kairanga County and the Rongotea Town District should be included in the rating area, but was doubtful in regard to Oroua and Pohangina Counties. He would like the Board to consider these matters. The Chairman said that reason he did not include the Kairanga County in the proposed rating area was because it was not represented on the Board. Mr Wood also congratulated the Chairman ou the very comprehensive report furnished. He agreed with Mr Nash that the Kairanga County and Rongotea Town District should be included in the proposed rating area. They were not represented ou the Board, and the Chairman, in compiling

his report, had only included the local bodies tnat had representation. If the other bodies, not having representation on the Board, were included in the area it might be the means of raising opposition on the ground that through not being represented they would have no say in the expenditure of the money, and therefore should be excluded from the area. A way out of the difficulty must be found, and he suggested that provision should be made to give them representation on the Board, and he thought they would then agree to be included iu the area. He was not representing any of the local bodies, but was the Government nominee, and he thought the Board should do as suggested. In any case, he felt sure there would never be any necessity to collect a penny of the rate struck. Mr Gardener suggested that the Chairmanls resolution be altered as suggested. Mr Barber congratulated the chairman on his report. He agreed with the previous speakers that the price asked for the wharf was high, but recognised that the sale of same was purely a business proposition. He noted that it was proposed that the Manawatu County should pay a larger proportion than Feilding or Levin. He did not think that should be so, the matter however would be discussed at the next meeting of his council. He was of opinion that the Bulls Town District should be included iu the area, as practically the whole of their goods came through Foxton and were sent on to Bulls by tram. He felt sure that the Manawatu County Council would support the scheme. Mr Gibbs, after adding his quota of to the chairman, said that he had gone carefully into ta2 figures submitted by Mr Hennessy and was perfectly satisfied that ample provision had been made for everything. As far as the Foxton Borough Council was concerned there would be no trouble in getting them to agree to rate themselves as suggested.

At this stage Mr Harlord attended.

The Chairman, in reply, said that Mr Nash’s arguments in reference to the inclusion of other districts in the rating area were very sound. The reason he had not included them, however, was because they did not have a representative on the Board, and consequently would not be conversant with the true position and this might be the means of killing any chance they had of having the rating area agreed to. He did not Know now what would be the best thing to do. It would entail a large amount of work to meet the people of the Kairanga County, but perhaps he could attend the next meeting of the Kairanga County Council and explain the position. In regard to the Oroua and Pohaugiua Counties he thought they were a little too far away to be included in the area. He felt sure there would be no trouble in getting Rongotea included without representation. He would like the Board’s opinion on action to be taken in regard to Kairanga. The inclusion of the County would make the rate very low. On the figures submitted by him a property valued at ,£BOOO, would only be liable for os rod rates, and if Kairanga were included it would reduce this considerably. Personally he was prepared to do anything he could in the interests of the Board. As to Mr Barber’s objection he considered that the Manawatu County was reaping a greater benefit from the port, as the success of their tramway depended a great deal on it. Bulls, he thought, was a little too far away to be included, and he did not think they should go beyond the Rangitikei River. Mr Nash explained that he had since found that the Rongotea Town District was included in the Manawatu County Council. Mr Harford considered that Feilding would not get the same benefit as * Palmerston North, and consequently should not pay as high a rate. However, he took it that there would be no necessity to collect any portion of the rate struck, and so, therefore, it would not make any difference. Mr Nash suggested that a copy of the Chairman’s statement be forwarded to the Kairanga County Council, and they be asked to receive a deputation. He considered that a very good case could be put before them. The Chairman withdrew his first motion, and moved that the Board’s solicitor be instructed to draft a Bill to submit to Parliament, empowering this Board to raise a loan up to ,£20,000 tor the purchase of Foxtou wharf; that interest and sinking fund be secured by a differential race over the Manawatu and Kairanga counties, Foxtou, Kevin, Palmerston North and Feilding boroughs, providing amounts sufficient to provide interest and sinking fund on such loan and embodying conditions that such interest and sinking fund be paid out of general revenue as far as possible. The motion was seconded by Mr Nash, and carried unanimously. It was further decided, on the motion of Mr Gardener, seconded by Mr Harford, that this meeting approves the Chairman’s proposal, as submitted, respecting the purchase of wharf and dredging the bar and river at Foxton, and that the members undertake to place the same before their respective councils for favourable consideration. The Chairman and Mr Nash were appointed as a deputation from the Board to wait on the Kairanga County Council, to lay

the proposal for purchase of Foxton wharf before them.

£ s. d. Wharfage m and out 2500 0 0 Less labour, etc., 600 0 0 £19000 0 0 Pilotage to lV 2 in and l l /z per ton out 350 0 0 Rents, say 200 0 0 Ship dues, berthage, etc., on, say, 35,000 tons, to 6d CO 0 0 Total £3325 0 0 Expenditun £ s. d. Interest on £20,000 to 4 per cent. 800 0 0 Sinking fund to 1 l /z per cent. 300 0 0 Pilot’s department 250 0 0 Com to Railway to 2 Yz percent,£1,900 47 10 0 Upkeep of wharf 400 0 0 Interest and sinking fund on £7000 dredge at 5 per cent. 350 0 0 Dredge master 250 0 0 Working dredge, say, three months Oo O c 0 0 Secretary and office expenses 200 a 0 Total £2897 10 0 Surplus £427 10 0