FOXTON WHARF PURCHASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1025, 3 August 1911, Page 3

FOXTON WHARF PURCHASE.

DISCUSSED BY PALMERSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL. BOARD’S PROPOSAL SUPPORTED. At Tuesday’s meeting of the Palmerston Borough Council, the Foxton j Harbour Board’s proposal to create a rating area, and raise a loan for the purpose of purchasing the wharf was discussed.

The Chairman’s report submitted to the Council slated that assuming the wharf can be purchased ior £20,000, the annual interest at 4 per cent, will be £BOO. To secure this I propose as a basis for your consideration a differential rate on the capital value of the following district:

Popula- Valua- Tl. tion. tion. Rate £ Kairanga 3,681 2,106,654 1 17° 12 5 Manawatu 4,007 i,694,9°6 t/33 2t 4 foxton 1,500 162,138 15/64 25 Levin 1,500 239.47 2 1/40 say 25 Feilding 3,500 765-519 1/45 say 70 Pal. N. 12,000 i,990,4 2 7 i/39 .. 21 3

26,188 6,959,116 805 These figures are based on Government statistics for 1910.

If this point can be settled the next will be to have a Bill drafted to submit to Parliament giving the Board (1) 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 .£0,959,1x6, or say £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 larger cargoes at reduced rates, must be considered. This I estimate to cost £7OOO. To suuvV why the rates need not necessarily be collected, I submit the following figures, which are partly approximate, yet based on reliable information received :—Revenue, wharfage, in and out, £2500. less labour £600; pilotage at 1 in and per ton out, £350 ; rents, say £2OO ; ships’ dues, berthage on, say 35,000 tons at 6d, £875; total, £33 2 5Expenditure ; Interest on £20,000 at 4 per cent., £BOO, sinking fund £3OO, pilot £250, commission to railway £47 lOS - U P" keep of wharf £4OO, interest ana sinking fund on £7OOO dredge at 5 per cent. £350, dredge master £250, working dredge 3 months £3OO, secretary and office expenses £200; total, £2897 ios, surplus £427 ios. The sale of gravel dredged and the anticipated profit on lighting the river has not been included in the revenue. I am 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. Referring to the matter the Chairman of the Board said Laat the House was now sitting and it was decided to get a small Enabling Bill put through and a Commission set up to consider the rating area proposed. The solution of all the Board’s difficulties was the purchase of the wharf. He thought that seeing that the loan was for a specific purpose, and if the assurance of the Board could be taken, there was no objection to Palmerston being included in ihe rating area. If the Commission was set up, the whole question of rating would be fully thrashed out. It was also proposed to include the whole of the Horowheuua County north of Levin, which was a big area of country. Cr Haydon said that the Council should object at once. He took exception to the proportion alloted to Foxton as compared to Palmerston. Foxton would receive all the benefit and yet pay less. Feilding and the KairaugaCouuty Council had already objected. There was very little benefit in it at all for Palmerston, and he thought Foxton should pay a much greater proportion. The Mayor suggested that the Council should agree to the Commission and object to the proportion. Cr Haydon did not agree with the proposal, stating that consenting to the Commission would be equal to admittiug that the town would be benefited. He objected to the present proposals and would prefer to see the Commission set up and then send ou r delegates. The Mayor said that Palmerston was directly interested ; numbers of business people got their goods direct from Foxtou, and the greater the quantity carried the cheaper the cost of transit would be. It had been shown that it was not necessary to collect the rate, but still it had to be remembered they were liable for a rate, He thought that Foxtou and its wharf was a good asset for Palmerston, and that the Council should fall in with the proposal. Cr Clausen said he agreed with the Mayor and did not agree with Cr Haydon that benefits would be very small indeed. A good port at Foxton would assist Palmerston since it was the distributing centre for a big district, and the benefits would be greater if big boats could come into Foxton. The Mayor moved, ‘ That the Council support the proposal to purchase, and ask that a com-

mission be set up, but that it strongly protested against the proposed allocation of the rate.

Cr Haydon said that by giving Foxton a better port they would also be assisting in connection with the Levin-Greatford railway.

Cr. Mowlem supported the proposal, and thought the benefits would be worth a great deal more than a few pounds paid in rates. Cr Stubbs pointed out that Shannon, Feildiug, and the Kairanga County Council bad objected to the proposal. He believed that goods via Foxton were carried cheaper and that that route was largely availed of bv the business people, but what he objected to was the future possibilities of rating. He had heard it slated by people who knew that it was doubtful if Foxton could be made into a good port. In any case there should be a more equitable adjustment rate. The first thing to do was to see what our position was to be regarding rating. The Mayor said that he had the assurance ot the Board that it would be as slated in the report. Cr Stubbs, continuing, said that the Council should be coy in the matter, and not be too eager. He thought that the Council should object to the rate proposed, and that the motion should be amended to read that whilst the Council was favourable to the project, still the proposed rating was so inequitable that Palmerston would not agree to it unless it was altered.

The Mayor said he could object to the proposed allocation at the next meeting to be held. The motion, which was seconded by Cr. Mowlem, was then put and and carried.