THE OPOTIKI NEWS Friday, August 19, 1938. WHARF ADMINISTRATION

Opotiki News, Volume I, Issue 72, 19 August 1938, Page 2

THE OPOTIKI NEWS Friday, August 19, 1938. WHARF ADMINISTRATION

The conference to be ; held to-night between the Opotiki Borough Council and the Opotiki County Council, in connection with the administration cf the' Opotiki wharf should! - prove very interesting. No charge of mal-admin-istration lias been made by the Opctiki County Council, but the Council is of the opinion that the county should have a direct say in the administration of the Opotiki harbour and wharf. To no suggestion has been made by. the County Council as to how such a change of administration can be brought about and the Borough Council is unaware of the form of adminisr tration. It is known that both councils are strongly against the formation of a harbour board, as this would undoubtedly result in a big increase in administration charges and a resultant increase in wharf dues.

The question of joint administration in some other form is likely to lie a very difficult one and would be rather cumbersome. At the present time the Borough Council deals with any matters arising out of the wharf at the usual monthly meeting, but with joint administration this simple form of dealing with wharf matters would have to be done away with. The borough is responsible for any loans in connection with wharf expenditure and joint administration would mean that both councils would have to take over responsibility for ahv expenditure. A small committee from the county could hardly work with the whole Borough Council, as it could only give suggestions and would have no voting power. The whole question of joint administration bristles with difficulties and it appears that the simplest form would be to hand over the wharf administration wholly to the County Council. It is known that the Borough Council is opposed t 0 joint administration and the indications are that the Council would be quite prepared to take this step. The chief bone of contention appears to have been the action of the Borough Council some years ago in taking wharf funds during the depression for relief works. This was strongly condemned but the County Council immediately applied for portion of the wharf funds and by doing this condoned' what ;it called an offence by the Borough Council. Instead of having a credit balance to-day of £2.000, as had been claimed by some County Council members, the wharf account had only a credit balance of approximately £126 at the last meeting of the Borough Council. With the heavy expenditure on the wharf extension and in the event of a cool store being erected on the new wharf, the borough will be responsible for a considerable debt. It is generally admitted that the Opotiki wharf should have had a cool store erected years ago for tilt' proper handling of the district’s dairy produce, but the question of wliat form the store will take is a matter for the Borough Council and the dairy companies to decide. As far as wharf charges are concerned the Borough Council has made considerable decreases in recent years and county residents can have n 0 grounds for grievance on this account. . The question of the establishment of a cool store may have to be deferred in the meantime in view of the early construction of the railway from Taneatua to Opotiki. It would be unfair for the borough to bear the responsibility of such expenditure unless there was a guarantee that cool store would be used for a lengthy period. In the event of the Government compelling dairy companies to freight their produce by rail, the construction of a cool store would be quite, unjustified. This is a .matter that will have to be bv the interested parties.