LOANS OF £16,500

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 110, 19 February 1935, Page 6

LOANS OF £16,500

HAMPSTEAD DRAINS.

APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY.

DECISION OF BOROUGH COUNCIL.

SUM OF £4500 FOR ADVANCES.

UNEMPLOYMENT SUBSIDY £ISOO

After a discussion in committee, the Ashburton Borough Council last evening decided to ask the ratepayers to sanction the raising of two loans of a, total of £16,500 for the purpose of installing underground drainage in the Hampstead area. Of this sum, £4500 will be used as advances to ratepayers toward the cost of installing the drainage in private dwellings. It was stated that a subsidy of °£ lsoo toward the.labour cost would be made by the Unemployment Board.

Replying to the Council's application for a subsidy on the labour cost of the proposed drainage scheme tor Ashburton East, Mr W. Bromley (deputy-chairman of the Unemployment Board) wrote that the official note 'of the interview which took place when he was in Ashburton indicated that he pointed out to the Mayor and the officers present that the Board s offer of a subsidy of 35s a man-week for married men taken from the register could stand, or, if the Borough applied as an alternative to have a straight-out subsidy on the total cost of the job, the Board would subsidise to the extent of 12 per cent. It was also pointed out that there was likely to be a better advantage from the Council's point of view by accepting the original offer of 35s a man-week, but the Board would not approve of increasing the subsidy on the contract price beyond 12 per cent. It was then left to the Council to either carry on in accordance with the original proposal of a subsidy on wages, or to make application as an alternative for a straight-out subsidy of 12 per cent, on the total cost. The letter added: It may now be taken that either of the alternative offers is open to your Council, which should advise the Board as early as possible as to which method is desired." The Mayor said that as no reply had been received from the Board, he Bad instructed the Town Clerk to write asking for information. From discussion at the previous meeting, the Council apparently was in favour of a straight-out subsidy. Mr Pratley thought the Council was I being treated very fairly in the matter, and the Council's deputation to the Board deserved the Council's thanks for what they had accomplished. To have the subsidy would be less complicated than, the other. He moved that the Council reply accepting the subsidy. This was seconded by Mr Rundle and carried unanimously.

The Town Clerk (Mr W. Patterson) stated that the Council would have to call for objectors to the loan, allowing 14 days for the receipt of the§e. The Mayor said that the Finance Committee had discussed the question of raising a sum of-money to assist ratepayers to defray the cost of private installations, but the Committeee thought this was a question for the full Council. The sum would have to be named and there was a possibility of the Local Government Loans Board declining to sanction the raising of it. It was a big question. There were 360 houses to be connected at an average of £3O each. Mr Pratley thought the amount would not be as large as £3O, as the system of laying the main pipes reduced the distances.

It was pointed out that not all the ratepayers would require assistance and it would be difficult to assess the total amount necessary. The Council went into committee to discuss further aspects of the question. When the Council resumed in open meeting, it was stated that the Council had decided to apply to the Local Government Loans Board for authority to raise a loan of £12,000 tor the installation, and another of £4500 to bo used as advances to ratepayers.

The larger loan will be for a term of 35 years, bearing interest at 3J- per cent., with a sinking fund of H per cent. The other loan will l>e for a term of 10 years. A noil of ratepayers will be taken in due course to finally decide the raising of the loans,