LOANS EXPLAINED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 247, 1 August 1935, Page 6

LOANS EXPLAINED

HAMPSTEAD DRAIN SCHEME.

AN ENTHUSIASTIC MEETING.

THE COST TO RATEPAYERS. A large number of ratepayers in the Hampstead area of the Borough attended at the Hampstead Hall * last evening to hear an explanation of the. Ashburton Borough Council’s proposals to raise a loan of £12,000 to instal underground drainage in the district, and a lean of £4500 to be used as advances to where necessary. A poll on the proposal to raise these sums will be taken next Wednesday. The meeting was a '.very enthusiastic one.

The Mayor (Mr W. H. Woods), presided and he had with him the Town Clerk (Mi’ W. Patterson) and the consulting engineer who drew up the plans for the scheme (Mr H. W. Stevens). Among the audience were several members of the Borough Council.

The Mayor said the large attendance seemed to indicate the interest the people of the district were taking in the Council’s proposals. An explanation of the scheme was given by Mr Stevens, who said that the ratepayers were doubly protected, first through the Local Government 'Loans Board, and then through the Borough Council. He went on to outline 23 successful drainage schemes he had installed. He explained 1 that the main sewer would not be run down the centre of the streets, as was generally the case, but would be taken through the back gardens of the houses, thus effecting a considerable saving to occupiers as well as eliminating much inconvenience through the opening of drains across the roads and through front gardens, paths and lawns. He claimed that his scheme was 25 per cent, cheaper than the ordinary type of drainage system. He added that the septic tank proposed' to be used in the Hampstead scheme would be of much more simple construction than was usual and would be much cheaper to construct, and would be foolproof, while maintenance would he cut to a minimum.

Self-Contained System. Mr Stevens said that the scheme would be self-contained and would not have anything to do with any part of the existing system in the rest of the Borough. The ratepayers in Hampstead would not be loaded with any expense in regal’d to that scheme. Mr J. Thompson said ho had had a good deal, to do with sewerage schemes in a number of towns, and he had been greatly struck by the methods of installation employed by Mr Stevens and the financial saving brought about by them. Some years ago he had drawn up a scheme for the Hampstead Town Board, but the cost would have been 3s Gd in the £, an altogether prohibitive figure. In the present in. stance the rate would be about Is Gd in the £, due to the method proposed, the 12) per cent, subsidy on the labour cost from the Unemployment Board, and the fact that the interest rate would be 3) per cent. He said that the annual cost under the new system would be much less than that of the present system. He could not see a time in the next 20 years that would be more opportune than the present. If the ratepayers turned down the scheme they would be doing themselves an inury. (Applause.) Saving in Most Cases. Mr W. H. Robinson said tliere had been some doubt as to whether the new system would be as good as tne old system, so far as its working was concerned, but lie thought that had been explained already. Mr Robinson reviewed sewerage proposals that had been put forward in Hampstead m the past. The system was one that was badly needed in the area, as there was endless trouble with the present pit system. Ratepayers were paying £1 a year with extras that reached another 6s, but most of them would make a saving under the new scheme. He urged the ratepayers to vote solidly in favour of the loans, for the present was an excellent time m which to launch a drainage system. Mr J. T. Pratley! endorsed the remarks of previous speakers, and referred to a number of districts which had installed underground schemes of drainage after having encountered great difficulties with: the pit system. He went on to say that the Council had given him every support in his advocacy of the scheme, and he paid a tribute to the Mayor for the way he had pushed it along. (Applause). He urged the people of the district to stand behind the Council, and see that the poll was carried, for it would mean the advancement of the district. The Council’s Guarantee. The Mayor said the question everyone wanted answered was, “What- ie it going to cost?” It- was his job to present the case to them, and leave them to decide. In the .past every proposal made had been prohibitive, but now it could be brought in at a reasonable cost, for a variety of reasons. The Council felt that if it could bring the cost to a rate of Is Gd in the £, it would be worth while going ahead with it. The Council could guarantee that it would not cost more’ than Is Gd in the £. The cost of thework would be about £13,000, and tlio Unemployment Board’s subsidy of 12) per cent, on the labour cost (given on condition that 80 per cent, of the relief labour on the register were engaged) would amount to £ISOO. The Loans Board had tried to make the term of the loan 30 years instead of 35 years as the Council proposed. This would have raised the sinking fund rate by one half per cent. The Board had, however, agreed to the Council’s representations, and the longer term was agreed to. There had been a good deal delay, as the proposals had been placed before the Loans Board in March. The rateable value of the Hampstead area was £8548, but the Council’s calculations had been based on £8203, a sum of £345 having been deducted in re-

spect of a. number of properties, chiefly in King Street and Brucefield A venue, which would not be connected for some time to come. These properties had been excluded. The security rate Was set at Is 7)d in the pound, and this had caused some feeling. This did not a bit, as it was only the rate struck; it did not mean the amount that might be actually levied. The whole of this area had been used as security for the Power Board loans, but no rate for that had ever been levied; he thought there never would be any power rate. Some years ago, on the water scheme the rate was Is Bd, but only lid was now being charged, while he had promised that the rate would never be above Is 5d or Is s)d. If there was no tender less than the engineer’s estimate, the engineer was prepared to do the work at Iris estimate. (Applause). The Mayor added that there were only 12 properties in the Hampstead area which were rated at £4O per annum or over, 75 were rated at £l3 or less, and there were only 357- properties in the area. Rates on annual value of properties of the following values would be as shown :; — Annual Value. Rate. s. d. £lO 15 0 £ls ... 22 6 £2O 30 0 £4O 60 0 The Mayor referred to the qualifications of Mr Stevens, who, he said, had brought about a saving of. £19,000 in Rangiora over the old system that had) been before the council there. He urged the ratepayers to consider the scheme earnestly. (Applause.) Advances to Ratepayers.

Referring to the second loan of £4500 for advances, the Mayor said there was a good deal of misunderstanding about it. There was a feeling that all' the ratepayers would be j-ated to find the interest and sinking fund of that loan, but he assured his hearers that that ‘circumstance would not arise. The Loans Board hadi put a limit of £3OOO on this loan for actual use in the meantime, hut, if there was the need, the balance could be released. The security rate would be Is 5d in the £, and the levying of this applied in the same way as the other. Tile advances would be put on a purely business footing. Only those borrowing this money would be called upon to pay 8) per cent, sinking fund and such interest as the council thought fit. The council had the right to put a charge on the property before any other charge that might be on it. The only thing that would make the council rate the district for this money would be in the event of the council failing to collect the amounts due by those who borrowed. There was no borough in New Zealand that was in, a better position than that in which Ashburton found itself. Where there was a Government mortgage on a property the council would have to obtain first the consent of the mortgagee. He added that where ratepayers had paid their rates promptly there would be a better chance of loans being obtained from the council, where necessary. (Laughter.) There had been some misconception regarding the qualifications of voters. The ratepayer and the ratepayer’s wife or husband, as the case might be, could vote. A three-fifths majority would be necessary to carry the proposals. An endeavour would be made to provide transport where it was required next Wednesday. In reply to questions, the Mayor said that, so far as could be estimated, the complete cost of the average installation would be about £25.

Mr Mills: Well, your estimate is wrong. (Laughter.) Water Supply Ample.

The Mayor said he was safe in saying that the water supply system would be able to cope with the drainage system. If there should be trouble, all the council had to do was to put down another bore at the power-house where supply was The council had given careful consideration to the question of advances, and felt that £4500 would be an ample amount/ Some people would not require the full cost of installation. The loan could not be used for any other purposes than that of advances. The council had the power to compel people to install, the sewerage system, but because it might have caused some hardship the council liad stayed its hand. The time was coming when a standi would have to be taken in this regard. A vote of thanks was accorded Mr Stevens for having come from Kaikoura to attend the meeting. A similar vote was accorded the Mayor for the manner in which he had explained the proposals.