WAIPUKURAU BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 214, 24 August 1922, Page 3

WAIPUKURAU BOROUGH COUNCIL.

The usual meeting of the Waipukurau Borough Council was held in the Borough Chambers on Tuesday evening, there being present the Mayor (Mr. E. A. Goodger) and Crs. Staines, Leigh, Atkins, McLean, Warren and Harker.

The Dannevirke Town Clerk wrote stating that he would be prepared to supply the council with tar in not less than five gallon lots at 6d per gallon, cartage to be borne by the council. Messrs. Findlay, Hoggard and Morrison wrote with reference to borough finance, stating, on behalf of a large British financial association, that if the council was contemplating raising a loan they would be obliged if particulars could be forwarded to them. — The letter was received. The District Public Trustee wrote with reference to Mr. Seymour’s sinking fund, requesting particulars.—lnformation supplied as requested. The telegraph engineer forwarded information regarding electric light and power regulations.—Referred to borough engineer.

Messrs. Goodwin and E., Jones wrote for licenses for their respective halls. — Granted. Mr. F. AV. Duncan, hop. secretary to the R.S.A., asked for a rebate of £1 off hire of the Town Hall for their ball, such rebate, if granted, to be handed over to the Unemployment Fund.—Acceded to.

Mr. Chambers applied for a permit to erect two shops in Ruataniwha street for Mr. .lull, and asked for permission to make connections with the old sewer until the new one went in. — Granted. , The secretary of the Hospital Board asked for information of electric light charges. The Mayor thought that probably, the charge would be 8d per unit and this was low enough to suit consumers and high enough to pay the council. —It was decided to reply on these lines, and to say that some definite information would be supplied later. . , Mr. AV. A. Chambers wrote with reference to the council refusing to grant him a permit for the erection of Mr. Jull’s building on the ground that the plans and specifications did not comply with by-law No. 6. This nylaw, Mr. Chambers considered, did not deal with reinforced concrete construction, and therefore submitted the ruling demanding 13in. walls for the proposed building was not concrete. Hie permit as requested.