WATER FOR MANUREWA

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22132, 11 June 1935, Page 10

WATER FOR MANUREWA

BORROWING SCHEME BANNED LOANS BOARD'S DECISION Advice from the Local Government Loans Board that it had declined to sanction the proposal of tho Manurewa Town Board to raise a loan of ,€18,700 for a district water supply scheme was received at the Town Board meeting last night. The scheme was adopted by tlie board in February last following an acute water shortage. The residents are dependent upon rainfall stored in house tanks for their supply. 'l'lio Loans Board stated in its letter that the present debt of the town district was high when compared with the average debt of all town boards.

"If a further loan of £18,700 was raised, tlio result would he an inercase in tho deht per head of population of approximately £1 2 ]os, making the total deht approximately £'lo as against tlic average for all loral bodies of £17.80 per cent." While the hoard was of opinion that the scheme was desirable, it did not appear to bo essential, and was beyond the financial resources ot' the ratepayers. Mr. E. S. Pegler said the members had been invited by tho Papakura Town Hoard to inspect its waterworks. The Manurewa scheme had been subsequently prepared when members spoke favourably of the Papakura source. He criticised tho action of three members of the hoard in going again to the Papakura waterworks, without consulting the controlling authority, at a time when repairs were being undertaken. He moved that a letter expressing regret be sent to tho Papakura Town Board Mr. C. E. Gray said the scheme had only been delayed. Ho was personally acquainted with a housing scheme to build 50 houses to let at 15s a week. That would have given considerable local employment, but it could not proceed if there was no town water supply. Mr. W. Ferguson said he objected to Mr. Peglcr's statement. Ho did not oppose a water scheme, but the proposal should have been submitted firstly to the ratepayers The motion was carried by four votes to three. The voting was:—For the motion, Messrs. Pogler, C. E. Gray, J. •H. Edwards and H. 11. Maxwell; against, Messrs. W. T. Cox, T. S. Gray and W. Ferguson.