LOAN FOR LAND DRAINAGE

Southland Times, Issue 23898, 17 August 1939, Page 12

LOAN FOR LAND DRAINAGE

PROPOSAL DISCUSSED AT HAWTHORNDALE ORIGINAL SCHEME NOT FAVOURED

Twenty-one ratepayers of the township of Hawthorndale, in the Southland county, met the member for the riding, Cr L. A. Niederer, the county clerk (Mr H. C. Gimblett), the county engineer (Mr G. R. Milward) and Mr E. Sinclair, of the Health Department, last night to discuss a proposal to raise a loan of £2OOO for land drainage of the area. The scheme was outlined by the representatives of the county, and it was pointed out that the unimproved value of the area was £2160, so that a loan of £2OOO would throw a heavy burden on the ratepayers. The number of houses in the area was 32. After this scheme was discussed an alternative proposal was presented by Mr Milward, who said the cost of this would be about half that of the major scheme, and the meeting adopted this proposal by a big majority. Cr Niederer, who presided, said the position was that the Hawthomdale area was very badly off for drainage, and that was a very big factor. They had met before and discussed the pros and cons, and the engineer had gone very carefully into the matter of outfall and drainage generally. They would have to take into consideration the small number of houses. The scheme did definitely appear to be a very dear one for each section. They had the proposal ready to put before the Loans Board, and there had been several objections on the ground that if the scheme was gone on with as it was it would be a hardship. There was provision in the Act that if there was a certain percentage of objections the scheme could not be gone on with. “If on the other hand you are going to put in a system that is not going to be reasonably sanitary you are courting trouble,” Cr Niederer said. “We now want to see where we stand. The scheme will cost roughly only £lOO more than the figures given before, so that the figure will stand at £2000.’ The rating position of the area was explained to the meeting by Mr Gimblett. After the previous meeting, he said, the matter was reported to the council. When the engineer’s figures were definitely known the council made application to the Department of Internal Affairs to have certain sections of the Municipal Corporations Act made to apply to that area. The engineer’s estimate for the loan proposal was £2OOO, and on a £2OOO loan certain annual charges were leviable. The unimproved value of the whole area was £2160 and the capital value was £10,370, so that it was proposed to raise a loan of £2OOO on an unimproved value of £2160. The council proposed to make application for a loan for 36J years. “If we can get that,” he added, “the rate would be 1/3 in the £l. If the term is shortened to 20 years the rate will be 1/8, and on 15 years it will be 2/-. Actually any one of the rates is exorbitant, because the unimproved value is so low and the charge is so high.

COUNTY’S POINT OF VIEW

“When the objections go forward we will have to indicate to the Loans Board why we are applying for the loan, and give reasons for the objections. Frankly I don’t like the scheme myself. We have to look at it not only from your point of view but also from the point of view of the county. If hard times should come and you can’t pay, who is going to pay the bond-holders? The position would be that those people who could pay would bear the' cost for those who could not. Their 2/- in the £1 might become 3/-.” Details of the scheme were outlined by Mr Milward who said materials would cost £l2OO and the balance of the £2OOO would be spent in labour. A ratepayer asked if the East road ditch could be deepened another 18 inches, but Mr Milward said the Main Highways Board would offer strong objections to a deep ditch on a busy road. In answer to a question Mr Gimblett said the county was getting no free labour at all. It would cost £5 a section to connect from the road boundary to the building line. The attitude of the Health Department was explained by Mr Sinclair who said the department was out to help the people in every way it could, and would shut its eyes to certain matters because it knew the difficult position in which they were placed. In reply to a question Mr Gimblett said that the Act made no provision for a specific number of objections. The objections were considered by the Loans Board on their merits. /

“It’s a lot of money to spend on 26 acres,” said a ratepayer. Another speaker said that the money would be well spent, because unless there was proper drainage they would be unable to grow gardens and would be under other disabilities.

Mr Milward then explained the alternative scheme, which would, he said, be about half the cost of the major scheme. The suggestion was to put the main down Stuart street to the East road, piping it all the way and piping the East road too. Carlyle, Duncan and David streets would have open ditches in the meantime, and there would also be a pipe drain taken through the middle of Blocks II and 111 to discharge the ditches in Carlyle and David streets into the main in Stuart street. Out of the 32 houses in the area there would be 23 in the streets that would be piped right along. Several ratepayers spoke in favour of the alternative scheme. Mr A. Henderson meved that the major scheme be gone on with, but the motion lapsed for want of a seconder.

Mr A. Findlay moved that the council proceed with the minor scheme, the term of the loan to be 36£ years. The motion was carried.