COMPENSATION PAYMENT

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 58, Issue 4193, 7 June 1939, Page 5

COMPENSATION PAYMENT

FOR WIDENING SLOANE STREET CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROTEST AGAINST RATE., The advertised intention of the Te Awamutu Borough Council to strike the current year’s rates, including provision for payment of about £750 as compensation for widening part of Sloane Street, came up for discussion at the meeting of the Te Awamutu Chamber of Commerce last evening, when Mr A. G. Warburton brought forward the matter of borough rates and estimates for the present year. Briefly, he surveyed the position as follows: When the Highways Board members were in Te Awamutu about a year ago for the opening of the new bridge over the Mangapiko stream the Mayor (Mr G. Spinley) had waited on them with the project for widening portion of Sloane Street. Later the work was done, and the cost was charged to the Borough Council at about £750, but the Mayor had previously told the Council that he had reached agreement with the Highways Board in the matter of contribution, by which the Borough Council would not be required to bear one penny of the expense. But subsequent investigation showed that the Highways reservation was that it must have an estimate of the cost of street widening when application was made for the subsidy before it would declare how much, if any, of the cost would be shouldered by the Board. That estimate, unfortunately, had been forwarded only about six weeks ago. Meantime the Borough Council, in the absence of the Mayor overseas, had provided in its current year’s estimates for payment of the compensation out of this year’s rates. Mr Warburton said he thought such action was rather precipitate in view of the Mayor’s assurances and the lack of any definite pronouncement on the subject from the Highways Board. Mr H. C. Rainey said that he had been one of a Borough Council committee—Messrs Spinley, North, and Gifford were the others—to negotiate with the property owners. The committee had two meetings, and some progress was made, but for many months he had not been consulted in the matter. The arrangement between the committee and Messrs C. T. Rickit and Sons, Limited, was that no compensation was to be paid respecting the area occupied by the firm’s old shops, but that compensation was to be paid for the alteration of the new two-storey building, presumably based on a tender price. Twice he had been assured by Mr Spinley that he was looking into the question of betterment. Mr Rainey concluded with the remark that no action should be taken in Mr Spin-ley’s absence. No minutes were taken of the two meetings earlier referred to. Mr W. Jeffery’s view was that the question should be discussed, even in the absence of the Mayor, in view of the intention of the Council to strike a rate to cover the payment of compensation, and the lack of any written statement of the position by Mr Spinley. Mr L. G. Armstrong asked if the £750 payment now being provided for was all that would be paid. He understood that in last year’s estimates £4OO had been allocated for compensation. He did not know what became of that £4OO. Mr Rainey said he also did not know. How was the £750 compensation fixed upon - was a question asked, but one which lacked an answer. The opinion was expressed that the Highways Board, its requirements not having been complied with, was very unlikely to pay the amount. If it did pay, it would only be an act of grace. Ultimately it was decided to write to the Borough Council setting out the views of the Chamber, and urging that due consideration be given to those representations before the proposed rate was confirmd-