Meeting of Ratepayers at Ashurst.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 117, 16 November 1896, Page 2

Meeting of Ratepayers at Ashurst.

• A meeting of ratepayers, convened by Mr G. S. Rnmble, in the Nos. 6 and 6 wards of tbe Manchester Boad district was held in the Theatre Royal, Ashurst, on Saturday evening last for the purpose of considering what steps should be taken to secure increased representation on tbe Road Board or tbe advisability of agitating for separation. There were about fifteen or twenty persons present, the small attendance being probably due to tbe fact that this meeting was held after Mr Buick's political meeting, and that tbe bour was somewhat late. Mr Rumble, wbo was voted to the chair, explained the object of the meet* iog, saying that the district on the eastern side of the Oroua river, Nos. 5 and 6 wards had a greater capital value than that on the western side and that the former's two votes bad to compete against the four votes of tbe latter, which should be remedied. Tbe rates collected in the various wards were as follows :-No 6, .£630 4s 7d ; No 6, £552 10s 10s ; No 4, £439 12s 6d ; No 3, £457 Is ld ; No 2, £168 10s 9d ; No 1, £40 ls 2d. Nos 5 and 6 wards paid £77 9s lld more in rates than the other fonr wards put together. Tbe valuation of tbe wards was:— No 1, £15,384; No 2, £64,720 ; No. 3, £175,511 ; No 4, £168,816 ; total, £424,431; Nos 5 and 6 wards, £454,161. Tbe two latter showing an excess in valuation of £29,730 over the other four wards. This should be altered, and the most reasonable way would be to cut Nos. 5 and 6 into three wards while Nos 1 and 2 might be made into one ward. The other remedy was separation, but there would be some difficulty in getting that. In reply to a questiouer, who was of opinion the balance-sheet of the Board should be published, as to whether there was more money spent on the west side than there should be, Mr W. G Pearce, warden for No. 5 ward, said that the balance-sheet was made out aB tbe transactions of the Board, but separate ward accounts were kept. The eastern side had more than its share of tbe expenditure, No. 5 ward being overdrawn about £800, but he was not quite certain if No. 6 was overdrawn. The greatest complaint was tbe valuation, which was too high oo this side of the river. Mr Conway and he had opposed tbe increase of rates as the valuation oo tbis side was too high. The average valuation all through the district was £8 an acre, but the valuation on tbe eastern side waa £8 15?, wbile tbat on tbe western side was £6 17s. When he pointed this oat to the Board he was told the land was not so valuable on the latter as on the former side. Tbe special rate was lower on the eastern than tbe western side, and the increased valuation was on the former side. The increase in the last valuation was £75,000 and the increase in tbe previous valuation waa £39,000. The valuation should be reduced over the whole district, for they had to pay the charitable aid at per £1000 of the valuation, and it came very heavy on them. It would be betterto have a lower valuation and a higherrate. If they had an average valuation of £6 an acre, they wonld save £50 a year in charitable aid, while' they could strike a rate to give the same* revenue as they were getting at present* The valuation per acre was — No. 1, £3 4s ; No. 2, £5 14s ; No. 3, £5 18s ; No. 4, £9 ss ; No. 5, £9 ; No. 6, £8 10s. The special rates amounted to — No. 1 ward, the old three-sixteenths of a penny rate which was also collected over the whole district ; No. 2, £33 a year ; Nov 3. £84 5s ; -No. 4, £66 10s ; No. 5, £274 19s 6d ; No. 6, £198 12s ld. Or, the amounts collected per £1000 of tbe valuation came to— No. 2 lis, No. 3 10s, No. 4 7s sd, No. 5 255, No. 6 £18 (?). Tha amount of special rates collected yearly was the same, but it might increase or fall with respect to the individual as the valuation might altpr. He thought land should be rated on its unimproved value. It was a question whether the specialrate should be collected on the valuation as at the time it is first struck or on the' valuation as it is from time to time al**tered to. The Manchester Boad Board collected on the altered valuation, which. was at first objected to by the auditor, who eventually gave in,, and he did not know if they could caii that law. For bridges within the districtthey paid about L2OO in interest ont of the general rate. The cost of maintain^ ing their roads last year was L 136 5; the expense of clerk and engineer was L 250 and 5s a week for office rent ; they pud about Ll2O a year to the bank aB interest for tbeir overdraft ; and L 207 for Charitable Aid and advertising. Mr Taylor thought the question was : Were the wards equally divided? He thought they should be equally divided and ha advocated separation. Mr Pearce would oppose separation as there was nothing to gain, the Manchester Board being worked as economically as any other Boards. The 260' miles of roads in the district were maintained as cheaply as those in other districts, the average cost of the Rangitikei couuty roads being £8 a mile and in the Stratford county £7. Their revenue was about £2000 and he wassafe in sayiug that tbeir roads were economically maintained. If it were uot for the timber traffic he did notthink tbey would have a shilling overdraft and the trade should bear a share of the cost of repairing the roads. Itwould cost £100 to put the road in repair between Ashurst and Colyton; through the timber traffic. Mr Eatable thought that steps should; be takeu to equalise the voting on the-' Board, who might agree if approached.Mr Thomas, warden for No. 6 ward, said he bad always found the Board very fair. He could say this side had its full share and more of the expenditure for the three or four years before he was elected. : Mr Pearce said, in reply to questions > and remarks, that at tbe previous valuation £70 a year was collected in rate* from the Ashurst township and £100 .on . tlie last valuation ; that in Mr Reeve's time £300 was spent in Ashurst in new works and they had, also, there share 1 of the maintenance, about a quarter of the roadman's time being devoted to work in the township, besides wbich i they would have to pay about £10 for the charitable aid and a share of the clerical expenses. With reference to the Gorge bridge, when it was built there was a debt on it of £1200, and No. 6 ward was to bave the tolls until that was paid off, when the revenue was to go to the whole district, but in addition to the £1200 they got £2000, and abont LIOO profit during the existence of the agreement with the Pahiatua County while the whole district was paying interest on the loan. The rent from the Ferry Reserve, also went to No. 6 ward account. '"' Mr Saunders said the No 6 ward was responsible for re-building the bridge while they were getting the tolls. Resolved, on the motion of Mr Rowling, and seconded by Mr Saunders, That it be left in tbe hands of Wardens Pearce and Thomas to bring tbe matter before the notice of tbe Board, to gather information as to whether they can eet increased representation for the eastern side of the river on the Board, and to report to a future meeting. Resolved, That Messrs Rumble and Vincent forward a copy of the above resolution to the chairman of the Board. Resolved, That a hearty vote of thanks be accorded to Wardens Pearce and Thomas for their attendance and tbe information supplied. ' The meeting terminated with the usual compliment to the chair.