KEREPEEHI HALL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4497, 29 November 1922, Page 1

KEREPEEHI HALL.

QUESTION OF PURCHASEAN OFFER REFUSED. An adjourned general meeting of the Kerepe.ehi Hall. Society was held in the locall hall on Monday evening, Mr A. Chatfield in the chair. There was an attendance of about 50. The chairman explained that the meeting was to discuss the purchase of Mr Innis’ hall. A committee had gone into the matter and obtained a valuation from Mr R. Roberts, of Paeroa. Mr Innis had also obtained a valuation. The valuations were read, the text being as follows: Mr Roberts’ letter stated that he had gone very carefully into the matter of the value of the local hall. He had not included in his estimate any forms or other movable furniture. He had based his ‘estimates oh presentday costs, and allowed for two coats of paint which the building appeared to have had. His estimate worked out at £6lB 18s 4d, which wbuhl provide the present hall new, spick and span. It. would be necessary to allow for depreciation, and 5 per cent, he thought, would be a fair amount. Therefore the value lie placed on the building at present would be £5BB. Mr C. D. Saunders, Thames, considered that the value of the building and seating accommodation was £660. The above was his estimate for erection and completion of building, and also seating accommodation as at present.

Tire chairman read the following resolution, carried at the meeting on Friday : “That we accept Mr Innis’ tender for the h&DI, namely: (1) Hall, £650 purchase money; (2) £5O cash; (3) £5O improvements each, year for four years; (4) balance five years, 7 per cent, for 2% years, balance of term current rate of interjest; (5) sole right for 'pictures as long as mortgage exists at 10 per cent, of takings ; (6) committee’s right ofj renewal for further five years at current rate of interest; (7) that Mr Innis' be given right to use stall for £25 a year.” Now it w,as a question of approving of the proposition. At the meeting on Friday there had not been a large enough) attendance to go on with the matter. It was a question of finance., Mr W. Booth moved that the meeting agree with the resolution already passed. Mr J. J. Jenkins considered that 5 percent, depreciation was not enough to allow. Mr Booth : This man is taking the position of a valuator. We have already had a valuator. The chairman said the committee had the full confidence of Mr Roberts as a valuator. They should have had an estimate for moving the hall to the new site. Mr Twist (secretary) said there had been an offer to i emove the hall to the new-site for £l5, haulage only. Voluntary labour would be needed. Mr Innis, with Mr Bridge, bad offered to take charge of the work of removal. Mr Jenkins asked for t,he matter to be opened up for discussion again. The chairman: If you are all agreeable it might be opened up again. Mr Hutchinson: Dees that mean that Friday's meeting is a "washout” ? The chairman: You can take it that way. Mr Booth moved that Mr Innis’

terms be accepted. The valuation was by an unbiased valuator;. There was not finance forthcoming for a new hall. Mr Innis’ terms were giving returns equivalent to capital put into the hall. If a man could give more liberal terms he would have to be “a bit of a Carnegie.” He thought that, in the interest's of; the district they should recognise the terms. They were paying absolutely nothing for, goodwill. Mr W. K. McLean, in seconding the motion, said the main feature was that they did not want two halls. They were paying goodwill, which was tne money they were paying for removal. In doing that they were taking away an opposition hall. The terms were easy enough. They should close the bargain and work together. Mr Devereaux said it was a business proposition. The stall would be the source of revenue. Mr Twist supported the motion. The terms were reasonable and ones they could accept. They were in favour of the residents who could get the hall within ,£lO of its actual! value. Mr Innis, lie said, was prepared to supply £65 to £7O for the use of the ball, which was 10 per cent, of the takings. Within three years from today they would get £1 a night for the hall. Mr Innis was turning over the hall for nothing and giving £l5 to the good. Mr R. L. Davies maintained that the price they would get the hall for would be £5O over the value. Mr G. A. Avey said that the remuneration from the hall from other than pictures and the stall was very -sTno.il, and he asked ’f Mr Innis would give a price wihout the right of the use of the stall. Mr Innis said he had given his terms, which: was a very fair thing. (Hear, hear, and applause.) Mr Hutchinson: Would it satisfy the public better if Mr Innis would give us a price for the, hall on the new site ? Mr Booth said one man had offered to move the hall to the new site for £l5. Mr Innis said they took the risk when they bought the hall and the society .should take the same risk now. They would have the rights of the stall and the pictures or they would keep the Hiiall, Mr Jenkins said the stall should be tendered for. When the motion was put the point was raised that only financial members could vote. The secretary said that all could discuss, the matter but only financial members could vote. A Voice: Is the hall purchased for the society or the public ? The chairman said they were purchasing it for the society. The Voice: With the public’s money. It was agreed to take the feeling of the whole meeting. The chairman said that the motion was lost. Mr Booth said that the rules, therefore, could be flouted. Voices: Stick to the regulation#. Mr Devereaux maintained that Mr Innis as a member bf the society could .not derive any pecuniary benefit from the society. The chairman said that it w.as proposed tp take a vote of only financial members.

Mr Devereaux then suggested enrolling members there and then. The chairman thought this 'could not be done. Had it been done at the beginning of the meeting it wtoukl have been all right. Mr Devereaux said it was just as well to do it inside in the light as outside in the dark. The motion was l again put, only financial members being allowed to vote. The voting was I'2 against and 10' for the motion, which was, therefore, lost. FURTHER PROPOSALS. • Mr R. Shelton asked what would Mr Innis take for the hall, cutting out the pictures. Mr Innis said that 10 per cent, of the takings was a good offer. It appeared as though they wanted to cut him (the speaker) out altogether. Voices : No. Mr Innis s.aid he was not prepared to deal further with the matter for the time being. Mr Hutchinson said perhaps Mr Innis ; would later consider the matter. Two halls in such a small district would not work satisfactorily. Mr Innis said that at Patetonga the terms wer 5s more per night for the hall than Mr Innis was offering. Mr Innis said he was offering £25 a year—los a night. Mr Twist reproached Mr Devereaux for his attitude. Air Bridge said he would remove the hall for £75. Mr Devereaux said they should adjourn the meeting and then they could consider building a new hall. Mr Hutchinson said that as the meeting ih-ad turned down Mr Innis’ terms Mr Innis 1 be asked to submit fresh terms; otherwise he would move that the meeting be closed. Mr Shelton seconded. The motion was carried, and the meeting was declared closed.