HORAHIA DRAINAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4912, 7 December 1925, Page 3

HORAHIA DRAINAGE.

SPECIAL BOARD MEETING. BIG SCHEME ADOPTED. A special meeting of .the Horahla Drainage Board was held on Friday last, Mr F. A. Kneebone presiding over the following : Messrs S. S. Murray, W. McDuff, J. C. Miller, J. M. Thompson, R. L. Davies, W. E. Hale, the clerk (Mr W. E. G. Willy), and the engineer (Mr J. N. Anderson). . The meeting had been called to further matters which had been considered by the board in committee at .the previous meeting, and also to discuss the proposed loan for the comprehensive scheme. Among the proposals was one to reduce the size of the central, area from 5200 acres to 4457 acres, by transferring the section fronting Orchard Road on the .southern side to the southern area, increasing the acreage of that area from 3524 to 4267.

The suggested alteration would affect the rating values of the areas as follows: —•

Present figures.—Northern Area, unimproved value £117,580, ratesi£732; Central -.Area, £108,73'5, and £670; Southern Area, and £461. Suggested figures.— Northern Area, £117,580 and £732 ; Central Area, £92,060 and £575; Southern Area, £90,992 and £565.

The chairman expressed thd opinion that if mature consideration had been given the question of dividing the' area in the first place the necessity for altering it now would not have arisen. The purpose of the alteration was to give a clearly defined boundary, which would be advisable in the event of amalgamation.

Messrs McDuff and Davies opposed the suggestion, contending that the time was not opportune.

Mr W? EL Hale said that the engineer’s scheme of dividing .the area into separate drainage districts was a strong, argument in favour of the alteration.

The chairman pointed out that the alteration of the boundary would have the effect of equalising the amount of collectable rates.

Mr Davies, thought the change would be detrimental to the southern area, and that it could not maintain the two extra'drains with the fundis that would be available.

Mr J. C. Miller suggested that the central area contribute towards the cost of the Te Kauri No. 1 drain. It would be advisable to settle the amount before the alteration was decided upon.

Mr Hale agreed to the central area contributing if it wfos deriving a benefit.

Mr McDuff said that he could not see why the matter was pressed. He moved that the present boundary of each subdivision.be not altered.'.

Mr Davies seconded. On being put to the vote the motion was defeated, Messrs McDuff and Davies, voting for and Messrs. Miller, Hale, Kneebone, and Murray against. Mr Thompson did not vote.

The special orders altering the boundaries were then carried on a similar-vote. • ■

AMALGAMATION. A letter was read from the Hauraki Drainage Board conveying its -resolution not agreeing .to amalgamation until the Horahia Board’s scheme was, completed. « The clerk pointed out that there were powers in the- Lands Drainage Act to deal with the, case when one board desired amalgamation and the other board objected. The Act- provided for the appointment of a com-' missioner to settle the point,, - If amalgamation, was . ordered each board would bear its, own share of the cost of the commission.

After lengthy discussion Mr Hale moved, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, .that the Minister for Internal Affairs be asked to set up a Commission to inquire into the advisability or 'otherwise of declaring the two drainage areas one united district. • Mr Miller seconded. ■ Messrs Murray, McDuff, and Davies did not favour this, contending that it would be preferable to follow the course outlined by the Hauraki Board. The other members contended that every effort had been, exhausted, and to defer, the amalgamation would Jinpair the efficiency of the drainage scheme.' Until the amalgamation question was decided .the. details of the scheme could not be completed. The settlers knew that the board was out to clean, up the whole business; and,if it now decided to take the steps to finalise the question of amalgamation the settlers would support the loam proposal. An amendment by Messjns; McDuff and Murray to defer the question of amalgamation until after the loan proposal, had been submitted to the ratepayers was defeated by four votes (Messrs Kneebone, Hale, Miller, and Thompson) to three. The motion was then put and carried, the voting being similar, .except that Mr Davies did not record his .vote. ' COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME. , The board then went into committee to discuss details of the engineer’s, scheme for the drainage of the whole' area. . On resuming about three hours later the /following recommendations were adopted:— “That the drainage scheme as set out by the board’s engineer be adopted. “That the clerk be authorised to take steps for a poll of the on the proposal to borrow the sum of £13,500, plus the first year’si interest and sinking fund and' the cost of raising the loan. “That the board meet on Thursday, December 10, for the purpose of finalising .the details and fixing the rating areas, for the loan.”