NORMANBY ROAD.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5069, 24 December 1926, Page 2

NORMANBY ROAD.

QUESTION OF BITUMINISING. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING. A special meeting of the Paeroa Borough Council was held on Tuesday night, His. Worship the Mayor (Mr W. Marshall) presiding over the following: Crs. E. J. W. Silcock; . G. P. de Castro, P. H Brenan', F. EL Flatt, H. J. Hare; E. A. Porritt;' and ~ the .town clerk (Mr W. C. Alexander). The Mayor .explained that the m.eet- t ing had been called to consider establishing a special rating area for the purpose of bituminising Normanby Road. In presenting the Petition Cr. For-, ritt said cl at the provisions of the Local Bodies Loans Act, 1913, h »d been, or could be, complied jvith. The petition had been signed by bona fide ratepAyers. A public spirit pervaded the petition, and it was the evident, desire of the ratepayers to help thq , •town by helping themselves in providing a bituminised-street. He therefore moved: “That the town clerk be authorised to take the necessary steps to set the machinery in motion provided under the Local Bodies Loans Act, 1913, in order that the loan may. be raised in the area as set out in. the petition.” . ■ . STATEMENT BY MAYOR.

In seconding the motion the Mayor said that he had gone carefully into the matter.. He detailed .the steps that would have to be taken if the resolution was carried. If the council , was satisfied as to the bona of the 75 per cent, of ratepayers, and was willing to facilitate the proposal, the special order necessary could bQ made simultaneously with the obtaining of the consent. It was obvious, that at the eariest it would be'some. time toward the. end of February next , before the consent of the Gov-ernor-General to the raising of the loan could be obtained. As this would be. too late to enable the work to be carried out while the other work was being done, the proposal could only be given effect to with the good-, will and co-operation of the council. The proposal had his hearty support, but if the,re was to be. obstruction •from the councillors he preferred to see the matter dropped.At the same time, he deemed it his duty to point out that if the proposal was dropped and the. incomplete work on Nqrmaifby , Road resulted in considerable expense to the ratepayers at a later date, then the -responsibility of that state of affairs would rest upon .those who preve<nted the consummation of the project. He trusted that the discus- .... sion would be lifted to its proper plane, namely, the consideration of a public matter, by representative public men, in a public-spirited way. In answer to Cr. Edwards the May°p< said that the sides of the street could be gone on with in the event pf the petition being turned down, but it was -not desirable to do so on account of the extra cost entailed in- doing the work at a later date. It was a fail- estimate to suggest that the work would be covered by a loan bf £lOOO. In .the event of it costing more, £lOO could be procured, undetf- the same machinery. •

In answer to Cr. Flatt the Mayor , x stated that the petitioners were prepared ,to shoulder Id in 1 the £ for a rate. It Was reasonably certain that 75 per cent, of the ratepayers had signed the. petition. Cr. de Castro took exceptino to one , ratepayer’s signature on the petition, for the reason .that the- lessee and ’ lessor paid the rates between themThe Mayor said that the o.wner liable for any rates, but under, agreement .there were two ratepayers according to the Act. It was a very fine point and on investigation the lessee’s name might be. struck out, but both had- a vote as ratepayers. It was a public m'Utter, and could only be discussed in a pdblic-spirited manner. In answer to, Or. Flatt the Mayor said an engineer’s estimate could be obtained, but he was content to leave ■ it to the foreman. ' . - Cr. Edwards remarked that the foreman had given satisfaction on previous occasions. After perusing the list df petitioners' Cr. de Castro said it was evident that the required 75 peg- cent, had pot signed the petition. The work was quite good, but h'e objected to a special rating area on the grounds that it was unjust and inequitable. The outsiders, would get as much or more benefit out of the. bituminising of Normanby Road thajn would .the people pledged to find the cost.. There were only 11 out of 24 who had signed the requisition, whereat 18 was the . . number to find the 75 per cent, re-? quired. It was doubtful if the. required number of signatures would be forthcoming. He was of the opinion that if the council carried out', .the original intention to spQnd £l4OO on the (street it would be quite satis- . factory. Bitumen had not proved to . be satisfactory, and £2400 was a big sum to be expended if the street was " only going to last .about five years* If the .75 per cent, of signatures were forthcoming he would not raise any

objection. He considered it a waste of time going on with the project on. the face of 75 per cent, not having signed. .■ . Cr. Hare considered that in the event of the petitioners being able to supply thg town clerk with sufficient names to qualify for the 75 per cent, ‘the town clerk should be instructed to set the machinery in motion. He moved an amendment,to that effect. ’ ' Or. de Castro seconded, and added - that it was tantamount to a guaran- ', tee. It was a pity that the required - number had not signed, because the council could have put .the machinery in motion that night. ■ • ' Cr. Flatt remarked that the amend- . ment was sound. . • Cr. Edwards said he also favoured the amendment. With the permission of the Mayor Cr. Porritt withdrew his-resolution. The motion was then put and carried unanimously. The Mayor remarked that it was satisfactory to have reached unanimity, thus far.