LAKE COLERIDGE-WAIMAKARIRI

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17609, 11 November 1922, Page 9

LAKE COLERIDGE-WAIMAKARIRI

«) TBI EDITOR OT 11 THE PBESS." j Sir, —Recently w® have had a cob- i siderable amount of acrimonious talk 1 upon the new charge the Government intends to impose upon our city for energy supplied, by tiie Lake Coleridge , uyuiu-oiw-wio power ana aouie : j luouau lutftt ox iiieu' ui lor coui|j«- . - j ution by a propoaeu uaiueosuig 01 tuo | v» iur wiucii our oouucuiora j Have comwittea tfie ratepayers to a 11a- | bmty or aoout tooOO tor exper.i auvioei j imported into -New Zeaiaiid trom j Aiuerica. . it appears to dm* that insuflicient diSr- j nnsMinn and curetui reflection Have Doou i exercised beiore entering upon »ucn a _ | liability"" witn a .very Btrong likelihood j of nothing definite emanating tnere- ; | from. iiowever, the patient rate- j payers will have to foot the bill whether tne idea assumes any fruition or nO® and we shall tiiua nave to follow ttw. waiting garnet .» The public do not appear to realise what a benefit the city has had from the Government from the time it sup- v plied them with energy. And thiß, one* say, at the expense of the other parts of New .Zealand, for, according to the latest figures given by the Mmister of Public Works in the HoubO recently, the Lake Coleridge scheme • shows a loss of some £60,000, whereas ' the city has succeeded to a highly 'satisfactory extent. A few figures taken from the sheets of the two .concerns will show . .how things stand:—

Xlib city has accumulaveu a sum ol £ll/,544 as putnt aepieciation reserve m aauiuon to. iu> put aside for renewals, stobtts ana - general reserves, in. a loofcnote in tiie oiuanoe-sneet Uwy saj is invested by ainKing .cund, Commissioners, and the b&iauce is in tue ■ unuertamiig. i'hat is truiy a wonderful achievement for -the seven years they have been in operation. Of -course ttwy were operating with their steam , f plant ; • before the 'Cuienuge supply, hut the results of this were negligiDJ®. The cost 'of energy to our ; Council y worked out at .2U4d per unit sold, and the revenue received from the consumers was 1.601. In other words they purchase an article wholesale' for £2M and. sell it' for £l6Ol, which works out; at 514 per cent.,' a percentage which, if taken by a commercial firm, would ' put them in a delightfully good humour, _ but would have the whole community up in arms against them for profiteer- , ing. The City Council last , year put aside £20,266 to Depreciation against the Government's £#424, the latter's total Depreciation Reserve sinceita-in-' ception coming to £54,637, the former's £175,045, and yet the Council say if the Government raises their charges they will necessarily .have to do th» same. ' ' x When one calmly looks at the position of the two balance-sheets and analyses the various items it is no wonder the Government intends to increase its rates.. The Government's first duty is to see ~ that no loss is made on their business transactions, and should they he fortunate enougfi to show a profit of. any dimensions, then they can reconsider their charges. The City Electrical Manager, I under-. stand, was formerly in the position of Engineer in charge of Lake Coleridge - and should be acquainted with the losses : sustained .on the City Council contract. I write this purely to let the general •' public sec what the position is and how they would be plaoed even if such "drastic" jasur«j are taken by the Government as increasing the charge by 100 per oent. —an increase which can be paid by our Council without affecting the present retc.il charges to consumers and a substantial profit still be made. — Yours, etc., CITIZEN.

City. Lake. As at 81st March, 1922. Capital expenditure; £392,86445871,608 Revenue ... ... 90,049 58,814 Costs: Working ... 1 4)5,088 26,911 Depreciation ... 20,266 8,424 Interest ... 14,172 20,981 Net profit ... 10,523 1,498