TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1881. THE MUNICIPAL ESTIMATES FOR 1861-2.

Evening Post, Volume XXI, Issue 85, 12 April 1881, Page 2

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1881. THE MUNICIPAL ESTIMATES FOR 1861-2.

The Wellington Municipal Estimates of receipts and expenditure for the financial year, which commenced on the Ist inst., are now before us, and demand the careful attention of the ratepayers. In the first place, we find that, among the estimated receipts, the general rates are set down as yielding £10,778, that being the product of a rate of one shilling in the pound on £215,575 annual value — the assessor's valuation of the city property for rating purposes. Here, however, we notice that there is no allowance for default on the part of ratepayers. In the financial year just expired, the general rates still remaining unpaid at the close of the period amounted to nearly £2700. Should the collection fall short to an equal extent this year, only about £8000 could bo reckoned on instead of over £10,000. It is true something will probably bo recovered out of last year' 8 arreats, and this may perhaps to some extent be set against the possible deficit for the current year. No doubt this is the view taken by those who compiled the estimates under notice. They considered that the one set of arrears might be allowed to balance the other, and calculated that the greater portion of both would ultimately be recovered. This may turn out to be the case, and very likely it will be so if times improve and trade becomes more brisk, but no prudent man of business would be content to provide for an impending deficiency merely by setting against it an equal amount of debts— good, doubtful, and bad all included — to be collected if possible. We fear this would hardly be deemed a satisfactory arrangement in ordinary commercial transactions. It has been urged that there can be no real permanent default in payment of rates, because the properties are liable, and not merely the owners or occupants, therefore the money must ultimately be forthcoming. We have already answered to this theory, that as a theory it is excellent, but that in practice it would necessarily fail to a large extent, because we do not believe that the City Council would venture to face tho public odium, and the howl of execration which would be elicited by a wholesale " selling up " of the citizens for their unpaid rates. Such a measure would be so horribly unpopular that nobody who had anything to do with its adoption would ever get over it. This feeling of resentment on the part of the sued defaulters might be unreasonable, and might or might not find open expression in all cases; but it would be very real and tangible nevertheless, and would assuredly discover itself through the medium of the ballot-box on the next opportunity that offered. And there would be one little grain of reason in the resentment. Many people would think, if they did not say it, " Why don't the City Council cut down their expenditure somewhat, instead of 'screwing' people who would pay if they could, but who cannot help falling a little behind in these hard times ? " That is where the popular sentiment would be against the City Council, and as it cannot be shown that the whole of the present heavy expenditure is absolutely necessary or incapable of being diminished, this may be used as the handle of a very dangerous weapon against certain of our public men. Candidly, we doubt their having the courage to face it, and we therefore ieel no confidence that the close of the current year will not see even a much larger deficit on account of rates than that just concluded. The " moral" is, it need hardly be said, that the Council should retrench so far as to bring the city within a position of financial safety in any case. Proceeding with the estimates, no immediate comment is called for by the next few items — Reclaimed land rents, £2074 ; market reserve rents, £361 ; licenses, £3500 ; weighbridge, £150. Then comes a more questionable one — "Wharf labour for six months, £2000." That is to say, half a year's profit illegally made out of the Queen's Wharf by the ingenious device of dividing the wharf accounts into two sections. We fancy this will receive some invidious attention in Parliament when the Queen's Wharf Sale Bill comes up for discussion, and we shall be much surprised if the £25,000 which the Harbour Board is willing to pay for imaginary goodwill, and whi"h some people are already clamoring- to have spent in advance, is not tied up so tightly aa to prevent the City Council driving a coach and four through the legislative provisions against its being played at " ducks and drakes" with, as they did in regard to those relating to the wharf revenue. It seem 3to us that before any proposal is broached for expending this £25,000, all cUubts ought to be removed as to that sum being actually available for free appropriation by the City Council. The two remaining items, Building Regulations fees, .£IOO ; and fines and sundries, £35, require no present comment. 'J he total estimated revenue is £19,000, but this, of course, is under the general account only, and does not include the waterworks receipts (estimated to produce £14,694) or the special rate levied for interest on loans (which is estimated at £2694), or the interest receivable on deposit ot £85,000 unused loan money (£(>46B), or the wharf revenue, which is kept entirely separate. All these together amount to considerably over £25,000, so that the total revenue of the city from all sources does not fall very far short of £50,000 per annum ; but as all the receipts outside of the "general" fund have to go to meet certain definite and fixed expenses, it is unnecessary to take them into present consideration. The point on which all practical interest centres is the " general " fund and its disposal. We have shown whence it is derived, and intimated our fear that it may be in somii respects over-estimated at £19,0 10, but it remains to be proved whether that view is correct. There is, however, no doubt or uncertainty about one thing— the very sincere intention of the City Council to spend every penny of the £19,000 which they calculate on receiving during the Burrent year. The estimated expenditure is £19,000, viz.— Street watering, £500 ; street lighting, £2000 ; scavenger work, £800 ; street repairs, £1000 ; wages, £S2SO ; pro-

portion of salaries-, .£1700 ; cartage, ; timber, cement, and metal, .£1000; plant, fee, JE2OO; depot, .£199 19a 8d; printing, &c, .£350; fire brigade, .£650; legal expenaea, .£200 ; interest on portion of consolidated loan, .£4932 18s ; contingencies, ¦£917 2s 4d; total, .£19,000. There are several items in thia list open to a good deal of criticism, which we are compelled to d«fer to another article. It may be remarked that the £1700 charged for salaries does not include those of wharf officers, and that a further Bum of £300 is charged to the waterworks account aa " proportion of salaries," therefore the hitter really amount to £2000, in addition to thosa of the wharf officers.