Who Shall Pay?

Hutt News, Volume 16, Issue 13, 26 August 1942, Page 5

Who Shall Pay?

At last week's meeting of the Hutt Valley Power Board considerable discussion took place on the question of payment for shrouding of street lights under the lighting restriction regulations. In the opinion of some of the members this should be the responsibility of the Bower Board, whilst others contended the cost should be borne by each local authority. At a previous meeting of the Board, Mr. J. W- Andrews stated that his council had received a legal opinion which prevented them from complying with the Bower Board' e demand for payment of the cost of shrouding street lights. At, last week's meeting of the Board the Power Board's solicitors advised that although under the existing law the Board cannot recover from the local authorities, in their opinion it seemed reasonable that some of Mie cost of the shrouding should be borne bv the local bodies.. The I solicitors further stated that in times of emergency if strict regard is paid to the observance of formalities, necessary precautionary measures will be obstructed. It is the obvious duty of everyone to help the "authorities to implement plans for the safety of the State. In their opinion the prerent difficulty had arisen through the Board's General Manager co-operating with the Government in giving to its reduced lighting policy and they considered the Government ought to protect the Board in the matter. .The Dominion Controller had not instructed the local authority to shroud the lights, therefore it was not called upon to do so. On 21st February, 1941, Mr. Hollands bad been appointed as local Lighting Controller by the E.B.S organisa-, tions within the area.

Mr. Andrews said that when the question was first raised he was the only member of the Board who had advocated negotiation and compromise. His request that the Lighting Controller and the AuditorGeneral, be asked for a ruling on the matter had been refused by the Board members who insisted on obtaining the opinion of the Board's solicitors. The opinion that had been obtained entirely bore out his contention regarding the liability, still certain members wanted the councils to pay in full or in part. It was "heads" the Board wins, and "tails" the Councils lose. The Board's General Manager, who was also local Lighting CQntrolJqr, had gone straight ahead with the shrouding of lights without discussing the matter with the various councils. He had assumed that lie "would be able to charge the cost up to the t councils. On the question being raised at a subsequent meeting the Board had been advised that counsel for the Municipal Association had given an opinion that*, the cost must be met by the owners of the lights and poles and that any payment made by the councils in respect to the shrouding would be ■wrongly made. Mr. Andrews said that instead of agreeing to his suggestion to see the Auditor-General and endeavour to find a way out, certain members had decided Miat the Board should rest on the legal position and it was decided to consult the 'Board's solicitors who contended that street lighting was an •urban facility and not a rural one. Jii Fetone there was one;street ; . T ht + 4.- '• ' for every 13.2 houses;: in Lower Hutt there were 13.7 houses, for every light and in the Hutt County (where electricity was available) they had one for every 18.9 nouses. This did not show any great disparity, but when one considered the revenue side there were far jtk re street lights in the County per thousand pounds of revenue than there -were in any of the boroughs. That being the case Mr Andrews contended the Board should pay the cost of the shrouding as the cost should be spread over the consumers ami not only the ratepayers as would happen if the councils paid. In Wellington and other places where the supply was owned by the Municipal Authority, street lighting was aot a charge against the ratepayers, but ;was, met from the profits from electricity sales. He tailed to see v/hy the ratepayers only should have to pay in one area whilst in the neighbouring area the cost was spread over all the people. The benefits were shared equally by all in those f.reas where the facilities were available but Mr. Andrews said heicould " se-?' no equity in ratepayers in say ,\V-'iinui-o-mata, where no power v/as avtiicble. having to pay for lighting costs in any other area. In his opin iou there was a principle involved, more important than the small amount, of money. The whole incidence of certain types of taxation was under review, especially that of Jic.-iptal taxation and some more t.n*'.bie method was being asked for. Here was an opportunity to ship, one small charge from the rah payers without doing any injustice to e'eher urban or rural consumers or ratepayers. At. the time it was decided to rely on the legal position, councils had not framed theii estimates. Those councils which were members of the Muncipa] As gociation-—Lower Hutt, Petpne, Hp per Hutt, Eastbourne and Johnson villo Town Board were satisfied i!a! no liability rested on them and consequently no provision was made in their estimates. Rates had now been struck and if a liability was to be accepted which was not provided

i'or, it couid oniy be done by increasing. ih iicif;; which would have to be taken euro of iK-xt year. The persecuted Ratepayers would thus he "socked" again, whereas the PovVer Board —v.'h ioli was a weailhy body -with :i surplus of over £12,000 last year—-could meet the amount (a few hundred pounds) without affect ing anybody. By an antiquated Act the Board had authority to erect in "streets obstruction!? which ; Were eyesores <md a source of danger. He thought a reasonable case could be made for the .Board to provide. proper lighting to make tly^e.obstructions safe, but lie certainly thought it should accept legal liability for any alterations to the lights which it owned and maintained. .Mr. Andrews said the Board was getting out of the emergency costs pretty lightiy and Lower Hutt rat::;)avers even had to pay substantially towards the cost of the Board's airraid shelters-. Mr. Walker was of the opinion that shrouding was a mistake but, if done, the local bodies should pay. Mr. Press said the position was a serious one. Mr. Hollands had been placed in a difficult position, being co-opted so that ho could give himself instructions. ■ His opinion was that every council should pay its own share of the cost, ft was not a question of the amount but one of principle. Mr. Hay had said that tiie Lower Hutt City Council would pay their share. On a point of order Mr. Andrews denied that Mr. Hay had made stich a statement. in reply to Mr. Lancaster, it was; stated by the chairman that if the councils paid the money they "oukl claim subsidy from the Government. A- , Mr. Stephen was- of the opinion that the Board should carry the responsibility. Mr. Andrews moved, and Mr. Anderson seconded, "That the requirements of the Dominion Lightiug Controller relating to shrouding or removal of street lights be done and the costs be borne by the Board." Mr. Green: "If we pay this account we will be delinitely tagged. It is illegal." Mr. Bothamley regretted he could not support the. motion. In his opinion the local bodies were attempting 1.0 dodge their liability. Mr. Andrews objected to the statement on a. point-of order. Mr. Gieson would support the motion if the subsidy would be paid. Mr. Mahei- said he sympathised with Mr. Hollands because he did vim; job ivhcii the emergency arose. "We should think big and act quick.y at such a time. 'Mr, Hollands did i job and did if vvt-11. We should trust one anol her.*' Mr. Giesen moved a;; an amendment and Mr. Press sucpi}Cl6<3 '"That the cost of shrouding or removing street lights be at the.. Bofird's expense povided't'he (ibvernmonl. subsidy would be payable to the Board." The voting was: For the amendment: Messrs (iiesen, Press, Botham ley. Walker and Maher. Against: Messrs Andrews, Anderson, Green, Stephen and 'Lancaster.' "The chairman (Mr. Mailer*, gave his casting vote for Die amendment, and on being put as a motion was declared carried.