COLLECTION OF RUBBISH

Manawatu Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 2564, 23 December 1924, Page 5

COLLECTION OF RUBBISH

Must be Brought to Front

Gate

UNLESS EXTRA PRIVILEGES

PAID FOR

Since the recent decision of the Palmerston North Borough Council to compel the residents to being their rubbish receptacles to within six feet of the front gate for collection, many complaints have been i heard from people, who have been accustomed for many years to watch the rubbish man pass the kitchen window on his Way to the bin. The difficulties facing the Borough Council in carrying on ih the old system were explained at a special meeting of the Council held last evening at the request of Cr. J. Hodgens, who took the opportunity to move to have the Council’s decision rescinded. Notice of motion to this effect had been given. There were present at the meeting: Crs. F. Jackson, Defmty Mayor, (in the chair), A. J. Graham, W. L. Fltzherbert, H. J. Canton, J. A. McLeavey, J .Hodgens, E. V. West and M. A. Eliott.

The engineer (Mr J. R. Hughes) presented a comparative statement of the cost of collection under the different systems. In October last, he stated, the costs of collecting rubbish by electric trucks and also one horse cart amounted to £3S 13/3 per week. Now that the charging plant had been taken over by the Electrical Department tho weekly charge had been reduced to £35 9/6 and under the scheme suggested of bringing the rubbish to the front pate, the estimated weekly cost would be £27 8/6. If a .dump was built at the depot and one ih the vicinity of the old gasworks the estimated cost of collection would be £3l 12/3 and in addition, tho sum of £460 would be required for tho erection of thf two dumps. In the old estimate of collection by horse Carts only the weekly cost was £35. If this system was introduced again, it would bo necessary to purchase one new horse and overhaul all the carts at an estimated cost of £250. With tho dumping system four carts would be required and the overhauling of them would cost £2OO.

The engineer also mentioned tbe practice of other Boroughs in the collection of the rubbish, and detailed the financial aspect. The estimated revenue to March 31 to be received by sanitary account from other accounts would ho £237 6/-, while unforeseen expenditure which it was necessary to incur, and which had not been provided for in the estimates, amounted to £392 13/6.

In introducing the subject, Cr. Jackson said it had been considered inadvisable to hold the matter over till the next ordinary meeting as the new svstem of collection would then have been in operation about a fortnight. The speaker traversed the items mentioned in the engineer's statement of unforeseen expenditure and said that the firebricks, valued at £lls, were in stock. The whole of those items, he was convinced, should be charged to the loan account, and he thought the sum should bo secured in this manner, as the Council was legally entitled to do.

The Town Clerk (Mr J. R. Hardie) explained that the Council was only entitled to raise 10 per cent, on any loan for the purpose of completing the work for which the money was raised. Tn this case, the work had been completed Cr. Jackson: “That is a legal point.” In moving his resolution, Cr. ,T. Hodgens said that the system of rubbish collection which It was proposed to adopt did not have the approval of the residents of the Borough. The engineer had given the Council a comparative statement cf the cost of collection by the electrical vehicles and by the horse and dray, and the most. It was hoped to save by the new system was £9 per week. Cr. W. L. Fitzherbert seconded the resolution pro forma, and said that If the sanitary rate was increased by 2/6, It would be possible to carry out the suggestion of Cr, Hodgens. but he drew the attention of the Council to the deficit in the sanitary account. Tn other towns, the lines of rubbish tins in the streets were an eyesore, but at the same time, the Council had to conserve, the interests of the ratepayers. If the people were prepared to pay the extra 2/6, then the Council should remove the rubbish from the backyards. Cr. A. J. Graham, said that in considering the economic aspect of the Question, he found that the sanitary acount would show a large deficit by the end of the financial year, three months of which remained, the deficit at the present time, amounting to £250. It was anticipated that by the introduction of the new rubbish collection system, the sanitary account would save £l5O before the end of the financial year. If he felt assured that the matter could be effectively dealt with by the raising of ten per cent, on the loan, he would agree to the retention of the present system, but he pointed out that the sanitary rate had been reduced from 17/6 two years ago to 15/ at the present time. “We are still making a heavy loss," he continued, "and the question is how to get over it. I am sure the ratepayers would pay another 2/6 per year for their rubbish to be collected from round the back.” Cr. Jackson reminded the Council of the power which was being given the abattoirs department by the sanitary department, and whereas only £l5O was the assessed value of this, the speaker thought that It was worth three times this sum to the abattoirs. Some of this money should be transferred to the sanitary department in payment of the full value of the power received. He was of opinion that the Council had arrived at too hurried a decision. The ratepayers had expressed their disapproval ot the new system, and some of them were prepared to pay to have their rubbish called for. The speaker reasoned that because the town was growing, the rate for the rubbish collection should necessarily grow with it, instead of being reduced. He prophesied that the sanitary rate would shortly be up to £1 per year. Cr. Eliott said if the abattoirs department used the power as stated, it was quite prepared to pay for it, but he pointed out that the figures had been arrived at by experts and should be accepted. No man on the Council was competent to dispute them. He moved as an amendment that upon the filling in of an application form and upon receipt of 2/6, residents could have their rubbish removed from the back yard for the remainder of the financial year. Cr. Graham seconded.

Cr. Hodgens said the suggestion contained In the amendment was not equitable, and declared that if the Council collected 2/6 for three months

next year’s rate would amount to 10/ extra. Cr. Fitzherbert said the ratepayers should be reminded that they had been enjoying the privilege of having the rubbish removed from their back doors during the nine months already gone. Those who were prepared to pay an extra 2/6 should have this continued for the remaining three months. In reply to Cr. Jackson, the manager of,the abattoirs, estimated the value of the power received from the sanitary department at £450. A short passage on points of order culminated in Cr. Hodgens telling Cr. Jackson that he was unfair in his ruling. The amendment was then put and carried, the voting being:—Ayes: Crs. Fitzherbert. Eliott, Graham, Canton and West. Noes: Crs. Jackson, Hodgens and MoLeavey. Cr. Hodgens. at this stage suggested that the Council go into committee, but Cr. Jackson would not accept the motion.

On the motion of Cr. Fitzherbert, the enforcement of the regulation in respect to the collection of rubbish was suspended till January 19, on account of the holidays.