Power Board Offices

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 6918, 23 July 1932, Page 6

Power Board Offices

To the Editor. Sir, —Will you grant me a portion of your valuable space to place before your readers some of the aspects of the question of the removal of the Mana-watu-Oroua Power Board’s headquarters to Feilding? First, from the inception of the board Palmerston North has, by its unfair attitude, created the impossible position that exists to-day. The original intention was that Palmerston North should come fully into the scheme, but it has adopted the policy of getting all the benefits from the board’s operation at the expense ot country consumers, without sharing in the expenses of the board. Another point made by Mr. Boyce at the board meeting was lighting the board’s offices. lie stated that Palmerston North paid tho board £lO for electricity which was sold back to the board for £7O. Certainly good for Palmerston North! Now, in the ten years of the board's operation tho figures would be £IOO and £7OO respectively, with £ISOO profit to Palmerston North at the expense of the country consumers, and all the time Palmerston North contributes nothing to the board’s actual revenue; in as shown by figures quoted by Mr. P. G. Guy to the board, the city has been a burden to the country consumer. Now that we have men on the board who arc seeking to get a square deal for tho board’s customers, we find tho favoured city making a lot of noise and talking about a protest to the Government and other things.

Tho position is this: The board is quite within its rights in asking its employees to become users of tho board’s commodity, but with its head office in Palmerston North (and consequently the majority of the staff residing there) this cannot be done. The wages and salaries paid to the board’s employees in Palmerston North amount to about £-1500 per year; every penny of this, Mr. Editor, comes from the Feilding and country consumers, but it is practically all spent in Palmerston North. This is surely unfair to the consumers and to the business community. With tho head ofiiee and staff in Feilding this would be altered and the board would save £SO per annum on lighting. Further, the board has property in Feilding, lying idle at present, which could be used as a central office and store rooms at a very small expenditure. At present, to keep up tho two offices, Palmerston North and Feilding, the board pays in rent., interest, sinking fund, etc., about £l3 or £l-1 per week. If the Palmerston North offices were let for half that sum the board would save £6 or £7 weekly, as it -would not have.any extra rent, etc., to find. Tho board has been in operation for ten years, and if by moving its office it can save £3GO per year for the next ten years it will save to the consumers £3GOO in rents, etc., alone.

The question of rating is also brought up. It is true that Palmerston North is liable to a rate in the event of a loss (it would again protest if this were dono) t but so also arc all the board’s consumers who arc ratepayers. However, the country and Peilding ratepayers arc also keeping the board alive by footing the bill for wages and expenses; therefore, surely, as the responsible parties they have the right to decide the board’s policy.

No, Mr. Editor; in view of the attitude of Palmerston North for ten years, culminating in the City Council’s action in declining to meet the board, it behoves the board to study its consumers at all times.

Again, if the moving of the offices is sufficient reason for a protest to the Minister of Public Works, surely the fact that while the board shows a loss on its working Palmerston North, buying most of its supply from the board, makes £17,000 profit, is ample reason for greater protest, especially as the supply to Palmerston North contributed to the losses of the board. Par from being upbraided, the board members are to be congratulated on the work they arc doing. —I am, etc., W. A. SALT. Peilding, July L’2.