MOUNT ALBERT BOROUGH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20842, 8 April 1931, Page 12

MOUNT ALBERT BOROUGH.

Sir, —Under the above heading in last Monday's issue Mr. G. R. Stenson refers to a statement made by Mr. L. E. Rhodes re administration costs in Mount ! Albert. Mr. Rhodes' full statement, was ' as follows-"The administrative costs \ (being salaries paid to administrative, j professional and clerical officers), as taken ! from the 1930 issue of the Local Authori- ' ties Handbook, are for Mount Albert, £4432; Mount Eden, £6563; and city,, £62.313. The percentage of salaries to expenditure are:—Mount Albert, 2.11 petcent. ; Mount Eden, 4.16 per cent.: city,4.15 per cent. Taking the population shown in this same handbook, the cost of administration per head works out for Mount Albert. 4s 6d; Mount Eden* 6s 9d; city, 12s 2d." These figures are authentic and speak for themselves. On whatever basis a comparison is made, even leaving out all question of loans, interest, sinking funds and lews', etc.,"as

suggested by Mr. Stenson, he will obtain similar results. Further, if no permanent construction works were carried out, the costs of tho clerical and engineering staffs would naturally be reduced. In this concluding paragraph, Mr. Stensoii states that Mr. I?bodes' comparison will not hold water, because the population of tho city is five times greater than Mount Albert, while the administration cost of the city is 13 times more than Mount Albert. This is exactly the position and proves what Mr. Rhodes has said. While not suggesting that the administrative costs of our neighbours arc at all high, 1 maintain that Mount Albert compares more than favourably. A. A. Bvcki.ey. Councillor.