THE OTAGO POWER BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20811, 2 September 1929, Page 6

THE OTAGO POWER BOARD.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Since the Power Board’s rate demands have been issued in the Lawrence area, an even greater interest is being taken in the board’s affairs. Unfortunately many ratepayers imagine the payment of these rates will meet in full their liability. This, however, is not the case. For instance, a ratepayer, who this year is called upon to pay £l3, still owes the board £l7. The, liability of the Lawrence area ratepayers on March 31 last was £3OOO. The rates this year will recover only £I3OO from the whole district. The outstanding liability thus is £I7OO, Tins year’s' loss will, in all probability, be £3OOO. Should this eventuate the accumulated loss? on March 31 next will be £4700, and it will then be necessary to levy a rate of more than 3d in the £ to recover this eum in one year. There is every indication of this loss (£3000) continuing indefinitely. In these circumstances the ratepayers can expect to pay a 2d rate until the sinking fund extinguishes the loan. It must be. remembered that the rates proposed by the board can only eventuate if the revenue of the Lawrence area doubles itself in two years, this meaning that this year’s revenue will be £4500 and next year's £6OOO. . Owing to a declining population, many ratepayers consider that a decrease is more plainly indicated than an increase of revenue. a case in point, the population of the Waitahuha Riding decreased 40 per cent, during the past 10 years. Despite these facts the board has adopted a wait and see " policy, apparently not realising that in the further interests of the ratepayers a thorough investigation is urgently needed. •The consumers of Central, Otago should not forget to allow for the heavy cost of r installations and equipment. The following figures are obtained from a' Lawrence area consumer, and can be verified:— Board’s charges for electricity—average per annum .. £B2 6 0 interest and depreciation . charges on cost of consumers’ installation, £65, at 7 per cent. ~ ~ ~ .. 41l o Interest and renewal .charges on cost of consumer’s electrical equipment, £65, at 10 P er cent- 610 0 Total annual charge for board’s service .. .. ■.. £43 g q The displaced coal and oil service formerly cost per annum .. .. .. .. .. £2O 0 0 The amount paid annually for convenience only is .. f 23 6 0 i t^* s ca . se it will be seen that the ft™* ® S T’ IC ? costs/HG per cent, more than the displaced coal and oil service, in addition to this, the consumer, being a ratepayer, is liable to a rate of »d in the £. Power Board taxation is most unjust, because the minority section of the edmf°rJhe greater part of the loss. The imposition of a 2d rate in the Wl,1 ' c . aUi * undue hard--4116 couuuumty as a whole will find it increasingly difficult to meet its obligations. From an economic point of J ; l H mlg f ht be advisable to dismantle material 8 ° f unpayable I,ne and sell the The members of the board still proclaim that their policy'is to benefit everv ID i districts by supplying him with electric light, etc.—quite a good policy provided the consumers pay for the S CO P Unfortunately these benefit a?e being conferred at the expense of the The members would be well adwsed to spend their own, and not other ?? oncy i n this manner. With the experience of the Southland scheme before it the Otago Board d"! at so 6 mn ß ? e?ted ftfe fc h ' !ard ' 8 miSakes sibl for ft* « evi tfbly be held responfrom the l bc r dlsastl '°us results obtained xt La^re " ce area scheme. Not ltb cri P phng this district,, the Mauteftl n ° W , endcav °uring to induce the -Maniototo ratepayers to. commit themSTout P vX alS Which ’ il tbe y are carthin IrSuft TV* V ate of not le ®3 inan id in the £ for the next 30 years ?e£us°e U to *» te PVerMhohld finW* ft entertain the board’s proposals unless they are reviewed by an expert a Dmedm there are competent consultclnfi e <? gmeeiS Ifhose opinion the utmost confidence could be placed. Further the cost of such an- opinion would be a mere bagatelle compared with the risks the IDCUr m agreeing to the board’s pr , oposals - It rests with the Maniototo ratepayers themselves whether they benefit or not from- the unfortunate experience of the Lawrence area rate, payers.-—I am, etc., ’ Mtethcrstones, August 31, ■ 4 ' Hof,lt,SOK ’ > 1 '■ »\ /