THE WATER RATS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIII, Issue 20, 21 May 1912, Page 5

THE WATER RATS.

MAYOR’S MOTION UPHELD

it a special meeting of the Strat--4 Borough Council held on the onday before last, the Mayor sucin cau’ying a resolution prodding that .dfu water rate to be col,/lected should* be sufficient only to pay interest on the loan, but last night, at another special meeting of the Council, Councillor King, who was not present when the motion was carried, attempted to rescind the motion, the proceedings providing a somewhat interesting discussion.

In moving his motion, Councillor King stated that the water account was in credit to the extent of £982, which sum hud accumulated since 1904. But, during that same period, they had collected by way of revenue from the extraordinary water supply £932. Last year the amount collected from householders was £404, and the interest on the loan of £12,000 was £420. From this it would be seen that they were collecting from the householders £l6 less than would pay the interest on the loan. The whole of the money lying to the credit of the water supply had been, with the exception of £SO, collected from the extraordinary supply. But, he contended, in a very short space of time they were going to lose the whole of that amount, for tho reason that where people were now using the extraordinaj|psupply they would in a few months Tame be erecting electric motors. Speaking generally, be said that he| had no doubt that the Mayor had brought down his motion, considering it was for the good of the Borough to >do so. As far as the Councillors were concerned, he thought that they had not given the matter sufficient consideration. Continuing, Councillor! King claimed that Stratford, if it did make a commercial undertaking ou t of its water works, was doing a fight thing. Householders were quite satisfied with the existing state of affairs; they got a good water supply at low rates. In New Plymouth they charged a 6d rate as Stratford did, but the former charged 20s per annum for water closets, and 3s' for each hose tap, whereas in Stratford no charge was made. Summing up, the speaker said the motion carried by the Council was a step in the wrong direction, and urged that Councillors consider well the disadvantages of making such a move. Councillor Boon seconded the motion. “I think,” he said, ‘‘that now we have heard what Councillor King has to say, and have considered his figures, there appears no reason why wc should reduce the water rates." Compared with what other boroughs wApfc doing, they were by no means over-charging for water. Furthermore, lie failed to see exactly how they were going to reduce this rate. Also, he wished to know how they were going to got over the fact'that it was possible that during the year they should lose about £l2O income over the extraordinary water supply being no longer required. They all knew that the water power was i not satisfactory, and that where now the water was used, in the future >the electric motor would be working.)i If that happened, they would, with the present rate, bv; losing £l2 on the year is working^ His Worship.' “It is evident from the remarks, that have [fallen, from Councillor Boon that he 'dqesn’.t understand the pos’tipn.” Continuing, the Mayor quoted the figures'for the water account since the loan was raised, and. showed that there was, ar Councillor King had said, a balance of £982. “Councillor King has told you,’ he went on to say, “that that £982 balance was raised from the revenuederived from the extraordinary water [supply, over a term beginning from ithe year 1904. Councillor King, in making this statement, is entirely wrong. He has overlooked the i fact that in 1906, the-sum of. £122 was transferred from the,water account tc the general account.” His Worship claimed that there was.no reason why of water should be penalised for the purpose of swelling the funds in the general account. As far as new work was concerned, there was sufficient in the water account to do all that was necessary. The motion was only intended to hold good for one year, and if at the end of that time 10 was found, desirable to again increase the rate that could bo done. Councillor Paget considered that there was no reason why they should rescind the resolution. It was a bad thing, in his opinion, to encourage Councillors to undo work that had already been done. There should be very strong reasons indeed for such a course, and these had not been advanced. He thought that there was no reason whatever why the users of the water should be penalised so as to relieve the general ratepayer; to hi; mind that was simply “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Councillor Ward queried whether if would not he advisable to allow things to remain as they were for this year, considering that they were purchasing a road roller. To which the Mayor replied that there they had a' case in point—taking money from the water account for a special purpose—namely to pay for the road roller

The Town Clerk, replying to a remark by the Mayor that possibly Councillors were nob informed of the whol* of the conditions pertaining to water rates in New Plymouth, said that th' town was “making hundreds or pounds out of its water,” his Wen ship remarking that they did not necessarily need to follow what New Ply mouth did.

Councillor R. McK. Morison intimated that he would vote against rescinding the resolution, on the grounds that the Mayor’s proposal was a fairer way of dealing with the whole of the ratepayers. He pointed out that there would still he revenue from'the extraordinary supply' coming from rest dents outside the Borough, and this would meet the charges for maintenance. Referring to Councillor Paget’s remarks,he said that if he thought a motion was wrong he would have no hesitation whatever in moving to rescind it. Councillor McAllister said he had ; voted against the Mayor’s motion, and ; he was the same opinion. “As | one of the users of the water,” he added, “I am perfectly satiiied that a profit should be made out of my rates to help those people who have not got I any water. If the position is as stated, the ratepayers are in a very fori tunate position compared with other places.. The profit is not a hardship on anyone.” Councillor J. I). Healy was strongly oJLmpinion that every account should stMd on its own, and he was adverse to “paper credits,” which ho considered a wrong principle. However, ho thought Councillor King was perfectly right.-in moving his motion that r-rt ning, .though, for himself, he would uphold* the Mayor’s resolution.

Councillor Songster was not inclined to alkach much importance to either resolution, as he did not consider they -would make much difference. He Would nd| , support Or. King’s motion. If he had had the intimation ha/h-act now when the first resolution^, Was moved ho would h i/e voted agimist. tlv* Mayor’s proposal. Hut • V ■ ' *-

as he had voted for it then, ue would

vote for it now. Councillor Lawson hold that it was not desirable to reduce the present rate. As one who paid that rate. He was perfectly satisfied. Ho was of the opinion that the surplus derived from tliis source could well be expended in giving people on the outskirts of the Borough the water which they had not got at present, though they paid the rate.

In reply, Councillor King said it was very amusing to boar all this Oijk about rescinding a motion, especially the remarks made by Councillor Paget, who had moved to rescind more resolutions than had any other man at the Council table. Here Councillor Paget rose to a point of order. “I used,” he said, “perfectly moderate language about Councillor King, and it is not fitting, and not within the rules of debate, for him to say that I bring down ridiculous motions. It is very unfortunate that such language should he

used.” The Mayor said ho must agree with Councillor Paget. “I don’t think there’s any need for it,” he added. , Councillor King remarked that it was a case of trivial minds thinking trivial things, and upon Councillor Paget insisting for a withdrawal of this remark, did so at the request of the Mayor.

This practically ended the discussion. The voting* was very close, and on a division being taken it needed the casting vote of the Chairman to retain the former resolution. Councillor Ward voted to rescind the motion, the remaining Councillors voting as they had signified.