RUBBISH COLLECTION

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 54, Issue 3895, 28 April 1937, Page 7

RUBBISH COLLECTION

PROPOSALS UNDER DISCUSSION. COUNCILLORS REGISTER DISAGREEMENT. In connection with rubbish collec tion the Mayor told the Borough Council last Monday evening that it had been suggested the Council should institute a system. The public health authorities had become interested in the question, and desired the Council to act. It was desired to operate the service mainly throughout the bor ough, though, of course, it would not be possible to include the outlying areas in the scheme.

In a report to the Council the borough solicitors detailed the Council's powers to either levy an annual fee or a rate to recoup itself the costs of collection. In the belief that the Council would prefer a system of charging in preference to a rate, the solicitors gave details of the system in operation at Hamilton.

Cr Montefiore asked whether the tenant or the house-owner would be responsible for the payment of the fees?

The Mayor said any residential system would have to be compulsory, and the owner would be responsible. In this he was referring to the residential portion of the town, and the onus was plainly on the owner of the property.

Cr Maxwell thought this most unfair. After all, it was the tenant’s rubbish.

Cr Rainey thought it unlikely that any tenant would question a reasonable fee for the cleanliness of the premises he occupied. Cr Maxwell thought the charge should be levied against the occupier of the house.

The Mayor thought the landlord could as easily collect from the occupier as the Council could. The alternative would be to pay the charge out of the rates, and in that case the burden would fall on many unoccupied lands. Personally he did not anticipate very much trouble with a spread charge of 10 shillings per annum. The whole town was alarmed at the prospect of epidemic disease, and here is a proposal which aimed to keep the town Immune, and yet the question was attacked on the score of who should pay. The vast majority of people would gladly pay for a cleanly, well ordered service as is proposed. To an enquiry the Mayor said the Council would have to deal with the containers.

Cr Montefiore still considered that the occupier should be responsible for the cleanliness of his own surroundings.

Coming to the question of trade refuse, the Mayor said the position was much more difficult. In Hamilton this phase of the work is done by contract. and the plan appears to work smoothly. Each occupier of premises must keen his place clean and pay the approved price for rubbish removal. The difficulty with trade refuse was that the quantity and fre quency of removal varied a great deal and the Council had to provide for all the varying conditions. A uniform fee for business places would be most inequitable, and the only basis was to access the charge on quantity and frequency. The basis charge should be assessed on weekly service, and two cubic feet of refuse. Anything in excess of that would require a separate charge. Cr Moniefiore thought it was most discriminate to make the landlord responsible for residences and exempt the landlord for shop premises. The Mayor said he relied on the precedent and experience of every other town. If Councillors had a more brainy scheme he would like to hear it.

Consideration was finally deferred until the special meeting next Thursday evening.

A Councillor, at this stage, drew Cr. Gifford into the discussion by recalling a question of the sewerage connec tions, and in a few moments the Mayor and Cr Gifford were actively engaged on questions of procedure. Rising to the taunt, Cr Gifford repeated an earlier request that the Council should have a return of all houses within the sewerage area not linked with the sanitary services. It was, he said, not for an individual Councillor to report instances, and the Council should have full and complete data as to the number of buildings and the corresponding number of sewerage connections.

The Mayor thought it improper for any Councillor to ec ne to the Council table with insinuations. It was not the duty of the office to spend hours trying to trace down insinuations of that sort. Every permit was carefully recorded in the office. If tlie law had been broken and Councillors knew of the fact it was their duty to be explicit and not be content with insinuations such as had been made. Years and years ago there were some old houses —too old to justify the expenditure for sewerage connections, and the then Council had granted exemption.

Cr Brown said it would be a difficult task to fossick out the house Cr Gifford had in mind.

Cr Gifford replied that his main point was that the Council had not proper records enabling it to trace matters of this sort. The Council is indifferent, and disease could break out in consequence. For that reason a housing survey would be fully justified.

The Mayor said such a survey could cost £lOO, and all to satisfy the whim of a Councillor who thought he knew something that he either would not or could not make known to the Council. If the law had been broken it was a Councillor's duty to report all he knew either to the Council or its officers.

Cr Gifford: You know all about it yourself. The Mayor: Oh, no I don’t.

The assertion and denial were repeated several times, voices being raised.

The discussion closed by Cr Gifford refusing to be made to say what he knew. “That’s not my job,” he said, with emphasis.