POWER BOARD’S RATING

Taranaki Daily News, 7 February 1928, Page 9

POWER BOARD’S RATING

RATEPAYERS AGAIN MEET PROPOSED PROTEST POSTPONED. CHAIRMAN'S REPLY AWAITED. (From Our Own Reporter.) Stratford, Last Night. “That consideration of the question of protesting against the Taranaki Power Board’s availability rate be deferred to some convenient date after the chairman of the board has made hij promised statement, and that the Mayor be then requested to call a general meeting of ratepayers in the Borough of Eltham to consider the matter further.” This resolution, moved by Mr. T. B. Crump, was adopted by a meeting of about 159 people in the Eltham Town Hall last night after Mr. N. H. Moes, chairman of the newly-formed ratepayers’ association, and Mr. I. J. Bridger, Mayor of Eltham, had explained the effects of the board’s availability rate. Previously, Mr. J. H. Gower had moved that the meeting enter a protest against the striking of an availability rate in Eltham rather than a general rate, but this was not pressed after Mr. Crump .moved the final motion in the form of a amendment. Mr. Crump explained that the statement expected from Mr. Carman might help to clear up the position. He also felt that the board was entitled to be heard, and that the meeting last night was not in a position to reach a definite decision. The meeting was called by the Mayor of Eltham in response to a petition signed by 62 ratepayers of Eltham, one of whom had invited Mr. Moss to be present. The Mayor took the opportunity of referring to certain letters written by Mr. Carman in the Argus and dealt with his statement. He also repudiated the correctness of certain alleged attacks of a personal nature which had appeared in a leading article of the same paper.

Mr. Moss also commented upon alleged misrepresentation by the Argus and expressed disappointment in that because of the wording of the advertisement he would be unable to speak on the general position of the board. He then outlined the objects of his association, which were to obtain from the board a full explanation of its operations, together with a statement of expenditure, and to prevail upon the board to exercise rigid economy. The ultimate object was to place the board in such a position that a rate w’ould be unnecessary.

Eltham, he- said, was the only town area in the board’s district and had only one representative out of the eight on the board, the majority coming from north of Eltham. He felt that, being in such a minority, Eltham would have to accept some liability fox the scheme. Out of 1339 farms in the board’s district Mr. Climie (the engineer) had estimated that 1990 would take power and the revenue therefrom would be £26,009. Hi* association to-day wanted to know how many of these thousand farms had actually been connected. The availability rate was equal to 2d in the & on capital value, but this - was stated by Mr. Moss to be actually higher than the rate authorised.

The board’s area was 286 square miles and contained 12,090 people, but the availability rate imposed the whole burden on only about half this population. It was an impossible loan, and the object of the rate would defeat itself. After quoting actual cases of hardship in paying the rate he said it was the dutv of the board to have worked out a differential rate applicable over the whole area. Mr. Moss went on to complain of lack of information concerning the board’s operations since its inception, backing his contentions up by instances of the alleged secret methods adopted. Mr. Bridger followed with a comprehensive statement of Eltham’s position in which he showed that under the availability rate of 2d in the £ a sum approximately £l5OO would be produced, whereas a general rate of Id in the £ over the same ' area would return about £2250; moreover, the borough resident was rated on a gasworks loan as well as the availability rate. After the resolution had been adopted, Mr. Moss explained in answer to Mr. Crump that there was some doubt as to the legality of the board’s action in levying its availability rate, because the Act clearly indicated that to make up a deficiency a power board should strike a uniform general rate. Power boards had wide powers to strike different rates in different parts of their districts and this was what the ’Taranaki Power Board should have done. The board, he said, should never have allowed a position to arise when its ratepayers had to call public meetings in order to drag out information.