AVAILABILITY RATE CUT

Taranaki Daily News, 20 July 1929, Page 3

AVAILABILITY RATE CUT

POSITION OF POWER BOARD CONCESSION TO SMALL HOLDERS. DECISION TO “GIVE IT A GO.” Two lines of type in th© report of th* finance committee of the Taranaki Power Board, which was adopted at yesterday’s meeting of the board, will hava a wido significance throughout th® board’s area and will make welcome reading in many homes. The lines referred to state: “That tho board be recommended to levy 1%(1 availability rate for tho year 1929-30.” Hitherto the rate was levied at the rato of 2d in tho capital value. In practical application, the effect of the reduced rate will be that, while the maximum of £3O on any" farm will still obtain, the'property owned by ratepayers will have to be of a much higher vaiuatiqn than £3600 to incur the maximum. Thus there will be a considerable saving in the amount of availability rate to ba paid by small farmers not at present using current, or using omy a small amount. A farm property will now require to be valued as high as £4BOO before being liable for the maximum rate. Mr. H. G. Carman, chairman of the board, explained that although the lowering of the rate might mean a deficiency of about £4OOO in revenue irom this source, the committee had asked the board to "’give it a go” and the board had endorsed the recommendation. It’ there was a deficiency it had to be remembered that the board had accumulated something like £16,000 in the general account, partly made up of excess rates collected during the past two years.

Mr. Moss said he thought this small portion of the committee’s report should not lightly be passed over in view of its importance. The new members of ths board had striven for tho reduction and ne was pleased to note that the decision was unanimous. As the chairman had said, there was the possibility of a loss of £4OOO because. of the reduction, but it had to be remembered that for ths past two years the board had collected rates above its requirements and felt justified in making a reduction for ths ensuing year. Tho accumulation of £16,000 would, in the speaker’s opinion, bo sufficient to meet an annual loss in revenue from rates over a period of three years. On the other hand, revenue from sales of current was expected to increase and he hoped, at any rate after the three years, no rate would be necessary.

Mr. Moss pointed out that ratepayers consuming no current would, of course, still have to pay a rate of l%d. He had taken out figures in. this connection and explained that last year, under the 2d rate, the Eltham borough had paid £862 from people using no power at all, the Eltham county £lO2l, the Inglewood county £579 and the Stratford county £1798. Thus the total of £4255 was derived in revenue from ratepayers who used neither current nor power. If all these people installed appliances the revenue from current sales would of course increase, and it was possible that the indrease might amount to £4000.’ In that case the board would not experience a lose. “In any case, if this does not eventuate, I do not think we should be alarmed at any possible loss this year. As I stressed during the finance committee’® meeting, it is not expected that the board should make profits in its early years of operation, and there can be no criticism at the end of the year if the loss previously indicated is actually made,” he said.