COMMUNITY LIGHTING.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17223, 5 October 1927, Page 4

COMMUNITY LIGHTING.

I THAMES VALLEY SCHEME, i DISCUSSED BY BOARD. The chairman of the Thames Valley Power Board. -Mr Strange, referred to community lighting yesterday at Te Aroha. The Finance Committee had 'discussed the subject, and members were evenly divided. The system recommended was that the board install all littings free. Mr McLeod's proposals were that the board install the lamps and fittings complete at its own cost and maintain the whole installation except the lamps; payment for supply to be in advance monthly,- sixweekly, or quarterly: the charge to be £3 per annum for 100 watt lamps, increasing lor larger sized lamps at the rate of 35s per 100 watts —that is, the charge for 200-watt lamps would-be at the rale of £4 15s per annum, etc.; the minimum charge to be £3 per annum; lamps and fittings to be uniform; not less than six lamps to be included in any one group. It was suggested that outside lights only be considered. It was favoured that the board install the lights and , make an annual charge. It was con- ! sideyed necessary to sell as much ! power as, possible off the peak hours. J He moved that the recommendation of the engineer be adopted. . • Mr Howie seconded. Very Great Service. Mr Flatt said quite a number of business people in Paeroa were quite unanimous that the scheme would work well if the board made the proposition attractive. He considered that 50 lights would be installed. He read a letter, from Te Awamutu favouring the scheme. The charge was 5s per month per 100 watts. None of those who had entered the scheme had withdrawn, contending that it was of very great service, and no reversion to the* old order is likely. Mr Price took exception to clause 5, the restriction that each applicant: must have six lights each of 200 candle power. He moved an amendment that the board agrees to the system of community lighting, and that the charge be £3 for 100 watt lamps, and that the consumer pays for the installation. It was suggested that a guarantee be obtained from the consumer. It would be a paltry matter to ask for a guarantee of £lB. It was np handicap on the tradespeople to ask them to pay the cost of installation; if they carried on for three years the money to be refunded. Mr Arthur remarked that if Mr Price withdrew the latter part of the resolution be would second it. Mr Price agreed to withdraw it. Mr Arthur contended that the system of free installation was wrong in principle. The engineer's scheme was the lowest of any charge made. Te Awamutu had struck a rate and collected it and the board had not, so far, taken that step. In many cases inside , lighting would be done away with. He did not favour free installation. The board would be creating a precedent for a luxury. Why not give the farmer free installation for his services? Community lighting meant free advertising, and therefore the shopkeeper should be prepared to pay for it. A Great mistake. Mr Thomas contended that it would i be a great mistake to adopt a system of I free installations. It was not businessI tike. j The chairman said it was the policy I nf the board to secure customers off the peak load. He was anxious to see the load levelled up, and it was to use the waste current that the scheme was brought up. Mr Howie: It is like getting money from home. lam in sympathy with the scheme. Mr Gorbett favoured the initial cost being reduced rather than to create a system of free installations. The amendment was carried by seven votes to two.