THE PRICE OF GAS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1074, 11 March 1913, Page 3

THE PRICE OF GAS.

PROPOSED REDUCTION. DOES NOT MEET WITH COUNCIL'S APPROVAL. At last night's Council meeting, in accordance with notice given at the previous meeting, Cr Speirs moved that the _price of gas for lighting purposes be reduced to 9s 2d per 1000 ft, as from April Ist. The motion was seconded by Cr Adams pro forma. In speaking to the motion the mover said that he had got the Town Clerk to make up a statement showing the amount of gas sold to consumers, each month, during the period from March, 1911, to February, 1912. From this it would be seen that the amount varied very little each month. * The amount sold to consumers each month was: March 231,000 ft., April 281,000 ft., May 297,000 ft., June 250,000 ft., July 254,000 ft., August 242,000 ft., September 211,000 ft., October 234,000 ft., November 200,0001 t., December 219,000 ft., January 223,000 ft., February 218-000 ft, The consumption has been well maintained throughout and there must necessarily be a substantial increase during the winter months. New connections were being added and it appeared reasonable to assume that the consumption during the winter months would be maintained during next summer. From the statement of receipts and expenditure each month, which had been furnished for the past seven months, it appeared that a good profit was being made. For the seven months the profit shown on these statements totalled £248 14s 3d, made up as follows: —August £9 8s 9d, September £5 18s lOd, October £99 15s, November £4O 83 9d, December ,£39 6s lid, January £35 6s 4d, and February .£2O 7s Bd. Of course these statements also included fittings. If the profits shown in- the monthly statements had been really earned the Council would be - quite justified in reducing the price of gas, because when the works were taken over the understanding was that the price would be reduced as soon as the works were paying their way. Until the balance sheet was presented In April they could not get really definite information as to whether the works were paying or not and approximate the profits from the figures in the statements referred to. His object in bringing the motion forward was, if any reduction were to be made it should date from the beginning of the financial year, April, and then they would have a clear year to work on. He felt sure there would be a large number of new connections during the year, particularly if the price were reduced as he knew a number of people would not use it on the ground that the present price was too high. Cr Adams asked if the mover could give the profits from gas alone.

Cr Speirs said he could not and that his figures included the fittings. Continuing, he considered that Foxton should be able to run their works as economically as Levin or Woodville. In both these towns the price charged was 9s 2d per 1 oooft., and they had to pay more for their coal than Foxton did. The total difference that the reduction proposed would make, on a consumption similar to that of the previous twelve months, was ,£lO7 Bs. Cr Coley said he was sorry he could not support the motion. The mover had mentioned the Levin and Woodville works, but a lot had been left out that should have been said. The Woodville works cost ,£6,000 and the Levin works against for the local works. Again, Levin and Woodville were paying 4$ per cent, for their money against Foxton’s per cent. Levin also got.a concession of £IOO from the Government. Again, there were ratepayers in the borough where there were no mains and no possibility of being any for many years. These people had no opportunity of getting the . gas and the speaker was of opinion that while this was so there should he no reduction in the price of gas until the works were paying their way. As soon as a balance sheet is shown, however, proving that, the works were paying their way, he would be pleased to support a reduction. The ratepayers throughout the borough had already had to pay over £SOO towards the.gas works, and he did not. consider it was fair to make a reduction until it was shown that the works were paying. Cr Whibley said he would oppose the motion. Cr Coley had covered most of the ground that be intended speaking on, that in reference to the outside ratepayers. He agreed with Cr Coley that it was hot a fair thing to reduce the price while there was a possibility of a rate being struck to make the works pay their way. ' Another reason for opposing the motion was because he considered before any reduction was made the men in the works should be paid a fair wage. At the present time the Stoker was only receiving £2 15s per week and had to work seven days in the week. He did not know what wages were paid in other small works, but at the Wellington works the stokers were paid at the rate of £3 8s 6( * P er week. Again, the stokers in Wellington were at the same work all the time,, but the Foxton man had to do other work as well and was therefore exposed very much to the risk of chills through coming in and out of the heat of the works. He believed that at the present time the stoker was laid up

through this cause. Further, this : man was previously employed on the roads at £2 8s per week for six days and he had now be?n given a dirtier and one in which be had to work seven days in each week and all for an extra amount of only 7s per week. He considered that in a borough like Foxton where the majority of the ratepayers belonged to the working class a condition of affairs like this should not exist. Before he could support a reduction in the price of gas he wanted to see this altered, and he also wanted to see a balance sheet showing a substantial profit or the mains extended so that all the ratepayers would be afforded an opportunity of having the gas laid on their homes if they desired it. Under these conditions he would support a reduction, but not otherwise. Cr Chrystall regretted that hecould not support the motion, but said that Cr Speirs deserved credit for brining it forward as being a large ratepayer he would have to bear the brunt of any increase in the rates. He had made out a statement showing the year’s working from March 1911 to Marchngra, and from this he had found that during the twelve months there was a loss on the working of £378 is lod. That represented money actually lost, in addition to this during the two years the gas works bad been owned by the Council rates amounting to £514 7 s bad been collected, and an amount of £363 voted by the Council to the gas works account, making a total of £I4OO that had to be contributed by the Council to make the gas works pay. Cr Speirs interjected that a certain amount of the expenditure referred to by Cr Chrystall should be charged against the capital account, Cr Chrystall continuing said that allowing that each ratepayer was a consumer, the extra expenditure meant that the consumers were paying 13s per 1000 ft for gas for lighting purposes and 10s per xoooft for power and copking. Cr Speirs had compared the Foxton works with the Woodville works, but this was hardly fair as Foxton had to pay over £3OO additional for each year, and Woodville also made a profit of over £IOO from the sale of coal.

A Councillor interjected that even then the Woodville works were not paying, and that the Council was collecting a gas rate.

Cr Coley said that it was the Foxtoa people’s owu fault that they had to pay so much for the works, and not the fault of the Councillors. When the proposal to build a works was before the ratepayers they threw it out, and a private company was given the right to erect them. Cr Richmond said he could not support the motion, as he had no doubt the works would not show a profit for some time to come. He considered that before any reduction were made the mains should be laid throughout the Borough. He knew a number of ratepayers who would take the gas if the mains were laid past their property. Cr Adams said he would have been prepared to support a reduction had their been figures showing a profit irrespective of fittings. In a scattered borough it could not be expected to have the mains laid in every street, but he would not support a reduction in the price until the Council had something before it to show the works were a paying concern, He understood that it would be necessary this year to collect a small rate —something like a farthing—and in the face of that, it would be ridiculous to reduce the price. He was sorry to have to oppose the motion, but under the circumstances he could not see his way to support it. Moreover, it seemed a peculiar thing to support a reduction in connection with one municipal enterprise when it was admitted that it was not paying its way, and to oppose a reduction in another municipal enterprise which was showing a handsome profit. Cr Coley said that in any case he did not think they were collecting a rate legally. The money collected was not being used for working expenses, but for extending the works. He had previously advocated a further loan of ,£2,000 for this purpose, but the Council had opposed it, stating that the ratepayers would not sanction it. The Mayor said he could not support, a reduction until the works were a paying concern. The previous speaker had given reasons why a reduction should not be made, and there was very little left for him to say. He did not think it would now be long before the works paid their way. They were getting nearer every year, and this year it would only be necessary to collect about a farthing rate. The first year the amount collected was year and this year it would amount to only about £IOO, They were rapidly approaching the self-supporting line. They must also remember that they had been very unfortunate since owning the gas works, on account of fires, etc. Next year he hoped to see the works paying their way, and when this was so, he would either support a reduction in price, or the surplus to be used in extending the mains.

Cr Speirs, in reply, said it was out of reason to oppose a reduction until the mains were laid throughout the borough, as there were certain portions of the Borough where it would never pay to lay the mains. In reference to Cr Adams’ remarks about the reduction in picture prices, the two were not on all fours. The difference was that one was a necessity and the other a luxury.

On the motion being put it was lost, Cr Speirs alone supporting it.