COMMUNITY LIGHTING

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 244, 5 July 1928, Page 4

COMMUNITY LIGHTING

COST OF INSTALLING. 9

To lie Refunded By Board.

Community lighting was discussed at some length by the Thames Valley Power Board on Tuesday, the main question at issue being whether the consumer or the board should pay the costs of installation. In view of correspondence with the Morrinsville Chamber of Commerce the matter came up for discussion at the previous meeting, when Mr. Price gave notice of his intention to move the resolution on the books should be rescinded. The board had decided to charge £3 a year for 100 watt lamps and 35s additional for each increase of 100 watts in the strength of the lights. The consumers were to pay the costs of installation. In moving Iris motion Mr. Price said he did so only to bring the question up for further discussion, as he understood the terms suggested by; the board were not approved by the boroughs interested in the scheme. The motion was carried. The chairman said the finance committee had discussed the position, and a recommendation had been made that the previous resolution be adhered to. Personally, he favoured the installation costs being borne by the board, as a new and profitable source of revenue would be available off the peak load. Mr. J. B. Thomas said the committee had been informed that where community lights were installed the ordinary shop lights on meter rates were not used and the revenue dropped accordingly. There was, fact, a possibility of a loss. The engineer had made a suggestion that the community lights be not used until nine o’clock on late shopping nights, but to the speaker’s point of view this was a crude motion, as it was on late nights that community lighting was most beneficial. The engineer said this was not so. What he had said was that this practice had been adopted by one other board.

Mr. Flatt moved that in addition to the committee’s report the words be added “ that the installing costs of the lights be refunded to consumers if they used electricity for three years.”

Mr. G. Howie seconded. The engineer said that if the lights were run on the peak for a year the cost to the board would be £1 and consumers were asked to pay £3. However, the lights would be on for only half the year, so that the board’s profit op each light would be £2 10s, which could be devoted to capital'expenditure. In his opinion there could be no argument against ! the board paying for the installing. Mr. J. Price said he was oppofebd to giving anything for nothing. If the installation were made free it would be 18 months before the board’s outlay would be refunded in profits, even if the consumer signed up for three years. It would be a bad business move, and he saw no reason why the installing charges should not be borne by the persons benefiting.

Discussing the matter of running the lights for a time on the peak load Mr. Arthur said that the maximum demand for power was between four o'clock and six o’clock The purpose of community lighting was advertising, and he did not see why one class of consumer should be given special advantages. It was a wrong principle and he would not support it. Mr. W. E. G. Willy: The board would be creating a precedent by giving something for nothing. The chairman explained that in other towns the installing was done free by the controlling board, and the charges in most cases were lower than those suggested in the Thames Valley.

Mr. Flatt said there was no necessity to take the power from the peak load. The lights did not require to be put on until 7 p.m. and could remain on until 11 o’clock or midnight —which ever was decided by the board. As for community lighting being solely for the benefit of shopkeepers, while this might b« true to a certain extent, he maintained that it was also a great advertisement for the town as a whole, and many disinterested shopkeepers would, he thought, take advantage of the offer from motives of loyalty to the town.

The majority of members agreed that using the power off the peak load would serve the purpose. Mr. Flatt thought there was a very small chance of shopkeepers clifting off the lights inside their windows if community light were installed. To adequately display wares it would be necessary especially with deep winj clows to maintain an additional light. The motion that the installing charges he refunded after three years was then put and carried.