ON THE DEFENSIVE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 730, 1 August 1929, Page 10

ON THE DEFENSIVE

DEVONPORT’S MUNICIPAL METHODS MAYOR'S EXPLANATION Stating that general rumours and correspondence in the newspapers had shown that there was misconception about the council’s policies, Mr. E. Aldridge, Mayor of Devonprt, at last evening's meeting of the council stated the council’s defence to the allegations made. Regarding refuse removal and the decision to make an extra charge where extra rubbish was regularly put out by residents, the inspector’s returns showed that in the case of 2S flats, 40 dwellings, 13 shops and seven others, attention had been drawn to the by-law needs. In 29 of the dwellings no extra rubbish was now removed. The cost of rubbish removal had been fixed originally on the rough •and ready method of dividing the cost by the number of houses, but with the growth of multiple-house residences the position had been changed. The cost of collection was £1,94S (destructor costs £553, cartage £1,250, administration £75, sundries £7O), while the maximum revenue would be £1,700, leaving a deficit of £2OO, to which was to be added £SOO deficit accumlated over several years to 1929. The interest of £495 on the destructor loans "was paid out of interest rate. It was essential to got the utmost revenue and the work could not be done any cheaper, whether by contract or otherwise. Concerning water meters and the objection of some people to paying for the water they use, Mr. Aldridge said that the only fair way was l'or the lisov trv nnv

In 1927, before the re-metering of the borough was undertaken, the water pumped to Devonport each year was 250,095,000 gallons; this year (March, 1929) it had dropped to 194,000,000, showing a very considerable saving in pumping costs. The revenue this year would be £5,406, while for 1927, although 52 million gallons more were pumped, the revenue had been only £5,513. In many cases there had been shocking waste of water, either through carelessness or leaky plumbing. In once case the council received 15s for six months for water, when the supply had metered water to the value of £ll Is sd. When the plumbing was attended to the account dropped to £3 4s 6d. Oil the other hand, people who had paid £1 14s lor water on a valuation rate basis were paying only ISs 9d on meter.

The metering policy had the effect of cleaning up irregularities and any ratepayer could inspect the borough figures and need not rush into print without ascertainng the facts. Over 1,600 meters had been installed; the number of houses was 2,550. It was to be regretted that misstatements were publicly made. The council was doing its best to he equitable and to conserve the interests of ratepayers. Mr. E. H. Little, while satisfied that the general policy was right, thought that the council was “up to its neck” in by-laws.