THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1908. BOROUGH FINANCES.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9063, 11 April 1908, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1908. BOROUGH FINANCES.

We must confess that we look forward with some degree of interest to the explanation, which the Mayor will, no doubt, make in regard to the operations of the Mastartou 1 Borough Council during the past twelve months. The increase in the overdraft is a sum so large, and a fact so serious, that we have no hesitation in earnestly expressing the hope that ratepayers generally will carefully consider the figures that have been submitted to them. It may be possible that the figures are capable of some sort of satisfactory explanation; but after carefully perusing the financial statement that has been issued, we are of opinion that the financial condition of the Borough is certainly not a cause for congratulation. At the 31st March, 1907, the overdraft stood at £4,043 12s lOd —on the 31st March, 1906', it was £6,487 8s 6d-—an increase approximating £2,000! What is to be the result of this sort of financing? Is the Borough Council going to continue to expend £2,000 a year more than its income? The ratepayers of Masterton are fairly heavily taxed, and are not, we should say, in favour of raising loans to extinguish overdrafts; but, how else, if such methods are still to be pursued, is the overdraft going to be wiped out? To-day the burden amounts to £6,487 8s 6-1, and if we have this year a repetition of the "economy" displayed last year, the overdraft will be between £B,OOO and £9,000 when the next 31st March comes round. Economical administration is highly necessary, and economical administration means simply the town living within its

means. The ratepayers should insist upon the Mayor and Councillors decreasing rather than increasing the overdraft. Turning to the figures relative to the estimated and actual expenditure for thj year just closed, we must say that it seems to us to be little less than extraordinary that the actual expenditure should so far exceed the estimated expenses. The totals are as follow: —Estimated, £7,292 15s 4d; actual, £9,204 7s 3d; difference, £1,911 lis lid; but the difference stated is only jjbout two-thirds of the actual difference, because "new stables £300" and "street widenings £705" — sums estimated to be expended during the year were not spent. Hence, taking the figures roughly, the difference between the actual expenditure and what was spent of the estimated expenditure, is somewhere about £3,000. A few other figures should be mentioned; "estimated salaries, etc., £553 10s," actual £BO7 2s 7d; estimated office alterations, rent, and expenses, £240, actual, £268 9s 2d; fire prevention, estimated £350, actual £325 13s lOd; hospital and charitable aid, estimated £350, actual £4Bl 17s 4d. Coming to streets and roads (including construction, maintenance, compensation, material), we find that £2,147 3s Id was expended, whereas the estimated expenditure was £1,627 2s. Thtre is, however, one fact that is abundantly clear, and it is that the Mayor and Councillors know how to make the money "go." Whether the ratepayers arc getting value for their money, and whether they approve of the overdraft going up by leaps and bounds, are points which we hope to see illumined at an early date.