THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1908. REGARDING BOROUGH RATES.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3004, 29 September 1908, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1908. REGARDING BOROUGH RATES.

We think it must be fairly apparent to the members of the Masteiton Borough Council that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction on the ratepayers' part in regard to the levied for ths current financial year. There was, of course, the water rate muddle, which was somewhat lamaly explained, and now ratepayers are asking why there should be a» increase in tho drainage rata, an J upon what ground there should be an increase in the rate demanded in connection with the .£25,000 improvement loan. It is possible that the Borough Council can easily and satisfactorily explain the whole position, and we would suggest that the Mayor should, on the first suitable opportunity, make a brief statement, conveying to ratepayers information, which, it can hardly be said, they are not entitled to know. A Masterton, ratepayer, the other day,, handed to us the following state-

mentof rates paid by him in the years undermentioned:—?' •' 1907-8 1908-9 £ b. d. £ s. d. General rate 41 1 6 46 4 2 Water rate 22 12 6 27 0 5 Drainage rate 2 4 2 5 18 7 £25,000 loan 0 0 0 11 910 Bannister-st. 14 9 1116 Abattoir 3 3 7 0 0 0 Library 2 5 11 0 0 0 £72 12 5 £92 4 6 The statement is absolutely in accordance with the rate demands in his possession. One item is worth noticing—viz., abattoir £3 3s 7d. It seems that in the year 1907-8 no abattoir rate was struck, yet the ratepayer in question paid £3 3s 7d, so far as he knows, towards the cost of the municipal abattoir. The increase in the water rate demand has, of course, been withdrawn, but there is an increase, in the figures under notice, of £3 14s 5d in the drainage rate. The ratepayer in question does not know why. The explanation of this item, however, seems to be that two years ago the Council struck a heavier rate than was necessary in connection with th« drainage loan, and, consequently, last year ratepayers were "let off lightly." Such a rating system seems to us to be peculiar, but, perhaps, it is justifiable. Then we come to the rate collected for the special loan of £25,000. Under "this head the ratepayer, to whom we have previously referred, is told to pay up £ll 9s lOd. He considers that there is an error in the demand, ani, possibly, he is in the right. When the £25,000 improvement loan was raised, it was understood that £4,000 was to be spent on' improving the gasworks and £I,OOO in extending the water supply; and the gas ana water accounts should, of course, be charged with- such special expenditures. It was,furthermore stated by the Council, when approaching the ratepayers, that the first year's interest on the special improvement loan would be paid out of the loan. Have these undertakings with the ratepayers been carried out? However, whatever has, or has not been done, "the special £25,000 loan" rate should fiot be a rate on more than £20,000. Is this the rate that has been struck by the Borough Council, or have they struck a race covering the total sum «f £25,000? Apart from the water rate muddle, it is possible, in our opinion, that the Council may have done everything else decently and in order, bet we think they would be taking an advisable step to shield their reputation if they were to make an effort to satisfy ratepayers that there is no further cause for reasonable complaint.