THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1909. MUNICIPAL FINANCES.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3166, 17 April 1909, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1909. MUNICIPAL FINANCES.

In another column w'e publish certain figures which have been referred to by the Mayor and Crs Hunter and Yarr in correspondence which has recently appeared in our columns. The figures in question are a statement of the actual operations of the Mastertun Borough Council from Ist April, 1908 until 31st March, 1909, or during the financial year just concluded. The statement was submitted ta the last Works Committee meeting of the Council, and from it, we take it, three important facts may be gleanded, viz., the actual revenue of the Borough for the past year, the total estimated expenditure, and the actual expenditure during the same period. Our readers, in examining the statement, must deduct the items "tarmac", and material from both receipts and payments, when they will arrive at the actual cash receipts and cash payments of the Borough for the period under review. Therefore, after making the deductions (which are merely balancing figures), referred to, we find that the actual payments during . the year were £7,813, while the estimated payments were £8,096, which means that at the end of the year the Council found themselves on the right side of the ledger to the extent of £283. The expenditure out of ordinary revenue we have seen was £7,813, and ratepayers desirous of noting how this money was obtained will see that the general rate of 2|d in the £ produced £4,884, arrears of rates £832, revenue from other sources £1,928, making a total of £7,813. Now, the estimated receipts were, taking care to deduct "tarmac" and "material," £7,280, while the actual receipts were £7,933, so that in their estimate of receipts the Council found themselves on the right f=ide by £653. As has been mentioned, the total revenue from all sources was £7,933, and the actual expenditure was £7,813, the difference between actual receipts and payments being £l2O in the Council's favour. It is obvious, therefore, from the statement submitted, that in both estimating its income and expenditure the Council has been on the right side. It is interesting to note the total amount raised by taxation during the past year. We give the figures in

round numbers, viz., general rate, £4,884; waterworks, £2,780; drainage loan, £570; Bannister Street, £150; £25,000 loan, £1,700; total, £10,084, or, say, .01 per cent, of the capital value of the Borough. The water rate, seeing that it is a charge for a commodity supplied, may hardly be regarded in the character of an ordinary rate, and if we deduct the amount raised under this head, £2,780, we find that the totol rates levied did not exceed £7,304, and it may [.fairly be questioned whether this is a heavy sum for a Borough, the Government capital .valuation of which exceeds £1,000,000! We have no desire L to take part in the controversy that is proceeding between certain members of the 3orough Council, but we would remark in concluding that ratepayers who care to study the figures we have been discussing, and to note our remarks in connection therewith, should, in our opinion, be able to form a fairly accurate estimate t of the Council's operations_during the past year.