During the Saturday meeting of the Limerick County Council, the Finance Committee’s report, read by Secretary Mr Roche, expressed dissatisfaction with the slow progress made by some collectors in collecting rates. An order was issued to write to the collectors regarding this matter. The Finance Committee also presented a report on the estimated rates for the upcoming fiscal year ending on March 31, 1905. The report indicated a gross estimate of £129,926 for general district rates, including county-wide, union, and district charges, reflecting an increase of £3,146 compared to the previous year’s figures. The estimated expenditure breakdown was as follows: £34,338 for public works, £26,632 for other county expenses, £51,630 demanded by unions, £16,391 demanded by rural districts, and an estimated refund of irrecoverable rates amounting to £1,135. The report also mentioned credits such as an agricultural grant of £41,005, other government grants and miscellaneous credits of £18,949, and estimated credit and unexpended balances of £7,681 on roads and other areas. This resulted in a total amount of £67,685 in aid of the levy, leaving a sum of £62,241 to be levied by rates for the current year, compared to the net amount of £69,531 levied last year, indicating a decrease of £7,290.
During the discussion, Mr Coleman expressed his belief that reducing the rate for Croom would not be advisable since the available funds did not accumulate within the specified period. Similar considerations applied to other districts, and he cautioned against raising false hopes among ratepayers by implementing significant reductions that might not be sustainable in the coming year. Mr Bourke pointed out that the overall rate struck could be misleading, as it might imply that District Councils were solely responsible for the achieved economies. However, in the case of Kilmallock, there had been a reduction of £245 in the estimates, whereas Rathkeale, a financially constrained Union, experienced an increase of £660, following a rise of £500 in the previous year. Mr Bourke clarified that District Councils were accountable for these increases rather than the County Council. The Chairman interjected, highlighting the large-scale labourers’ cottage scheme being carried out by the Rathkeale District Council. Dr Connery contested the estimates for Kilmallock, attributing the increase to the District Council and emphasizing the need to place blame accurately. He strongly criticised the doubling of their estimate, considering it unprecedented. The Chairman acknowledged Dr Connery’s point, recognizing the District Council’s constraints in the matter.
The discussion further continued with disagreements arising among members regarding the voting on expenditure, salary increases, and responsibilities within the Asylum Committee. Lord Emly expressed regret over an attack made on Corporation representatives within the committee, asserting their intelligence and ability to handle financial matters. Mr Vaughan disagreed with Lord Emly, and the Chairman acknowledged the diversity of opinions. Mr Durke criticised the actions of certain members who voted for salary increases and stated his intention to oppose them in the future. Lord Emly defended his stance, explaining that he would support salary increases if he deemed the artisans deserving and reminded everyone that officials outside the artisan category had also received increases. The Chairman attempted to conclude the matter, while Mr Gubbins, referring to the Kilmallock estimate, expressed concern over the doubling of the figure, clarifying that it was the District Council’s responsibility rather than the County Council’s. He emphasized the County Council’s efforts to keep rates low.
Limerick Echo – Tuesday 23 February 1904
