TRAFFIC FEES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 149, 26 June 1934, Page 11

TRAFFIC FEES.

DIVIDED OPINIONS.

BASIS OF DISTRIBUTION. NO DECISION BEACHED. The retention of the system of distribution of heavy traffic fees, which, came into force last year, was favoured by the districts more remote from the city— those that had benefited by the change— and opposed by the city and adjacent boroughs at a conference of local bodies in the No. 1 heavy traffic district held at the Town Hall yesterday afternoon. The Mayor, Mr. G. V?. Hutchison, presided, and tne Commissioner of Transport, Mr. J. S. Hunter, accompanied by Mr. G. Laurenson, civil engineer to the Transport Board, were present. Mr. Hutchison said at the opening Oj. the conference that the change made last year to a distribution on a road maintenance basis instead of on a population and capital valuation basis had em-_ barrassed some of the local bodies. The City Council, for instance, ■ was about £4000 short. He did not think the subject was one for a vote, for it was obvious that those bodies which nan benefited would favour the distribution of the fees collected for the year ending May 31, 1935, on last year's basis, and those who had not would oppose it. He reminded those present that failing unanimous agreement the Act allowed the Minister to decide the method of distribution.

The Mayor's contention was soon borne out, for Mr. Bishop (Waitemata County Council), Mr. J. Guinivcn (Takapuna Borough Council), Mr. F. Waters (Manukau County Council), Mr. M. Gricrson (Franklin County Council) and others contended that last year's basis was an equitable one, but representatives of several boroughs opposed it. In reply to a question whether there would be a delay in the payment, Mr. Hunter said the purpose of the meeting was to avoid delay. If no alteration was decided on by the conference he took it there would be no delay in distribution. If the local bodies were not unanimous the basis would be the same as ?ast year. No change could be made unless the regulations were altered, which might occur should distinct hardship be proved. After further discussion, Mr. Hunter promised that the Department would give consideration to the points brought forward, togethgr with any further written representations received before the allocation was decided.