NOT WANTED

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20978, 5 October 1933, Page 13

NOT WANTED

:—& AMALGAMATION OF COUNTIES > LEVELS REJECTS PROPOSAL (SPECIAL TO THE PHESS.) TIMARU. October 4. By a unanimous vote the Levels County Council at its monthly meeting to-day decided: "That the amalgamation with Mackenzie county be not considered until such time as the ratepayers of Levels county have intimated that such a drastic change is necessary." The proposal was published in "The Press" last month, following the meeting of the county council at which it was received. Commenting on the report the engineer (Mr T. Black) and the clerk (Miss H. J. Allan) stated that the maximum saving on general administration stated to be obtainable, £175 to Levels, and £l2O to Mackenzie, would represent the negligible saving of 3s per annum to each ratepayer of the Levels county for a problematical increase in efficient working. On the face of the 1931-32 balancesheet the Mackenzie County Council received from the Treasury the sum of £7987 14s Id. Unless the Mackenzie county was the subject of more favourable treatment than the Levels county received from the Main Highways Board, this sum represented three-quarters of the total amount actually expended on Mackenzie county main highways. Therefore, it was assumed that the total expenditure on highways was £10,650 5s sd, of which amount the Mackenzie County Council bore one quarter, or £2662 lis 4d. For the same year the Levels County Council's share of the main highways fund was: Main highways £1143 18s Bd, secondary highways £299 19s Id, and an amount borne by riding account £94 10s, or a total of £1538 7s 9d. Mileage of Highways. The Official Year Book, 1933, gave at March 31, 1932, the following miles of main highways: Mackenzie County Council 113.5 miles, Levels county 76.75 miles. (The report incorrectly stated 120 miles for Mackenzie and 75 miles for Levels.) Therefore it would appear that the Mackenzie county ratepayer paid £23.5 a mile towards the upkeep of highways in that county, against £2O a mile paid by the Levels county ratepayer. Then again, it must be readily recognised that the main highways of the Levels county, contiguous to the borough of Timaru, with a population of 18,000, must carry at a conserva- i tive estimate, five times the traffic car- j ried on Mackenzie highways. On a comparative basis from the two bal-ance-sheets the statement that it cost Levels £I9OO anu the Mackenzie county nil could be totally discounted. On a capital value basis (which in a slight degree accentuated the difference in population and traffic) the revenue required for ■ administration and upkeep'of main highways and riding roads in the Levels county compared more than favourably with the Mackenzie county. The following figures based on revenue from rates, Government subsidies and grants were submitted in support thereof:— Mackenzie County, Average valuation 1929-30, 1932-33 £2,781,303. Average rate struck —£8920. Average received on subsidy on

rates, Government and Main Highways Board grants— £8586. Average rate struck a year—.769d in the £l. Rate received on subsidies and grants—.74ld in the £l. Approximate revenue of county—rate of 1.510 d in £l. Levels County. Average valuation 1929-30, 1932-33 — £3,550,870. Average rate struck —£14.1X3. Average received on subsidy _ on rates, Government and Main High- j ways Board grants—£7o62. . 1 Average rate struck yearly—.9ssd in £l. Rate received on subsidies and grants—.477d in £l. Approximate revenue of county—rate of 1.432 d in £l. The chairman 'Mr T. B. Garrick) stated that he could not understand some of the figures forwarded by the Mackenzie County. Council, for they seemed to show that the Levels County Council ran its business in a very muddled and peculiar way as compared with the Mackenzie County Council. The Mackenzie County Council seemed to run its highways without any expense to its ratepayers, and this he could not appreciate. He thought that it cost the Mackenzie County Council £2600 a year to run its highways, and it seemed that it ran its riding roads in the same manner. The Mackenzie County Council

had' more ridings than the Levels County Council, and yet it seemed : that they cost half the money. : Figures, he said, could be made to show anything, but he thought that the Mackenzie County Council had "put one across" the Levels County Council. He was satisfied ,th?t the . Levels County Council was run just ; as efficiently as the Mackenzie County j Council, which did not take into consideration the class of traffic to be • contended with in the Levels County, and which was not a centre with a population of 18,000 persons. "Based on Inexperience." The engineer (Mr T. Fox) and the county* clerk (Miss H; J. Allan) had gone fully into .the matter-of a" reply and what affected him most was the cut at the Levels system and methods. All he could say was that the report made by the Mackenzie County Council had beeii based on inexperience. The cpmmittee of the Mackenzie County Council had very little idea of the working of, a county ground a populated centre such as Timaru. Mr C. E. Kerr said that the main highways item' was a most. peculiar one, and- from what the Mackenzie County Council ssid it seemed as though it paid nothing. The chairman: They must pay £1 for every £3 they receive. The motion was seconded by Mr T. W. Brosnahan and carried.