Ratepayer to toot roadworks bill

Press, 14 August 1976, Page 7

Ratepayer to toot roadworks bill

Councils in Christchurch will spend at least §540,000 on road work this year, without benefit of the S 3 for $4 subsidy, or better, which would have been paid by the National Roads Board in more normal times. This means that ratepayers will find about §231,000 of the cost which otherwise would have come from the N.R.B. On a national scale, cities and boroughs will do unsubsidised roading work with a draw of between SSM and SBM on the rates. The substitution of rates for subsidy money in counties is expected to be well into six figures. Both the Municipal Association and the Counties’ Association are completing surveys. The findings will be discussed by a joint committee to make a case to the Government for more realistic subsidies. A joint committee meeting next month will also assess how much road work had been held up because a subsidy is not available. The biggest nonsubsidised spender on roads locally is the Christchurch City Council, which plans to do §350,000 worth of work without the $3 for $4 subsidy. “At one stage, it looked as if we would be doing $410,000 worth of work that wouldn’t get a subsidy, but the board made some extra money available,” the assistant city engineer (Mr D. B. Forbes) said. “The §350,000 is for construction work of various kinds, but we have not allocated money for any specific jobs,” he said. The Waimairi County Council will do about $lBl,OOO worth of work, on which $77,867 should

have been paid in subsidy. “It’s all coming from the ratepayers, now,” the County Clerk (Mr J. Reid) said. The money will go on kerbing and channelling, road reconstruction and some sealing. In deciding to spend without subsidy, the council, had felt that it had a duty to keep faith and carry out essentia! work. Mr Reid said. The Heathcote County Council will spend $9OOO without subsidy, chiefly for improved road drainage. and th? upgrading of Willock Street, off Hillsborough Terrace. The Paparua County Council is $70,000 short in subsidy from the board but it has not decided what amount, if any, it will spend on the roads without the subsidy. "We feel that it is very unfair that the board, in many parts of New Zealand, pays higher than the normal subsidy and makes grants for work that reduce the money available for the payment of the basic subsidy,” said the County Manager (Mr A. Kelly).’ “We have been insistent that councils should get their basic subsidy as of right on what they are prepared to spend from their rates. “The board has not restored the recent 10 per cent cut, and we got nothing from the SI2M granted to the board. The board has just got another S9M, and this money should go, as a first priority, to restoring the basic subsidy.” The Riccarton Borough Council does not plan to spend money on unsubsidised road work. The Borough Engineer (Mr W. E. Leatham) said the council knew how much to expect from the board, and tailored its roading estimates accordingly. The cuts have hit rural

counties. Malvern, one of the bigger counties, is not doing work that is not subsidised. Even with its subsidies, it is unable to do any new work. Some footpath construction will be done, but it is not subsidised.

“We have one bridge being reconstructed, and the council feels that the subsidy payable on this job is stopping money for essential road work.” said the County Clerk (Mr B. W. Perrin). “The council believes there is a strong case for the establishment of a special fund for bridge works, so that they can be paid for without upsetting road work.” During the recent tour of the West Coast by the N.R.8., its chairman, the Minister of Works and Development (Mr W. L. Y’oung) repeatedly made clear his views, and probably those of the board, on the bridges versus roads argument. Traffic could put up with a bad road, he said, but the road was useless if bridges on it collapsed, or were in danger of doing so. Bridges, he made it clear, were the board’s No 1 priority. Some of the Councils saw little prospect of them getting anything from the latest grant in aid of S9M to the board, and pointed out that S3M was earmarked, anyway, to meet higher administration charges. The joint committee of the municipal and counties’ associations is also concerned at the board's administration bill, which could reach S9M in a full year. The committee will raise this question when it takes up the cudgels with the Government for a more realistic attitude towards money for roads from the taxes paid by road users.