No support given Roads Board plan

Press, 26 February 1977, Page 19

No support given Roads Board plan

No support and plenty of criticism for the National Roads Board proposals for the payment of subsidy to councils was apparent at a meeting of the No. 14 District Roads Council this week. The council, which represents 48 territorial councils between the Rakaia and Ashley rivers, refused to support the proposal until more is known about its effects. The District Commissioner of Works and Development (Mr P. F. Reynolds), who presided, said that the board pro-

posed, from April 1 to abolish the existing subsidy system and substitute a percentage contribution to each council, as determined by the board. Mr Reynolds said that the change was considered necessary to make sure that maintenance, rehabilitation and bridging were properly funded by the board. It was considered that the revision would achieve this. A trial in Northland and on the North Island east coast had shown that the counties concerned had reported favourably. Minoranomalies were capable of 'correction. “With the fall in real terms in reading money for local authorities over recent years, the board has become increasingly conscious of the need to adequately fund basic needs,” he said. “At present, maintenance and reseals require the greatest local authority contribution at the basic subsidy rate of $3 for $4 compared with most other construction works.

“It is recognised that local bodies have a responsibility to invest their funds to best effect, and it is apparent that the differential subsidies offered by the board are distorting the need to properly fund basic maintenance, pavement upgrading and bridge replacements.” Mr Reynolds said that while most councils in the board’s No. 14 district had acted responsibly, there were others, mostly in the North Island, which had opted for higher-subsidy work, and had neglected maintenance. Mr D. B. Rich (Waimairi) said the counties "sampled” had not been typical, and no information had come out in favour of the board’s idea. He could not see why the change was proposed. Too much haste was apparent, said Councillor P. D. Dunbar (Christchurch City). The City Council had always made adequate provision for maintenance. Councillor Dunbar said the board's proposal was questionable. and its acceptance, should be delayed for a year for more detailed consideration of the' implications. The board should be told this, and that the roads council wanted urgency in completion of the board’s reading needs survey. Mr W. E. Walker (Ellesmere) said that the scheme was unfair to councils which were “putting big unsubsidised money” into reading, while Mr S. J. Cowens (Eyre) said the well-tested subsidy system should not be scrapped for something

that could mean an imbalance in payments. “I am surprised that this proposal has turned up in such haste." said the City Engineer (Mr P. G. Scoular). “There are in-adequately-defined restraints, and we are unconvinced of any advantage, or need for it m the form it is in.” Councillor D. A. Franklin (Rangiora Borough) said the scheme should be thrown out. Several speakers said it was ridiculous for the board to say that it did. not wish to influence councils in the way 1 they spent the money. No one responded when Mr Reynolds asked if anyone was in favour of the proposals, and meeting agreed to tell the board that it would not accept the proposals until the board showed more convincing reasons why it should do so.