BOUNDARY ROADS'

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 121, 25 May 1933, Page 13

BOUNDARY ROADS'

MASTERTON CONTROVERSY

COUNTY'S REPLY

(Special to the "Evening Post.") MASTERTON, This Day. , . Replying to statements made about boundary roads a-t Tuesday night's meeting of the Masteiton Borough Couucil, the chairman of the Masterton County Council, Mr. W. I. Armstrong, states that the ■ county's letter was written in^pui-suariee of a resolution by the Mastertou County Council and was submitted to him for his approval before being-sent. ■■■■•■ ■ Mr., Armstrong's statement proceeds-/ "The reason which prompted the council to insist upon being consulted by the Borough Council before the expenditure; of money upon repairs to boundary ■roads, is that the amount so expended fi;om time to time is iv the opinion of tlie Masterton County Council in excess of the amount for which, the work might have been executed. "The account rendered by the Borough Council for the years; ended March 31, 1931, and March; 31, 1933, show this clearly enough. In the former year the account as rendered showed that the borough's total expenditure onthe Toads amounted to £316; 5s 4d, of which the county's share was £158 2s Bd. Upon a protest being ■ made at ,that time by the County Clerk, the account of expenditure was reduced, to £239 Os 4d, of which the county's share '.was £119 10s 2d. Quite a substantial reduction. The account for the year ended March 31, 1933,. debited the county with expenditure at the rate of £134 per mile for the Railway Road, whereas-the cost to the county of repairing the piece of road in continuation of the boundary road was only £ 75 per mile. The road in the borough, may be somewhat narrower than the piece in the county, but it is scarcely credible that there should be a difference of approximately £00. per mile, in the cost of repair. ' . "The Masterton County Council has paid the account for March 31, 1933, but it -considers that it owes to the ratepayers of the county a duty of seeing that in future, before expenditure is incurred by tho borough, the county should have the opportunity Of 'considering whether the work is necessary and the estimate is reasonable. With; that object, the council directed the County Clerk to communicate its "desire to the Masterton Council, and as the letter, was .worded temperately and not officiously; I am unable to see that the latter, .body had any reason to^take umbrage at its so doing. The Masterton County Council has certainly no desire to .fall, out with the Masterton Borough Council, and if that result follows-the borough alone will be responsible."