HEAVY TRAFFIC

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 173, 23 June 1926, Page 10

HEAVY TRAFFIC

ALLOCATION OF FEES. CONFERENCE OF LOCAL BODIES. DEADLOCK REACHED. To consider tho allocation of heavy traffic license fees for the coming year, a meeting was held in Palmerston North this afternoon of representatives of the boroughs and counties in the surrounding districts. Mr Jos. Batchelar, chairman of the Kairanga County Council, who presided, extended a welcome to tho delegates and reminded the meeting that, unless any decisions arrived at were unanimous, the matter would have to be settled by a magistrate. He knew that there was some dissatisfaction over the present allocation of fees. BOROUGHS NOT SATISFIED. Mr M. A. Eliott, representing the Palmerston North Borough Council, stated that the boroughs were by no means satisfied with last year’s arrangement for the allocation of fees and considered that they were not getting a reasonable return. Palmerston North last ydar had collected £I6OO, of which amount only £509 had been retained. Feilding had been treated even worse, receiving £769 and retaining £152. Levin had collected £228 and had been left with £BO. The boroughs felt that they should bo allowed to retain 50 per cent, of the fees they collected, the remaining 50 per cent, to be distributed among the counties on the same basis as at present—length of roads and capital value. Further, it had to be remembered that the boroughs did not get any assistance from tire Highways Board. Mr A. Campbell (Oroua County) expressed the view that last year’s allocation had been a fair one to all bodies concerned. He doubted whether there was not some mistake in tho figures quoted by 51r Eliott. slr W. Hare (Kiwitea) County) thought that the suggestion that the boroughs should retain 50 per cent, of tho fees collected was not an equitable one. Mr E. AY. Carthew (slayor of Feilding) said that the boroughs had decided to let the matter go before a magistrate unless a fairer allocation than that of last year’s was arrived at. THE COUNTY VIESVPOINT. slr G. Monk (Horowlienua County) said that, as far as his county was concerned, tho amount retained last year was totally out of all proportion to the wear and tear on the roads. Because lorry drivers preferred to live in the towns and domicile their vehicles there was no reason why the boroughs should get a proportion of license fees out ol all reason. He was totally in opposition to tho suggestion that the boroughs should get more. slr H. J. Fagan (Manawatu) supported tho previous speaker \ and stated that, if the matter had to go before a magistrate, lie was confident that the counties would receive even better treatment than at present. HAAVKE’S BAY AGREEMENT. 51r F. AV. Connell (Kairanga County) pointed out that the local bodies in tiie Hawke’s Bay district had reached an agreement on the following terms:— lliat five per cent, be retained by each collecting authority on ices collected by itself, the remaining 95 per cent, to bo divided one-third to the boroughs and two-thirds to the counties and town districts; and that the division between boroughs be on a basis of population one-third, capital value one-third, and miles of metalled roads ono-third, and that the division between the counties be on a basis of capital value one-half and miles of metalled roads one-half. Ho had worked out, under that mode of allocation, that the Kairanga County Council would have retained about £IOO less than it actually had. The boroughs would naturally have benefited by that allocation. Mr Eliott, replying to the criticism concerning the accuracy or his figures, said he would bo glad to be shown where they were incorrect. Actually in Palmerston North last year £6OO hgd been no 1 lee tod from owners of vehicles which never went outside the borough. 51 r F. AV. Arbon (Pohangina County) expressed the opinion that the boroughs were taking a rather on'e-sided view, and had practically stated that, unless they received tho proportion they desired, they would appeal to the magistrate. slr Monk said he felt that no agreement would be reached by the meeting, and that the matter would have to be decided by a magistrate. To test the feeling of those present, he moved that last year’s allocation bo again agreed to, with the exception that Foxton and Shannon come under the same heading as the other boroughs. slr Fagan seconded the resolution. MAGISTRATE TO DECIDE QUESTION. slr slortensen (Levin borough) opposed the present system of allocation being continued. After further discussion, Mr Eliott moved, as an amendment, that the basis of allocation bo as ho had suggested, or, as an alternative, that the Hawke’s Bay basis be agreed to. Mr Carthew seconded this. The chairman pointed out that an amendment was not much use as tho meeting had to be unanimous. On the amendment being put to the meeting, five of the local bodies represented voted in favour and seven against. The voting was reversed when the motion was put. 51 r Mopk then suggested that, as the matter now had to be settled by a magistrate, the Kairanga County Council enter into the necessary negotiations with the Internal Affairs Department. This was agreed to, and the meeting then dispersed.