RATE SUBSIDY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 243, 11 September 1935, Page 9

RATE SUBSIDY

REQUEST FOR CHANGE. The subject having been favourably voted upon at the last conference of the New Zealand Counties’ Association, the association wrote to the Manuwatu County Council, the letter being read at yesterday’s meeting, asking its support of a resolution to request the Government to introduce legislation this session authorising payment of a £1 for £1 subsidy on roads other than highways instead of the present rate subsidy. Setting out the position as it affected the council, the clerk (Mr A. K. Drew) said that last year the council received in general rate subsidy the sum of £2200, the amount being cut down somewhat on account of arrears of rates. On district road maintenance carried out in the past 12 months the council spent £3216. Under the proposed £1 for £1 scheme, if brought into operation, the council would receive another £3200 to spend on roads outside main highways. To get the equivalent of the present rate subsidy an expenditure of approximately £SOOO would have to take place, Mr Drew added.

The chairman (Cr W. E. Barber) said a point that had to be remembered was that there was a general complaint that the side roads were being neglected and all the money spent on the main roads. There were obviously arguments for and against the proposal, added the speaker. Cr A. N. Morcom asked why so many of the minor counties had been opposed to the proposal at the Counties’ Association conference.

Cr J. Id. Perrett thought that the matter of having to. spend the money to get the subsidy was perhaps a deterrent to the small counties, and the chairman commented that there were other issues also. For instance, he said, the cost of metal influenced the position a good deal, the charge to get it on • some roads varying from 2s 6d per yard to £1 and more. Cr. R. A. "Wilson did not think there was any chance of the Government granting the request. To him it appeared as if the proposal attacked the whole basis of county councils, in as much as the councils rated themselves and then had to get permission from elsewhere to spend the money. Cr. Perrett considered that in adopting the resolution as it had the Counties’ Conference had evidently aimed at derating. He could not see that the council would be any better off by adopting the proposal; in fact, it might easily be worse off, he added. On the motion of Crs. Wilson and Reid, the council decided to take no action in the matter.