HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES

Northern Advocate, 21 October 1935, Page 2

HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES

PROPOSED ALLOCATION MANGONUI STANDS OUT. The proposed allocation of traffic fees between the four northern counties and town districts does not meet with the approval of the Mangonui County Council, which would stand to lose about £230 a year. Mr Vickers, the chairman, stated at Friday’s meeting of the council that the Mangonui County and Town Board delegates voted against the proposal. The Hokianga County Council had only one delegate present, but he was allowed three votes, a procedure which was open to question., It might be advisable to get the solicitor’s opinion on that, and the council should make a very strong protest. Mangonui County had its own traffic inspector, and collected all license fees, but according to Mr Ronayne, quite a lot of fees were not collected in other counties. Under the proposed agreement, Mangonui would collect fees, for which other counties would get the benefit. The position should have been left as it was, each county taking the fees it collected. Cr. Wrathall said it had apparently been all cut and dried beforehand. Mangonui collected £836, which was more than collected by any other county. Whangaroa was collecting £220 and was to receive £320. while Bay of Islands was collecting £685 and would get back £925. The chairman: “It is claimed that the Bay of Islands carries a lot of through traffic from other counties, the road chiefly affected being between Ohaeawai and the freezing works. Representations had been made to the Highways Board for a higher subsidy on that piece of road, but the request had been turned down flatly. The clerk gave the mileage of highways on. which the allocation was to be based, as follows: —Mangonui County, 83 miles; Whangaroa County, 31 miles; Hokianga County, 133 miles; Bay of Islands County, 140 miles; Kaikohe Town District, 2.6 miles; Kaitaia Town District, 2.5, miles. , The Kaitaia Town Board would only receive £69. It should be remembered that counties with a large mileage of main highways derived greater benefit from the £3 for £1 subsidy on highways maintenance than those, with a small mileage. Referring to the resolution dealing with the proposed appointment of the group traffic inspector, the clerk said it was proposed that the inspector be stationed at Dkaihau, and the salary be paid pro rata, on a mileage basis, by the four counties. The Highways Board would pay two-thirds of the cost and all . fines and fees would go to ai central fund and be distributed on a mileage basis. At present, all fines and fees went /to the .County Fund, with the exception of fines imposed in prosecutions by Mr O’Brien, in which case they went to the Highways Board. The chairman: “We will need our inspector all the same. This will mean no burden, for a good deal will come back in fines, and we have the sideroads to attend to,” , The clerk: “It is estimated that a group inspector will cost £6OO to £BOO per annum.” Mr Peace (solicitor) explained the legal position as shown by regulations under the P.W.D. Act. In default of ah - agreement between the different bodies in any district, one district was appointed by the Minister as a receiving district.

The clerk: “We agreed to the Bay of , Islands County Council acting in that capacity.” Cr, Wrathall: “Not in terms of the allocation.”

Mr Peace: “That was not an agreement. To begin with the delegates had no authority to bind the council.” • The clerk: “By a previous agreement it was provided that each local body should retain the fees collected.”

Mr Peace: “Keep to that arrangement till you have to change. The whole thing is irregular.” Mr Wrathall: “A number of authorities in the licensing district were not represented at the conference.” On tne motion of Cr. Wrathall, it was decided to inform the Bay of Islands County Council that the Mangonui Council could not agree to the allocation of heavy traffic fees, as suggested at the recent conference of local bodies at Ohaeawai. vx