HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES

Taranaki Daily News, 27 September 1933, Page 9

HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES

ALLOCATION ON FRESH BASIS.

BOROUGHS OPPOSE CHANGE.

Masterton, Sept. 21.

A proposal to allocate heavy traffic fees on a road maintenance basis was fully considered at a conference of local body representatives in the No. 10 Heavy Traffic District, held in Masterton yesterday afternoon, but no agreement was arrived at. It was unanimously agreed upon by the county delegates that the proposal was a fair and < reasonable one, but the borough representatives were of the opinion that it would inflict a hardship on the boroughs. An offer to agree to an, allocation on a revised percentage was made by borough representatives, to which the counties made a counteroffer, but no agreement was leached before the meeting dispersed. ■ After explaining the reasons for which the meeting had been called, the chairman, Mr; W. I. Armstrong, said that failing an agreement any local body could apply to the Minister and ask that the fees be apportioned on a maintenance basis.

In the opinion of Mr. W. Simpson (Eketahuna), the proposals would inflict a hardship on the smaller boroughs. He explained that in the case, of Eketahuna the general rate was much lower this year, and he could not see how they were going to balance their budget. He considered that the fair thing should be done to,the smaller bodies which were struggling with their finances. An allocation on a maintenance basis, he claimed, was unjust and unfair. Mr. J. W. Card (Featherston) maintained that the proposal was not a fair one. He did not think the counties should insist on the boroughs going before the Minister, because the latter had no alternative but to make the allocation oh a maintenance basis. Mr. Card suggested that a fair and equitable arrangement should be arrived at. Mr. T. Jordan (Masterton) believed that provided they could arrive at the exact maintenance figures it would be a proper basis on which to make the allocation. At present, the counties took five-eighths and the boroughs threeeighths of the fees. Under the proposal before them the subsidies received were added to the maintenance charges. He held that the maintenance charges should be claimed on the money actually spent and not on other people’s money. On resuming after an adjournment at which the borough representatives discussed the matter, Mr. Card said the boroughs did not admit that the regulations made a fair distribution, and they desired an agreement outside of the lines laid down. The counties at present received 621 per cent, and the boroughs 37A per cent. He suggested that the counties take 70 per cent, and the boroughs 30 per cent. He asked the counties to meet the boroughs and help them to make allowance for expenditure not conceded by the regulations. Mr. Armstrong said the counties could not accept that, and made a counteroffer of 80 to 20 per cent. Mr. Card: Make it 75 to 25 per cent. The counties would not, however, offer more than 20 per cent., it being stated that even then the boroughs were receiving more than .they would under the allocation proposed. Mr. Card said the present agreement would continue until such time as the Minister made an allocation, and they would see the Minister. The meeting then dispersed.