“WHO SHOULD PAY?”

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18539, 9 April 1930, Page 5

“WHO SHOULD PAY?”

IMPROVEMENT WORK IN BACK COUNTRY. ACTION OF MACKENZIE COUNTY COUNCIL The Mackenzie County Council have in hand a scheme for the improvement of the Tekapo-Pukaki highway in the way of widening and reconstructing certain portions of the road. The work is estimated to cost £12,000 for construction and £BOO for maintenance, a grant of £3 for £1 to be made by the Mam Hi<rbwave Board, the to he carried out in the summer months over a period of four years. At Monday’s meeting of the Council eonsiucicjiC aisoussum took place as a result of the following notice of motion by Mr A. F. Campbell, which was given at last meeting: “That the cost of the extra work, over and above maintenance on the Tekapo-Pukaki road, should be borne by the Tekapo Riding and not by the whole County.” In moving the motion. Mr Campbell considered it his duty on behalf of the riding he represented to protest strongly against the proposal to pay the cost of the road improvement in that part of the county out of the general fund. He contended that the ratepayers in the lower ridings would derive no benefit whatever from the proposal. The whole benefit would be for the tourist traffic, also for back country runholders who aimed at having the road widened and improved chiefly for the purpose of being better able to clear the road of snow in the winter, when their means of access was cut off. The Main Highways Board, as representing the tourists, had now' promised to pay handsomely toward the cost leaving only a quarter to be found by the beneficiaries. Mr Campbell stated that seeing that the runholders obtained their sheep producing holdings very much cheaper than those in the low'er ridings on account of the snow menace, and as the present proposal was chiefly to combat that, he held that it was solely their duty to meet the quarter share of the cost on their own and not expect assistance from the lower ridings which were getting no benefit at all. Should the Tekapo Riding consider the scheme above their means, if liquidated in four years, there was no reason why the county should not come to the rescue and extend it say. for another four years, Tekapo Riding undertaking to pay in that time. The portion of the uokeep of Main Highways running through the county w'as now paid out of the genera] fund, but in the present case he held that none of the lower riding traffic derived any benefit, while traffic from the Tekapo riding had to pass over the lower highways to reach the main centres.

Mr W. Scott, in seconding the motion, said he had no private animosity, but was studying the interests of the ratepayers he represented, on the grounds of expense. Not ten per cent of the low'er riding ratepayers made use of the back country roads, and the ridings not affected were at present paying more for the upkeep of Tekapo Riding than the back country ratepayers themselves. On the last maintenance return the following figures revealed the position for payments: Albury paid Tekapo £3Ol. and received £ll4 from Tekapo: Fairlie paid £298 and received £97; Opuha naid £240 and received £129. Out of its own funds Tekapo contributed £260 to the riding, w'hile the other three ridings were asked to And £499.

Mr F. H. Buckley said that w'hen the highways system came into vogue the highway under discussion w'as just a track, w'hile the roads in the low country were well formed. It w'as perhaps an argument in favour of low' country ratepayers now' considering

assisting the formation of the high country road.

The chairman (Mr C. J. Talbot) considered that the highway system was in the best interests of the country generally, and overcame the difficulty of riding accounts altogether. Mr Campbell: “Would you advocate the abolition of ridings?

The chairman said he was in favour of the county funds being spread all over the county as suggested by the highway system. He quoted the case of one back country settler, who. w'hile not using the highway at all, was expected to pay for its maintenance. The Highways Board was assisting in the maintenance of main arterial roads by increased subsidies and the pooling of the funds would result in better roads throughout the county. Tekapo had a much bigger highway to maintain than existed in any other part of the county. Mr Campbell: “Then they’re all the better off.”

The chairman stated that the area was very sparsely populated, however, and considerable expense w'as necessary to keep the road in a good state. The Council would have to take a long view of the present case, as when tar sealing work w'as required on the lower country roads, the Tekapo Riding would be asked to contribute to the cost which w'ould be in the vicinity of £IOOO to £ISOO per mile. The engineer had suggested another scheme for meeting the present difficulty and that was that, each riding pay £lO to the cost of the w'ork, the remainder to be split up ever the w'hole county on a valuation basis.

Mr J. McCort: “I take it that the ratepayers are complaining against being asked to contribute to consti notion w'ork.”

The chairman said that in considering the drift of the argument, it w'ould be better if Tekapo members made an offer. If they agreed to pay 50 per cent, of the work out of their riding funds, the proposal might go through. On that basis Tekapo w'ould be asked to contribute £560 instead of £260 as at present, and if Mr Campbell's motion w'as carried they would be required to meet the total cost of £1139 per year. Mr G. Murray: “‘May I ask w'hethcr in time of flood Tckano contributes envthing to the comity funds?” The chairman: “Only on bighw'ays.” Mr Murray: “Those figures are not included in the statement submitted by Mr Scott then?” The chairman: “Yes they are all there.” Mr Murray said there w-as never a balance sheet made out yet that could not be turned upside down if reeuired. and he was of opinion that before the meeting went anv further the Counties’ Association solicitor’s advice should be sought on the matter. The chah'mon that Mr Martin’s dee could be sought only on points of law'. The present matter was in the Councils hands and they could do w'hat thev liked. There was no need to question the figures submitted as they had been examined by the Audit Department and certified to as being correct. Mr W. T. Smith said he took a very broad view of the matter and thought the ridings should help one another fo * the benefit of the county as a whole. Past history shewed that when "oods were constructed in the low'er "iditiffs the hi eh country man was forced to contribute, and the same should apnl.v to the low country man in the present ease. Mr Campbell: “Yes but they used the low' country roads.” Mr Buckley said that rfter hearing the chairman’s remarks he was prepared to vote against the motion, provided Tekaoo contributed half of the cost of the work. The chairman: “We haven’t any offer yet.” Mr T. J. Seav said that when a ro°d was constituted a main highway the ouestion of unrrr»v»n~fiW was one fern the coimfv gp.ner?Uv. In tbo b*ck country they had hundreds of miles

of side roads to maintain, and, if they w’ere forced to spend all the money on the highway, they would have no chance of keeping their back roads in anything like decent order. It was not right to say that low’er riding ratepayers did not use their back country roads, as they did. In the event of the expense not being borne by the w'hole county, he w'as in favour of the improvement w'ork being dropped. Members: “We can’t; a start has been made.”

At this stage the chairman moved that half the money be found by the Tekapo Riding and the remainder by the other ridings. He W'as quite sure that this could be done without raising the rates.

In seconding the amendment, Mr Buckley said he w'as surprised at the attitude taken by Messrs Seay and Murray, as at the present time their riding w r as making a profit on the year’s working at the expense of thr other ridings. Construction w'ork war more costly and for that reason Tekapo should be asked to find more.

Mr McCort: “I’ll support the amendment if Tekapo members will guarantee the amount.” Mr Scott: “I’ll ask Mr Campbell to withdraw the motion if Tekapo members agree to pay half.” Mr Campbell: “I don't think they will.” He considered that riding members w’ould not w'himper at maintenance expense but did not agree to do the whole of the construction work for the benefit of one riding.

Mr Seay: "You’re making a road. . . Mr Campbell: “Yes, making a road so you can clear it of snow.”

The chairman then called the meeting to order. Mr Campbell: “I’m being interrupted.” He could not see how' any of the low'er ratepayers were going to derive any benefit. If they did, they visited ttud.istrict in the capacity of tourists and were paying well for the privilege through the Highways Board. Mr Scott: “If Tekapo members agree to nay half, will you withdraw the motion ? ” Mr Campbell: “I’m not vindictive. I will.” Mr Murray w’ent on to speak of £7uo which he said had been taken out of the Tekapo Riding 20 years ago for work on the low' country. The chairman: “Will you agree to this compromise?” Mr Murray (emphatically): “No.” The chairman (to Mr Seay): “What is your opinion?” Mr Seay: ‘No.” Mr Buckley said that the ridings had made a magnificent offer ind yet Tekapo members wanted them ■* so “the w'hole hog.” “It makes one t- ick to see their attitude.” said Mr Buckley. Tekapo Riding had good roads and the only fault he could see was that they had been spoon fed. The motion w'as withdrawal and the amendment carried. Messrs Murray and Seay dissenting.