CONFERENCE HELD TO CONSIDER THE ALLOCATION OF

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17880, 23 June 1926, Page 3

CONFERENCE HELD TO CONSIDER THE ALLOCATION OF

Allocation of the fees for the present year was considered at a conference yesterday of fifty representatives of local bodies in the No 16 heavy traffic district. The chairman. Councillor A. M’Kellar, (City Council), said that the City (Council, the previous ye'ar, had obtained £376 as cost of collecting registrations, but was losing on it, as a member of its staff had to be put on full time to collect the registrations, at a cost of over £3OO, and the total expenses, probably, would be £BSO. On the motion of Councillor E. 11. Andrews (City Council) the City Council was authorised to collect the registrations on the same basis as in the previous year, namely, 5 per cent for overhead expenses. It was agreed that the fees should be collected by local bodies affected, the fees to be forwarded to the City Council, for distribution in accordance with the allocation agreed upon. Councillor O. W. B. Anderson (City Council) said that the total sum collected was £7531. About £375 went to the City Council for collecting registrations, leaving about £7156 for distribution. The present basis of allocation was not fair. He moved; “That the apportionment of heavy traffic licenses should be on the basis of sums spent by local bodies during the year for the maintenance .of roads exclusive of the expenditure on footpaths, and of Government subsidies and Highways Board subsidies received.” Mr G. Maginness (Paparua County Council) sai<J that he must oppose the motion. His county had three converging roads, leading from other districts. He did not think that 5 per cent was sufficient remuneration to the City Council for the work of collecting registrations. Councillor Andrews said that the previous year it was agreed that the fairest and cheapest way was to apportion the fees on the cost of maintaining the roads. The conference now had to decide what was a fair maintenance. Mr C. Fla veil (Heathcotc County , Council) said that the proposal to ] withdraw subsidies from the method of computation was drawing a red herring across the scent. He did not think it had any chance of going through. Councillor Anderson said that the present basis of allocation was unequal as between the counties and the city. Mr R. Hawke (Waimairi County Council) said that county councils could not agree to the latter part of the motion. He did not think that Councillor Anderson was in earnest. Maintenance was the basis the previous year. It certainly was the fairest basis. Mr Flavell: In any case, the City Council will get its pound of flesh. If we can’t agree here, let -the question go to a commission. Two amendments, one that the basis of allocation should be maintenance, exclusive of the Government subsidy on rates, the other that it should be maintenance, exclusive of the Ilighwavs Board subside, were lost. A further amendment, that the basis should be as last vear. namclv. cost of maintenance. was carried.