WHICH RIDINGS PAY?

Waipa Post, Volume 42, Issue 3302, 28 May 1931, Page 5

WHICH RIDINGS PAY?

AN INTERESTING COMPARISON.

At Wednesday's meeting of the Waipa County Council, the clerk (Mr T. Grant) presented a return showing expenditure on main roads throughout the county, and the chairman suggested that it be referred to the Finance Committee. Cr Johnson said he had asked for the information because he noticed Mangapiko Riding was in trouble each year. There was no desire or prospect for increased rates. The riding had no particularly difficult roads to maintain, yet its rates were as high as t the average of other ridings. Mangapiko did not seem to be drawing from the county fund its fair proportion. Tuhikaramea riding has no main highway, and thus its main roads are maintained out of the county fund. Several other ridings also draw from that fund more than they contribute —chiefly at the expense of Mangapiko, it seemed to him. Cr Johnson proceeded to analyse the figures in support of his. contention. He should that in Newcastle Riding the total annual cost of main highways and main roads is £127 15s per mile, of which the riding contributes £66 10s. In Hamilton riding the total cost is £330 per mile, of which the riding contributes £llO. Figures of other riding are:— Tuhikaramea, £9O 10s (this riding has no main highway); Kaipaki, £152 10s and £76 10s; Pukekura, £lOl 10s and £6 ss; Rangiaohia, £202 and £6B 10s; Orakau, £lO4 and £35 10s; Mangapiko, £72 and £6O; Kakepuku, £l3l and £44. The major figures include subsidies from the Main Highways Board. The expenditure on riding roads is as follows:—Newcastle £4l 15s per mile, Hamilton £62 17s 6d, Rukuhia £52 17s 6d, Tuhikaramea £33 16s, Kaipaki £42 ss, Pukekura £92 12s, Rangiaohia £37 9s 7d, Orakau £37 12s, Mangapiko £l9 lis, and Kakepuku £l2 6s 6d. Continuing, Cr Johnson said Newcastle and Pukekura ridings seem to be in the most favourable position. Pukekura has large supplies of gravel all over the riding, but allowing for that advantage, he came to the conclusion that Pukekura was_ benefiting from wise administration in former years, when few loans were raised and spent, yet it provided really good roads by comparison with other parts of the county. It had very little to pay now as interest and sinking fund. Some other ridings are paying large amounts as interest and sinking fund charges. Concluding, Cr Johnson said there was a steady and continual rise in the amounts raised for county purposes. In his own case, some years ago his land contributed £26 per annum as rates, whereas now he pays over £IOO annually on the' same property. He claimed that the time has come for de-ra&ng of farm lands. Cr Livingstone said that while he favoured de-rating he wanted to know the alternative. Motorists probably favoured central administration, but that would mean " good-bye " to the side roads, for engineers would concentrate on' the principal roads. County councils would have no rates to maintain the side roads. Several other councillors commented on the report and the contentions advanced. Traffic conditions have altered wonderfully in recent years. Cr Church said it was impossible with funds available to make roads capable of carrying heavy loads. A five-ton road cannot carry ten-ton loads. The chairman mentioned that county residents are contributing to Main Highways Board more than the amount expended in the county by the Board directly or indirectly. Cr Livingstone remarked that the policy of centralisation would probably result in the merging of many local bodies, including county councils and power boards. He favoured the merging of power boards but saw no good argument yet to merge counties. His chief fear was for the maintenance of the less important road.