MAIN HIGHWAYS

Waipa Post, Volume 44, Issue 3182, 26 May 1932, Page 5

MAIN HIGHWAYS

MAINTENANCE COSTS. GREAT SOUTH ROAD AND THE. SECONDARY HIGHWAYS. Some very interesting figures were quoted at the annual meeting of the Waipa County Council on Wednesday, and probably the most interesting were these bearing on maintenance costs last year of the Great South Koad and the secondary highways. GREAT SOUTH ROAD. ™2 c WaS Shown that the maintenance costs were as follow: iifl 0 :,, 1 . section (Ngaruawahia to ***%?££"- £2U per mile > i 932 > xt u) \ l93l > £366; 1932, £3Ol. southern tt Awa ™*« to the £356 b °i»dary): 1931, £298; 1932, IhrwhnU? g^aintenance cos t over I: Zool e - length < ab °ut 30* miles) was £286 m 1931 and £295 in 1932. SECONDARY HIGHWAYS. The average cost oil maintaining the 53 miles of secondary highways was shown as: 1931, £i o7 f 1932,T109 The average maintenance cost of tawhatn T°" the Ha™lton-Wha--1932 £122 F W3S: 1931 ' £l96 ' 1931!£J02 iIUtU " Pironeia: 1931 ' £64; 1932, £™ utu - Cai nbridge: 1931, £B4; ml^stiui^ 011 ' 8 Corner: 1931 ' When these figures were read Cr Livingstone suggested that they be released for publication, as ratepayers over the county would be interested. . Cr Peacocke expressed surprise that costs were higher this year than m tne previous year. Cr Clarke also asked how that was, considering that prices generally were believed to be lower now. The engineer explained that more work was done this year. The heavier cost on Te Awamutu-Ohaupo section was primarily due to the steep crown °u F°£ 10TiS of that road - H e added that there was more traffic on Te Awamutu-Kihikihi Road than on Te Awamutu-Ohaupo Road. AUTHORITIES MUST NOT BE EXCEEDED. The Waipa County Council, at yesterday s meeting, considered the new proposals respecting costs of maintenance oil main highways The Main Highways Board, through its district representative, advised that on repeated occasions the Board nad notified its representatives and local bodies that where expenditure was incurred beyond the authority issued by the Board for-main highways work of any description the Board would not hold itself responsible to pay subsidy on the excess expenditure In the past the Board had taken a lenient view, but owing to the diversion from the main highways fund the position was such that the Board would have no financial margin whatever, and would thus be unable to consider applications for further funds when the authority had been exceeded. Local bodies would therefore understand that they must accept full financial responsibility for any excess expenditure. Should anv payment be made by the Board's representative he would be made personally liable for the unauthorised payment. Where there was no proper authority there would be no payment, and in future the omission to make formal application would not be accepted as an excuse for further assistance on account of over-expenditure. It was pointed out that the Board's finances had been so seriously curtailed by Parliament that the most rigid control must be exercised, and if expenditure was undertaken without the Board's authority local authorities must not expect assistance i'rom the Main Highways Board. Minor improvements, such as cutting off small points, widening of formation and of sealed surfaces, etc., must this year be entirely excluded.

Mr Civil said he had discussed the matter with the district representative, and lie anticipated a workable arrangement would be arrived at.

The clerk (Mi? T. Grant) said he did not appreciate the intention to hold him personally liable for any excess of expenditure over the amount authorised. The Treasury was the last authority to sign cheques, and thus it seemed unfair to hoid him (the clerk) liable for any delays that might be outside his control.