HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 152, 30 June 1932, Page 8

HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES

NO. 9 DISTRICT POOL NEW ALLOCATION BASIS A LENGTHY CONFERENCE Allocation of heavy traffic fees due to local bodies in the No. 9 Heavy Traffic District was made yesterday after an all-day sitting of representatives of those centres entitled to participate in the pool. There was a marked conflict of opinion between the three divisions under which the local bodies were listed—the city, the five major counties and the boroughs and various small town boards. The City of Wanganui was the moving spirit behind the conference, having exercised its right to have the existing basis of allocation reviewed in the light of altered regulations. Five counties approached deliberations with the knowledge that they were being called on to concede something to the city, and were prepared to fight to retain the old basis. The town boards, some of which had received concessions at the hands of the counties in the past, were out to get more if they could, but, at all costs, retain what they had.

In such a frame of mind the conference drifted into an atmosphere of deadlock until a spirit of compromise took charge, which resulted in the adoption of the following basis of allocation.

(1) That the first charge on the pool be 10 per cent, to each local body on the actual fees each local bodv collects. (2) That the second charge be £lOO to the Patea County, which had previously been allowed that body through the generosity of the Rangitikei County. - , (3) That the third charge be a sum of £75 for the Wanganui City Council as payment for administering the pool. (4) That the balance of the pool be allocated on the basis of 66 2-3 to the counties and 33 1-3 to the re spective boroughs and town boards. Adoption of this basis was made possible by the Wanganui City Council agreeing to the 33 1-3 being allocated so as to increase last year’s figures to small bodies, in each instance, according to the following table: —

The respective counties —Wanganui, Waitotara, Patea, Waimarino and Rangitikei met subsequently and decided that the 66 2-3 be allocated between them on the same ratio as last year. Mr N. G. Armstrong, Mayor of Wanganui, presided, and the respective local bodies were represented as follows: Marton Borough, by the Mayor, Mr F. Purnell; Bulls Town Board, by Messrs J. G. Walker and M. Gould; Waimarino County, by the chairman, Mr C. H. Ball; the Patea County by the chairman, Mr W. G. Belton and the engineer, Mr L. F. Row; the Rangitikei County, by Messrs W. Doole, S. A. Mair (engineer) and H. H. Richardson (clerk); Hunterville Town Board, by Mr Chas. Stratford; the Taihapo Borough Council, by the Mayor, Mr L. A. de Latour: Baetihi Borough Council, by the Mayor, Mr Walter Harris; Ohakune Borough Council, by the Mayor, Mr G. J. Goldfinch; the Mangaweka Town Board, by Messrs W. N. Watson, A. Milner and L. G. P. Mahoney; the Wanganui County, by the chairman, JSIr D. Mackintosh, Mr A. Collins, Mr R. B. Dawson. (engineer) and G. Darbyshire (clerk); the Waitotara County, by the chairman, Mr W. Morrison and Mr T. Dix (engineer); the Waverley Town Board, by Mr A. J. Adlam; Patea Borough Council, by the Mayor, Mr Bamsbottom, Mr T. E. Christensen and the town clerk (Mr L. W. Austin); Wanganui City by the Mayor (Mr N. G. Armstrong), Messrs F. J. Hill, J. D. Crowley. A. E. Halligan, J. S. L. Deem (engineer), and G. March (town clerk).

Mr Armstrong, outliinng the reasons for the conference, said that under the old basis the allocation to the respective local bodies the factors taken into account were mileage of metalled roads and capital value. New regulations were framed which brought in other factors—the relative costs of maintenance of roads; the length of metalled or hard-surfaced roads proportionate to the total length of all the roads existing in the districts of the respective local authorities. For the purposes of this clause the term “metalled or hardsurfaced roads,” includes a pumice road, a gravelled road, a metalled road (sealed, penetrated, or otherwise), a bituminous-concrete road, or a cementconcrete road, constructed in each case to the satisfaction of the Minister; the population and capital value of the districts of the respective local authorities; the result of any traffic tally or tallies taken within the heavy traffic district; instead of tallies, it is considered fair to take into account the number of .vehicles (indicated by the amount of license fees), responsible for wear and damage to roads. The local bodies in the district have agreed on a basis of allocation under the old factors and that had been approved by Mr J. >S. Barton, S.M., as the result of action taken in Court by the Patea County. By an arrangement between themselves the Bangitikoi County had allowed the Patea County £lOO of its share under the old allocation. In 1928 the various bodies had conferred and had approved of that allocation with the special concession to Patea. Since then new regulations had brought in the additional factors named and, in duty bound to its ratepayers, the City Council had moved to have the basis of allocation reviewed. The speaker moved: (1) That from the license fees for heavy motor vehicles collected by the. local authorities with the Heavy Traffic District. No. 9, there shall first be deducted by each local authority from the fees collected by it, a proportion of 10 per cent for cost of collection. (2) That each such local authority shall pay the balance of the foes col looted by it, i.e., 90 per cent into a general fund. (31 that from such general fund

there shall in the first place be paid the sum of £75 to the local authority administering the fund, for cost of administration. That the \\ anganui City Council be appointed the local authority to administer the fund. (4) That after the deduction ol the said sum of £75. the balance ol the general fund shall be apportioned among the local authorities in accordance with the schedule hereto, the said apportionment being based on the factors contained in paragraph 5 of section 12 of “The Heavy Motor Vehicles Regulations 1932.” Protests Made There was an immediate protest from Mangaweka., voiced by Mr Watson. Maintenance of roads there, where traffic converged on the Main Trunk line, was a big burden, he said. The Town Board had sealed its road, hut it was not fair to reduce its allocation. Mr W. Morrison gave the counties’ viewpoint. Ho moved an amendment to the effect that the old basis of allocation be adhered to. Everybody was well satisfied, and the basis had been reviewed in .1928 and adopted again. There was no necessity to take the new regulations into account. The counties would be getting the worst of the deal if what the. city proposed was adopted. They did not want to force the matter into Court, but desired that the counties should not be deprived of an equitable share. Mr W. B. Belton, seconding Mr Morrison, said he was struck with the partisan spirit evinced in the Mayor’s opening remarks. While there were a large number of lorry drivers living in Wanganui, they plied their vehicles over the county roads. Patea was a dissentient when the first allocation was made. The judgment of the magistrate (Mr J. 8. Barton) considered it to be a fair allocation, but the Bangi-

tikei County entered into a “gentleman’s agreement” with Patea whereby Patea got an extra £lOO. That still stood and proved that the old allocation had 1 not been as fair as at first. The speaker was of opinion that with Patea getting the £lOO the old system was fair and equitable. Bulls Town Board reminded the conference of the heavy burden thrown on a local body where traffic was directed into a “bottle-neck.” Compromise Needed Mr F. Purnell said that every local body had come along with the idea of grabbing as much as it could from the pool. A compromise would have to be made. It would bo impossible to get an equitable system, just as it was impossible to get a system of rating that was equitable. The old allocation had been agreed to simply because they could not find a better. Mr Barton, in his judgment, admitted he could have criticised it, but ho doubted whether he could have proposed a system that would not give rise to criticism. Mr F. J. Hill gave figures showing that in other centres the systems of allocation gave more to municipalities than under that adopted in Wanganui. He quoted Hamilton, Palmerston North, Invercargill, Wellington and Auckland.

Mr Armstrong, replying to Mr Morrison, said that it was right that the new regulations should be taken into account. Population was a factor now, and more population meant greater volume of delivery by lorry—there were more people. Mr Morrison: Suppose we agree to the population basis, will your city be prepared to advocate a population basis fpr collection of the hospital levy? (Laughter).

Mr Armstrong: My answer to that is that population in this is only one factor.

Mr Morrison: Then I take it you are not prepared to advocate it for hospital levy? Mr Goldfinch (Ohakune) said he was in favour of neither the motion nor the amendment. It was essential, he thought, that the smaller local bodies should get much more than they were getting now. There was some further discussion in which it was revealed that the trend of the meeting was against the wishes of the City Council. Mr Morrison: Can ’t we take a sporting chance on the thing now and vote on it? We can abide by anything we decide. (Laughter). Mr Armstrong: That is all very well. Wc have to take these new regulations into account, and when we do it is obvious that the city should have more than it is getting. The speaker was prepared, if the meeting agreed to the principle laid down by the city, to meet the smaller local bodies in some way. Mr. Goldfinch thought that some unanimity might be arrived at if the bigger bodies were prepared to give some indication of how much they would concede to the smaller. His suggestion was that one per cent, be added to each local body getting less than two per cent, of the pool.

Mr. Armstrong: If the city will meet the smaller local bodies in some way, will the counties come into it and do the same?

At this stage thd conference split into sections, the counties in one corner, the city delegates in another, and the town boards and boroughs remained at the table awaiting the note of unanimity that they hoped would be sounded. An adjournment for lunch found matters similarly placed. Unanimity was as foreign to the atmosphere as it could be. After lunch Mr. Armstrong said that the city was prepared to accept an allocation that gave 60 per cent, to the five counties, 25 per cent, to the city, and the balance to the small local bodies. That would mean a n additional £IOO for distribution among the smaller bodies. Messrs. Belton and Mackintosh moved that the amendment before the meeting be put. By nine votes to four the amendment to adhere to the old allocation was carried, but that did not end the conference, the city advising that it would take the matter to Court. Mr. Hill moved a further amendment that 60 per cent, of the pool go to the counties, 25 per cent, to the cities, and the balance to the smaller local bodies. This was lost by three votes to 10. Mr. Morrison, as an alternative pro posal from the counties, was prepared to move that instead of 10 per cent being allowed each local bodv for collection of fees, they be allowed 15 per cent. The counties were opposed to being reduced from 73 per cent, to 66. Air. Purnell: There is a feeling of <•(anpromi.se abroad and I suggest that, the pool be allocated 66 2-3 to the counties to do with as they like, and 33 1-3 to the city and smaller local bodies. Mr. Doole seconded. Again the conference resolved itself into parties, city, counties and smaller try. Deliberations drifted along in this fashion until 4 p.m., when Mr. Morrison again broached h’s offer

of 15 per cent, for collection instead of 10 per cent. At 4.35 p.m., Mr. Purnell's allocation of 66 2-3 and 33 1-3 was approved on the understanding that the City Council agreed to take £lOBO of the latter proportion and allow the rest to bo divided between the small local bodies according to the table submitted. The conference dispersed in an amicable frame of mind, Mr. Armstrong thanking the delegates for their close attention to an important matter.

Old New £ Patea Borough. 26 50 Waverley T.B. 18 50 Wanganui City «... 864 1080 Bulls T.B 70 70 Marton B.C ...... 100 120 Taihape . 73 120 Hunterville T.B. ..." ...... 70 70 Raetihi B.C 36 65 Ohakune B.C. .... 39 65 Rangiataua T.B. S 10 Mangaweka T.B. 70 70