BOROUGH AND COUNTY

Wairarapa Daily Times, 19 July 1935, Page 5

BOROUGH AND COUNTY

SUBSIDIES DISTRIBUTION. COUNTY CHAIRMAN EXPLAINS. In a statement to the press, the chairman of the Masterton County Council (Mr W. I. Armstrong) referred to some recent observations by the Mayor of Masterton (Mr T. Jordan) on borough and county finance. “At the last meeting of the Masterton Borough Council,” states Mr Armstrong, “the Mayor made one of his periodical attacks upon the Masterton County Council. Up to the time of Mr Jordan’s accession to office, the relations between the tAvo bodies had always been perfectly harmonious, but he seems to be endeavouring on all occasions to create an ill-feeling Aviiich should not bo allowed to exist between tAvo councils, each of Aviiich represents a section of the public. If, hoAvevcr, he intends to persist in this course of behaviour (as is to be presumed), he should at least make sure that his attacks are founded upon fact; and this he has failed to do when preparing his latest manifesto. In the following rc-‘ speeds his comparisons between the borough and county finance are either quite incorrect or very misleading. “(1) It is verbally correct to say that the county received a rate subsidy of £3711 12s 'lid last, year; but in fact that sum represented subsidy in respect of two financial years, the Government having held up the subsidy in the previous year. “(2) It is true that the county’s share of motor taxation greatly exceeds-' the borough’s share, but that is largely due to the fact that there are 312 miles of metalled and surfaced roads in the county, whereas there arc only about 30 miles of metalled and paved streets in the borough. It may be added that the total length of bridges in the county exceeding a 25-foot span is 7268 feet, while the total length of such bridges in the borough is only 321 feet. “ (3) It is misleading to say that last year the county received £16,113 9s 6d as subsidy from the Unemployment Board while the Borough Council received nothing. The County Council employed up to 280 relief workers atcertain periods during last year. Of these all the married men who were employed on road works, worked full time (6 days a week) at standard rates of pay, while those who were employed on farms worked 5 days a week. On the other hand, the men employed by the borough were on “relief time” onlv and at relief rates. The whole of the" amount paid to these borough relief workers was paid to the Borough Council by the Unemployment Board. To assert therefore that the borough received no unemployment subsidy is simplv disingenuous. ‘“(4) Since the unemployment schemes were first introduced, the Masterton County Council has spent an average annual sum of £3294 4s 8d out of its own funds in relief of unemployment. It is inferred from a statement made some months ago by the Mayoi, that at that time the Masterton Borough Council had spent none of its own funds for that purpose. His Worship did not refer to this matter in his recent address to the Borough Council. By far the greatest number of married relief workers employed were residents of the Borough of Masterton, and this point was also passed by. “The Masterton County Council has however, made the utmost effort to assist the Government and the Unemployment Board in coping with the local unemployment problem, and it can claim to have expended the money placed at its disposal from the Unemployment Fund to the very best advanta“6(s) The total amount of rates levied by the County Council for lost Year was £15,471, not £14,518 6s 6d (as Sorted), that’ being the amount actually collected. The amount of rates levied by the Borough Council is given as £25,831 14s 7d, but a great part of this sum is expended upon soe ial service, such as sanitation, ‘ supply and library, which residents of the county do not enjoy. The wmpaiv son, therefore, between comity and borough rates is futile. The “jo fails to mention that prior to 1931-32, the amount of rates levied in the county was in excess of that levied m the borough but on account of the economic conditions affecting the fanning community, the County Council since that year reduced the lates. It is true that last year was ‘a record one for the county,’ as regards finance, the revenue being £“>,o-o 8s 10d but that was mainly due to the employment of relief worker., and to tJ Main Highways Board subsidy being about £9OOO more than m the preSEX year, to consequence of an catrrn ordinarily heavy programme of road and bridge works for that yean “(7) With respect to the jViavor s assertion that ‘where the allocation of heavy traffic fees was concerned the county based its claim on the koo,±A±, which was the cost of road maintenance and construction, it may be observed that the agreement for aboeation vA iie was in force last year was settled by the Transport Department and accepted hv the local authorities. The was not, and could not, bane been taken into consideration as the / tion and that figure was nev ei put tor ward by the Masterton County Council as a basis. If the County Council vvmie to press for allocation on a maintenance bJs that figure could not be used because it includes construction items which (as the Mayor knows very well) cannot be taken ?nto account.