AKAROA COUNTY COUNCIL.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 171, 8 March 1878, Page 2

AKAROA COUNTY COUNCIL.

A meeting of the above took place at Garwood's House on the Hill Top, on the sth instant. Present—Messrs. E. C. Latter (Chairman), Barker. Hay, Dalglish, Gebbie, Bradley, Fleming, Baker, and Priest. The minutes of the last meeting having been read and confirmed, the Chairman said he had summoned the Council together at the requisition of three of their members, as it had become a question of some moment whether the Counties' Act should not be brought into force in its entirety. It was twelve months ago since the question was discussed, and he had now similar viewsjas to its advisability, as he had at that period. The requirements of the district, and the wants of private individuals could not be so well considered by a Government at Wellington as by a local body, for instance the Akaroa Hospital, &c. The idea that the Council would interfere with the various Road Boards was simply absurd ; far from that, the Council would assist them. There were roads, however, that required special consideration, as in

the case of the Summit road. The question too, of the allocation of the funds voted to cemeteries and domains in this county, namely, £900 and £475, would, if the Act were adopted, arise, as also would the question of the management of the various jetties. As regarded rating, any power of that kind had passed for the present year, and any sum of money arising from subsidies, licenses, &c, would not belong to the Council till after the financial year. It might be as well to mention that the special votes signed away were £900 and £100. Other sums had been applied for, but he had received no instructions from Government to deal with them. The other question was that of the working expenses of the Council, which should not exceed £60 per annum, covering all clerical aid.

Mr Gebbie said he had opposed the Act hitherto, but that he would now propose its adoption in its entirety. Mr Barker said that, as at the previous meeting, he must vote against the proposal to bring the Counties' Act into force. He would ask whether any moneys were allocated to the Council to be dealt with by them without adopting the Act ? Had the Road Boards had their share pound for pound, of the surplus land revenue ? If so, where will the Council get their revenue from if the Act is adopted ? In reply, the Chairman read clause 5, sub-section 1, of the Financial Arrangements Act, shewing that £2 accrued to the district for every £1 of rates. Mr Barker asked where funds were to be obtained in the case of the Act being adopted, up to the 30th June next. The Chairman, in explanation, read clause 6 of the Counties' Act.

Mr Barker said that he saw no reason to alter his opinion, and that, as at the last meeting, he would oppose the measure. Mr Baker objected to Mr Barker's speaking again, as Mr Gebbie's motion should be seconded. Mr Fleming thought the matter should be more fully explained before going any further. The Chairman explained that the matter must be put to the vote. Mr Bradley seconded the motion. Mr Fleming said there were several matters he did not understand. He would ask why the £1000 had not been paid to the Port Levy Road Board. The Chairman said that on receiving instructions from the Government to do so, he would pay the amount. Mr Fleming asked whether, in the event of any special grants voted at the previous session of Parliament, could these be considered out of the control of the County Council. Mr Baker thought this was merely a Road Board matter. Mr Fleming asked whether, in the event of special grants to any road board, could that board act independently of the County Council, or would the funds come through the Council. The Chairman said that any special grants voted previous to last session would be out of the control of the Council. If the money had been voted for a certain purpose, and if the Council got hold of it, he was very much against it. Mr Gebbie said that the money had been paid for a special purpose and that, of course, it could not be diverted. Mr Fleming then asked, "as regards the rates. Would the Council levy a rate on each board in the district." The Chairman said that the Council had power to do so, but that it could not take action till January next. Mr Fleming desired to know whether the dog taxes came to the County. The Chairman explained that all moneys resulting from fees, licenses, &c, would not accrue to the Council till after June 30th next. Mr Barker said that he considered the meeting and the proposition premature. There were no funds to commence with, and although they had power to get an overdraft, it was a very bad start to make bj' borrowing. He was still of the same opinion as expressed at the last meeting when the same subject was mooted, because he did not consider that the adoption of the Act would benefit the Road Board districts. He did not believe in borrowing money, or the borrowing clauses of the Act, unless the money so borrowed was repayable from the district on which it was expended. In his opinion the Road Boards were far better fitted to manage the necessary business of the districts they severally represented. The S3 r stem was unfair to the public. He would ask—was it right that Port Levy should be taxed for Okain's Bay, or that Okain's Bay should be taxed for this side of the Peninsula—taxes which could be enforced by the Council. Besides, the County required funds to keep up a staff of officials, which meant an expenditure of about £1700 a year. In a County such as this we must have Road Boards, and absolutely require them. He hoped that the Council would not decide hastily, or without due consideration. He estimated the probable expenses at — Chairman, £200 ; secretary, £250 ; engineer, £1000 ; printing, £75 ; and payment to members, £200.

The Chairman desired to remind Mr Barker that all funds accruing to the Council up to June 30 had been allocated to the various Road Boards in the district. As regarded the adoption of the Act, they would be in a far worse position if it were deferred. Re loans, he said that meetings would have to be held in each riding, and if the motion for'any such loan was carried by one-third, or more than one-third, it would be accepted, but otherwise not. So many restrictions were placed by the Act on the borrowing powers of "the Council that every security is given for local interest. Re expense of the working of the Act, if brought into force, if. would not be more than £60 per annum—that is, £5 per month, for stationery and clerical assistance. Mr Barker said that it was in the power of the Council to unfairly allocate funds to the Road Boards. The Chairman said Mr Barker was mistaken—the Council itself had nothing to do with the apportioning of Road Board funds, and quoted clause 37 of the Counties Act in support of his statement, and further asserted there was no reason to change the present duties of the Council, but that other duties would- have to be carried out.

Mr Baker said it was now a year since the last meeting was held to consider the subject. He maintained the same opinions as he then stated. Road Boards had not the same influence with the General Government that the Council would have. He was surprised that Mr Barker should oppose the motion, and wondered that he (MiBarker) did not wish the requirements of

his own little bay carried out. Re the expense of carrying out the Act, there was little to be said, merely a clerk would be required, stationery, printing, &c, and as far as payment of members was concerned, he felt sure none present required remuneration.

Mr Barker, in reply to Mr Baker, re the payment of members question, said he had heard the subject mooted, and it was his opinion that it would eventually come to that. The Chairman's salary, too, was to be considered. Mr Baker said, if the Council possessed the services of an engineer, the Road Boards would not require one, and so save two thirds of the present expenses. CORRESPONDENCE. Some further desultory conversation ensued, a letter being read from the Customs Department re the taking over of the jetties in the various bays, to which the Chairman stated that he had replied that a meeting would in all probability be held to-day, at which the Council would express an opinion. Another letter was read from the Okain's Bay Road Board re their jetty. Mr Gebbie's motion re the adoption of the Act was then again put to the meeting, and was carried, Mr Barker being the only dissentient. The Chairman declared the motion carried, and said that the next business was to elect a Chairman, and, in giving an explanation of the present position of the Council, read clause 13 of the Counties Act, stating that no actual business could be transacted till the end of the present financial year, and that the newly elected Chairman's office would only last till November next. Mr Barker proposed, and Mr Priest seconded, that Mr E. C. Latter be reelected Chairman, which, being put to the meeting, was unanimously carried. Mr Latter thanked them for the honor done him by his re-election, and said some clerical assistance was necessary, and suggested that the Council's office, for the present, should be at his place of business in Barry's Bay. This was proposed by Mr Gebbie, seconded by Mr Barker, and carried. The Chairman was authorised to expend the sum of £5 a month in clerical assistance and stationery. Mr Bradley proposed, and Mr Hay seconded, that the meeting adjourn to Tuesday, 12th instant, at 11 a.m. The motion was put to the meeting, and carried, and the Council then adjourned.