DIVISION OF THE SPOIL

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 281, 28 March 1929, Page 1

DIVISION OF THE SPOIL

s , f HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES. 1 ~ j Matamata and Putaruru Cbjatt. ;| 1 ' Objection in the Blatamata and 7 Futaruru town districts to the basis ' ox the anual apportionment of heavy traffic license fees led to the appearj ance of the bodies concerned before i Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.BL, at Har.iil- : ton on Thursday, when the Court sat j to make tile apportionment. ■ j The various bodies represented were the Hamilton Borough Council, Te Awamutu Borough Council, Raglan County Council (Mr. F. A. Swarbrick), Waipa County Council (Mr. T. Grant), Matamata County Council (Mr. C. F. E. Barton), Waikato

County Council (Mr. T. B. Insoll) Piako County Council (Mr. P. Gilchrist), Ohaupo Town Board (Mr. A L. Tompkins), Matamata and Putaruru town districts (Mr. J. F Strang). The apportionment made in 1927 authorised town boards to retain the | whole of their collections as well as | receive a portion of the pool. Last year, however, this had been altered (and only 55 per cent, of the collections could be retained besides the i share in the pool. The Blatamata and Putaruru town districts last year were not represented when the revised allocation was made, as they were under the impression that it was not to be altered. They were, however, placed on the same basis as boroughs. The objectors asked that the apportionment be made on the same basis as originally applied when they were authorised to retain the

full amount of their collections, or, failing that, that they be placed on the same footing as counties, which retained 75 per cent of their collections. Matamata’s Case. Charles Gordon Lucas, clerk of the Matamata town district, said that j about 320 ratepayers were included \i-. J his district, which was approximately j 1000 acres in extent. The total liability of his board was £66,000. In rates £2OOO was collected annually, of which 75 per cent, had been expended on the maintenance of roads in the district. The Waitoa-Taupo and Matamata-Tauranga main highways passed through the Matamata town district, besides four other roads that led into the town. Witness considered that they I should he on the same footing as the ( counties, although he thought the financial state of the Blatamata district was such that justified the apportionment being reverted to that which obtained in 1927. Cross-examined by Mr. Swarbrick, witness said the population of Matamata was 1040. He did not consider they could afford to. form themselves into a borough. Figures were quoted by Mr. Swarfcrick to illustrate that the Matamata town district fared better than some of the small boroughs in close proximity. No notices for the restriction of speed in the Blatamata town district had been erected, stated witness, the board considering that the expense was not warranted. No effort had been made to keep a tally of the mileage covered by lorries licensed in his district.

In answer to Mr. Gilchrist witness stated that there were about 16 heavy traffic licenses issued in his district. Only one or two lorries were engaged in carting cream to the cheese factory. He was aware that they were breaking the regulations in not keeping running sheets. In answer to Blr. Barton witness agreed that there were 10 miles of formed roads in the Blatamata county. Only approximately £9OOO of the £66,000 loan money had been raised for the roads. They had received a subsidy of two to one for the surface sealing of the highways. He agreed that the school lorries ran more on county roads than in the Blatamata town district. Allowed Too Much. His Worship pointed out that going on witness’ figures 40 per cent, of the traffic plied in his district and 60 per cent, without. Whereas the

district had ceen allowed 55 per cent, of its collections it was entitled on the face of the figures to only 40 per cent. Putaruru’s Position. Victor Leslie Drummond, deputy clerk cf the Putaruru town district, said the Arapuni works were responsible for abnormal traffic through his district, although the running sheets showed that the large proportion of heavy traffic travelled over the adjoining county roads.

Cross-examined by Blr. Swarbrick, witness said the population of Putaruru was approximately 700. In his district there were some six miles of roads. Witness considered that there were special features pertaining to Putaruru which justified increased consideration in the apportionment. Seventeen lorries, only five cf which were licensed in liis district, were constantly travelling in and out of the town.

Running sheets were put in by the Waipa and Blatamata counties, i Mr. C. F. E. Barton considered, in answer to Mr. Strang, that there was no material difference between the small borough and a town district. In many cases boroughs were not as well off as the town districts. “ And some are like little hornets’ nests where many heavy traffic vehicles live, and go out to destroy your roads,” remarked His Worship. His Worship reserved his decision.