MERGING OF ROAD BOARD'S.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 303, 21 August 1917, Page 2

MERGING OF ROAD BOARD'S.

THE subject of Road Board districts merging in their respective Counties is once again receiving attention from both the Franklin and Manukau County Councils and the matter is one that deserves serious consideration by the ratepayers of the Road Boards concerned, the loss of revenue to the County authorities in the form of Government subsidies, brought about by certain Road Boards remaining outside the County fold, being perhaps the most important point. In the case of Manukau County, in which •ight Road Boards are still in existence, the problem was to be discussed at to-day's meeting of the Council. In the instance of Franklin County, out of 15 Road Boards operating when the County was formed in 1912 no less than 13 have merged and now only two, Karaka and Maungatawhiri, remain separate bodies. A meeting of ratepayers was recently held at Karaka when the advantages of merging were put before those present and similarly on Saturday the County Chairman (Cr J. Flanagan) and Riding Member (Cr R, Lyons) addressed a meeting of Maungatawhiri ratepayers at Razorback and explained the position, their arguments being favourably received. The sequel is that petitions for merging are in circulation in both localities but require the signatures of not less than a majority of ratepayers of each Road District, whose properties are rated at not less than half the rateable property of the respective District, to be given effect to.

The law as regards Government subsidies is that in a County wherein there are no Road Districts a subsidy of 5s for every £1 of rates collected based upon a rate of three farthings in the £, shall be paid with a maximum subsidy of £2500. In other words, in the event of the Karaka and Maungatawhiri Boards merging the County Council with a rate producing £11,593 on the revised valuation of £3,710,000 would receive the maximum subsidy of £2,500. Subsidies to Counties where there are road districts are on the other hand confined in respect to Road Boards to a grant based on a %d rate of 10s in the £ in cases where the rates collected do not exceed £SOO or 5s in the £ on rates above £SOO, with a minimum payment in the latter instance of £2s<» and a maximum of £SOO, such subsidies being equally divided between the Road Boards and the County Council, with a further subsidy, based on rate receipts, to the County Council of not less than £250 and not exceeding £SOO. The eftect of this is that unless the Karaka and Maungatawhiri Road Boards merge the total subsidy received by the County Council and the two Boards combined will be £750 as against £2500 should they merge, or a loss in subsidy of £17.')0. Similar losses, but of varying amounts, have been recurring each year, the estimated figure being close on £3OOO for the previous three years. The effect of the law curiously enough is that in a County wholly studded with Road Boards a County Council if not entitled to the maximum subsidy of £2500 might receive a larger subsidy than if they all merged but as the tendency is that ratepayers find dual control irksome and expensive one or other of the Road.Boards graduallydrops out and County Councils, when only a few Road Boards are left, receive reduced subsidies. This has been Franklin County's experience andManukau County are confronted with a similar future.

It may, however, possibly be argued that Road Board ratepayers receive greater advantages by local rather than central control. This from one point of view is undoubtedly correct but there are other points to be taken into consideration. One is the matter of the Government subsidy already referred to, as to which it is a selfish policy if a small quota of ratepayers, who naturally use County roads as well as their own Road Board's roads, form a stumbling block to the County securing its full measure of Government grant. Again,

there are very many ratepayer? in a Road Board's District whose properties front County roads and who therefore contribute to a Road Board's revenue without getting any advantage from the Board'* rates. Further, a County Council as an authority naturally can secure better and more economical working than a smaller body, a County's plant, including road rolling, scarifying and stone crushing appliances, all tending to efficiency and economy, whilst a permanent County Engineer naturally is more concerned in the operations than an advisory Engineer We have no fault to find with Road Boards; on the contrary we consider that they have done their duty remarkably well. They have been the pioneer? of settlement and have had to contend with numerous difficulties. With the coming of County Councils, however, the position has changed and we would urge that having in effect completed their years of usefulness, Road Boards must give way to the larger authority. Under a County Council special local requirements or schemes can always be undertaken by a special loan whilst a County rate, even with Road Boards merged, will assuredly in any riding be below the amount of the double rates that a ratepayer, living in a Road Board's area, has to contribute to the County Council and Road Board. Indeed experience has been that a County rate does not require to be raised as a consequence of a Road Board merging and thus the ratepayer profits by not having to pay any Road Board rate in addition to his liability to the County. As far as Manukau County is concerned possibly self-govern-ment will still be preferred by the ratepayers of Mangere and Papatoetoe Road Districts but these are practically suburban areas, where Town Boards could be established or with a little extension of territory the Road Boards could be superseded by Borough Councils, and in either case the result would be that the County Council would not suffer a curtailment of subsidy revenue.