ROAD-SEALING PROPOSALS.

Shannon News, 16 December 1924, Page 3

ROAD-SEALING PROPOSALS.

FAVOURABLE MEETING IN LEVIN. A fairly well-attended meeting oi ratepayers was held in uie Century Hall ioh Saturday afternoon, When Cr. G. A. MOnk, chairman of toe Horowhenua County Council, explained the County Council’s. Main Highway scheme, for which ,a loan proposal will be. taken to-morrow. .Mr j. MoLeuvey occupied the chair and amongst those present . were Crs Broadbelt, Harkness, Catfey, Jenseu, Ryder, and Bryant. * . The address followed tiie lines ,ul those reported at different points throughout the district, Crs. Broadbelt, Harkness, Catley and Ryder also speaking, , QUESTIONS. Mr A. K. Barber asked what was ihe average, cost of maintenance per mifo going to be under the new scheme.

Cr. Monk stated that the cost at present was £lB5. The figures, for the new scheme would .be £lO6. for interest and sinking fund and for maintenance £25 per year. The big thing .about this scheme was that the Council hoped to be able to supply a good road at the cost of the old one or qven le.ss. . Mr Barber stated that Hie had gone into the figures and found that on the Engineer’s estimates the cost would be actually £5 per mile higher than at present. "Or. Monk pointed out that that.was without taking into consideration the fact that the Highways Board would contribute one-third of .the cost of maintenance.. Taking this, into consideration the figures would be as he had stated. Mr F. G. Roe asked if it would not be right that aa the motor cars increased throughout the country, the Highways Board should contribute more than one-third of the cost, more especially as so much of the traffic in the Horowhenua County was through traffic. Or. Monk said that, the Council could only administer the law as they found it. It was certain that if any alteration was. made it should be in. the direction indicated. He would like to mention, that the Council, when discussing the case of the district, felt that it there.was one County in the country which should get more, than half of the cost, it was. this one. But the only way of getting this was to have ’the road declared a Government Highway when the council would lose ail control. The Governin’ent would assess, the contribution hf the County in this. case. He. wished to make it clear that the County would not get out of contributing to the cost of tiie. road. They might get off .with, say 45 per cent, instead of 50 per cent., but they would lose, all control of the roads. ■„ + Mr P. W. Goldsmith asked what was the alternative to the present scheme. / ' Cr. Monk stated that in such, a case, the Highways Board would still contribute one-third of tiie maintenance,, but would pass over the County as far -as construction was concerned. The County would, then be left to face the question of the. rapidly increasing motor traffic without the. assistance oi the Board, in the. form of a contribution towards improved surfacing. There being no further questions, Cr Harkness moved a vote of conndence in the. scheme which was seconded by Mr W. Kilsby and earned unanimously. . Cr Monk in thanking the meeting for the confidence expressed, stated that the main thing now was that tne ratepayers should turn out and pt U well in support of the scheme. Whilst tiie loan could be carried by threefifths of those who voted, yet a large vote was. an expression qf. confidence in the loan, and was a big help m the making of financial arrangements as those who were supplying the money felt that the district was behind the scheme. „ n . On the motion of Mr A. C. Holms, a vote of thanks and appreciation to the chairman for the. campaign winch ihe had conducted in support of the scheme, wa.s carried by acclamation.