MAIN HIGHWAY MATTERS.

Shannon News, 24 May 1927, Page 2

MAIN HIGHWAY MATTERS.

HOROWHENUA COUNTY MAKES CLAIM ON BOARD. LIABILITY FOR SURVEY COSTS. A question about which there is not much doubt in the minds of members of the Horowhenua County Council was discussed at the meeting of that body on Saturday. This was the liability resting upon the Main Highways Board and the Council for the cost of survey and incidental work on main roads. As a result of the discussion, it was left to the chairman of the Council (Mr Monk) to interview the Eoaid and press the Council’s claims. * A BONE OF CONTENTION.

Writing with reference to the Council’s claims for £6 17s 9d, £5 15s 4d and £sl 2s 6d against No. 60 Highway, and dated March 31st, Mr R. H. P. Ronayne, District Engineer, stated that, as the work for which these claims were made was all survey work, no subsidy was payable. “This matter,” he stated, “was pointed out to you in previous correspondence, and I fail to understand why you again render claims for survey when you are fully aware that these claims are not payable. For your information in rendering claims in future, kindly note that no claims for compensation for any lands taken or damage caused by the carrying out of the said work shall be paid out of moneys authorised for construction work, nor shall any part thereof be expended on surveys, plans, specifications, advertising, engineering, supervision, travelling expenses, clerical work, purchase of plant, or fencing. ’’ The writer asked for an explanation as to why items for a draughtsman’s wages -and payment for blue prints were included in the Council’s claim; failing which it would be necessary for the Council to refund the, amounts claimed and paid. Referring again to survey' work, the engineer stated that this was only" paid for on deviations, and this similarity referred to lands taken for this purpose.

COUNCIL’S OPEN DEALING

The Chairman (Cr. Monk) stated that the Council had been battling for some time to get something definite under this head from the Highways Board, but they seemed to have shelved it. The Council had been open and above board with their claims, not disguising them in any way. It would have been quite easy to have obtained the money by putting in claims in anotherwwar,y r , but the Council had endeavoured to deal with the Board openly. However the latter had thrown down the gauntlet now and said they would not pay certain items. But they agreed two years ago to pay for certain things which they now refused to pay for, and the Council must lay the evidence before them. Considerable pressure must be' brought to bear on them now that they recognised their responsibility for this highway. No county in New Zealand was more advanced than this one as far as highways were concerned. Tifey were supposed to have gone in on a fifty-fifty-basis —the ratepayers were to find 50 per cent, and the users of the road the same. Ten per cent., was included in the estimate for engineering and survey work: this was adopted by the Board. The Council took the responsibility for half the cost of construction; wentMo the poll, and the ratepayers sanctioned the expenditure. The position they ‘were now in was that they were going to bear more than ,50 per cent, of the cost of the work. He did not think that the Board were even sheltering behind the Act, because the Act. gave them plenty of room to do what the. Council were asking. The information should go out to the other local bodies about some part of this Council’s expense and the troubles they were having as far as this particular item was concerned, and that the operation of the Highways Act in New Zealand was not on a fifty-fifly-basis. He would like to point out that in the case of the suggester route to the proposed Manawatu bridge there was an item for engineering and survey, £IOO. The Council had to pay that. If the Department had to charge them half the cost —pound for pound —then what the Department did should be a fair thing for the Council to do. Councillors:-Hear, hear.

IF COUNCIL STRUCK

“Supposing, for argument’s sake,” the Chairman continued, “that we sat down and said we were not going to do this job, and that the Board came • in through the Department and did the work. Would they have carried out this survey and done the deviation and not charged us half? Of course not: we would have had to pay. I suggest that, in the meantime at all events, if you will leave this matter to me, I will at, least see the Board or the chairman and place the letters before them showing what they were prepared to do. I think we can rely on our representative, Mr. Jull, who will be in Wellington next week, and I can report back to the Council as to what progress is made. The work is getting well on. We will have the job through and they will have the whip hand. It is a breach of contract if they are not going to meet us. We were told, at a conference with them, that they paid for their share of engineering/ and clerical work. They pay 10 per cent, to the district office to do it, but that 10 per cent, is only on their share of the contribution, which is less than 50 per cent., so they are only paying it on half. Our share is on the .whole. We have the carrying out of the whole work and the finding of the whole of the money till the Board see fit to pay it over; so it is-u long way from being on a fifty-fifty-basis. The motorists are paying the tax —and most of us realise that we are not doing as big a share as we might do. It is to-day the user of the road who should pay. 1 Now it is the ratepayers of Horowhenua County who pay. I think' they would sooner pay more as a user than as a ratepayer. It is perhaps just as well r.t this juncture that it has been brought, to a head, and we will/ sodn get to know exactly where we are. I will take the matter up immediately with the Highways Board if you leave it to On the motion of Cr. McLeavey, seconded by Cr. Ryder, the -Chairman I was authorised to wait on the High-

ways Board, and to be accompanied by the Clerk if necessary. Cr. Catley said it seemed a most extraordinary attitude for the Highways Board to take up at this stage. The Chairman :My ' (first thought was, “stop all work,” exeept that the cost would be too great to the County. The Department say they are paying 10 percent. to have their work done. The engineering and supervision for the whole of the work done in this county was only 3 per cent. We will only charge actual cost. This 10 per cent, i? an estimate, and we will put in the actual cost according to the vouchers. If the Highways Board are paying through the nose for their share, that is their look-out.

Cr. Kilsby said he believed there were other counites getting considerably more per mile for the work done than this county was getting from the Board. He agreed with the chairman’s suggestion. The Council should get all that it was possible to get. It was their duty to see that they did not let the Department shirk it. The Board were erring considerably in their duty.