GERALDINE ROAD BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1102, 8 May 1883, Page 3

GERALDINE ROAD BOARD.

The annual meeting of the ratepayer* of the Geraldine Road Board district, was held yesterday in the Read Boart Office, Geraldine. Mr W. Postlethwaite occupied the chair, and there was a fait attendance Mr C. E. Sherratt, Clerk to the Board, read the minutes of the last general meeting, which were confirmed. The Chairman read the following report : BEPOET. “ To the electors of the Geraldine Road Board District, “ Gentlemen, Owing to the Road Board Act passed in the session 1882, our annual meeting has been postponed for three months in accordance witn Section 46 which sets forth that the annmd meeting shall take place on some day in the first week in May 1883, and Section 108 provides that the Auditor’s report with the balance-sheet shall be laid before that annual meeting. I point out these sections to yeur special notice as a reason for not carrying out our usual eustora of holding our annual meeting in January. The Board has every reason to be s with the work done during the laoi luteeu months. Before going to the balance-sheet it may be well to point out that the new Act of 1882 has removed many difficulties which formerly existed in the forty Acts and Ordinances which it has repealed. The Act gives the option of either adopting the Regulation of Local Elections Act 1876, or the Board may by a special order be conducted under Section 49. Yoar Board decided to adopt the former mode of election, thinking it might best meet the wishes of the majority of ratepayers. Finance.—ln years gone by Boards had to give an approximate of their receipts and payments, as the amounts were not audited until after the 31st March. Not so now, as under the Act passed last session Road Boards have to present at the annual meeting of ratepayers a balance sheet certified to by the Government auditors, and for that purpose we are met here to-day. Probably a few comments from the Board on the balance sheet may be permitted. We began last year with a balance of £27262 12s 6d ; interest, £IO9B 10s ; rates, £582 Os Id ; materials sold, £292 9s 6d ; total £29,235 17s Id. It is now our duty to show the items of our expenditure. We have summarised the accounts so that it can be seen at a glance how, and in what localities the expenditure has taken place. It must be borne in mind that the expenditure is not for 12 months, but for a period of 15 months, and during that Urns your Board has built nine bridges, viz., five traffic bridges, and four stock and foot bridges, as well as three large concrete culverts, find strengthened the Geraldine traffic bridge so as to enable it to carry any reasonable weight. The roads formed are fourteen miles fifty chains, and reads shingled ten miles eighteen chains, at a cost of £7444 17s Bd. This sum —according to the auditor’s reports is apportioned thus; —Main roads, £229211s Id; bye roads, £4634 14s 7d ; incidentals, £lO6 2s ; salaries, £412 10s ; total, £7445 17s8d. “Thinkingtheratepayersmay like toknow the localities where this money has been expended, we append the following information : Waitohi and Kakahu, £1536 11s 9d ; Geraldine and ‘ Raukapuka,’ £823 3s 2d ; Woodbury and North Orari, £635 9s 4d ; Gnpes’s Valley and Pleasant Valley, £640 Is 9d r Geraldine Road, £244 17s , iron bark timber, £880; cement, £136 ; day labor, £llsß 9s 6d ; salaries, £412 10s ; and for other timber, tradesmen’s bills, &c, £1498 6s 4d ; making the total £744517s Bd. It will thus be seen that the result of the audit shows a balance of £2llßll still to our credit. Under this heading it may be admissible to explain one action which has called forth animadversion from some quarters. We feel sure that the ratepayers in general will uphold the course of action pursued by the members of your Board in deciding all questions of expenditure upon the merits of each particular application, and whether the work asked for is of sufficient importance to the whole district to justify the expenditure of large sums of money for the supposed benefit of a very few. Now the case we refer to ‘is the construction of a traffic bridge over Russell’* creek at a cost of £2lO. Those ratepayers who know the position will understand that if the Board sanctioned such a reckless expenditure, it would establish a precedent which would run your district into a great amount of unnecessary expenditure ; because if this application had been granted we should have bad similar ones from other districts which have creeks of much mo r e dangerous character than the one referred to. Whilst dealing with this subject, the Board considers itself justified in drawing

tlio attention of the ratepayers to one or two paragraphs which lias during the fifteen months appeared in our local papers ; the matter of Peckam’s road has already had full publicity, therefore it is needless to go over the same ground again, except to say that the Board lias let a further contract, which it is hoped will meet the wishes of the most fastidious traveller. The paragraph which requires our closest attention is the one which appeared in the Timaru Herald bearing date April 26th inst, which I will read to you. (Road.) I think yon will now agree with the Board in thinking how foolish writers are to rush into print prior to making themselves fully acquainted with the facts of the case they are writing about. Now to make the matter dear, not only to the ratepayers but'more particularly to those outsiders who enjoy anonymous sc'ibbling, the Board refers the public to the report of 1881 given at the annual meeting. (Read agreement existing between Mount Peel Board and the Board made in 1876 setting forth that the roan leading from the Rangitata traffic bridge to the railway station should be made and maintained by the two respective Boards in equal proportions). This agreement has been carried out up till February last, when the Mount Peel Board intimated to your Board, by letter, that they did not consider the above agreement binding, and did not intend to adhere to it for the future. Now, genmen, your Board could not believe that a body of gentlemen would violate a solemn agreement, duly’ signed and stamped, without giving some reason for doing so. That agreement, as you will have observed, clearly states that before any contract can be let or money expended the work contemplated to_ be done, with the estimate must be furnished to the Mount Peel Board. Mr Button, of Peel Forest, presented a petition to your Board at its March meeting on behalf of himself and a number of ratepayers, suggesting certain work to be done ; your Board consented to it, and it was pointed out that before doing anything we should have to communicate with the Mount Peel Board. This was and I now read to you the reply from that Board. (Read). Priortothis petition being presented your Board made an offer to the Mount Peel Board that they might expend what they thought was necessary, and that this Board would contribute half the cost, finder these circumstances we fail to see how we can be held responsible for the bad condition of that particular road. The Board would invite an expression of the ratepayers views on this subject before the close of this meeting. In looking over the receipts you will notice a6d rate was struck at the request of the County Council to enable them to obtain the subsidy from the Government for Charitable Aid purposes, “ There are a few malcontents who urge further evpenditure, and why? Is it because they imagine that the progress of the district is interfered with for the want of roads. We as your members say no. If we go to the root of the agitation, we shall find that it arises entirely from a selfish motive, they think if more contracts were let there would be more money expended in drink and other things. Is this a right view to take? Are we not bound to look at the future and ask onrselves whether we shall be able, when our present fund is exhausted, to spend to the extent we are doing at the present time ? which would be more than equal to ass rate. Those who are complaining and intend to reside here for life and their children after them, ought to put this question to themselves, will it not be better for us to have the money judiciously expended and extended over a series of years, rather than waste it in one or two years, and then burden the district with a heavy rate for years to come.

'• There is one other subject which I wish to bring before your notice prior to closing our repoit. It is the contemplated change of the boundary road between this district and Temuka Five years ago the members of the two Boards entered into a friendly arrangement to make the railway line from Winchester to the Rangitata river the future boundary, instead of the old south road This was not legally carried out because it would have caused a dissolution of both Boards, which was not thought desirable at that time ; but now that a dissolution is compulsory under the new Act, it is thought desirable to legally fix the new boundary, and the general election of new members under Section 81 will do duty for both cases. From a telegram received from the Commissioner of Property Tax we learn that owing to the rate roll not being completed the election arranged for in the above-named section cannot take place till June.—l have the honor to be gentlemen, your obedient servant, “ Wm. Postlbthwaite, “ Chairman,” Mr Maslin moved and Mr A. Sherratt seconded the adoption of the report. Mr Walter Moore asked whether the report had been unanimously agreed to by the Board. The Chairman said rhe majority of the Board had agreed to it. THE VILLAGE SETTLEMENT. Mr Kelman asked whether the Board had received any Government money with regard to the village settlement or lands taken from the railway reserve. The Chairman said they had that very day received £324 15s. Mr Kelman wished to know how much had been spent in that district. The Chairman said that £757 10s had been spent, The land had not been reserved as deferred payment sections. It was originally reserved for a special purpose, but Government finding it was not wanted for that purpose, allotted it as a village settlement. The Government need not have paid the money, but it had done so. They had received £324 15s that day, Of course, a portion of that would have to be paid to the Temuka Road Board. A friendly arrangement had been mafle with regard to the boundary between the two Boards, and a share of the money would have to go to the Temuka Road Board. Mr Kelman said he knew the settlement, and only one road had been made in it.

The Chairman then read a statement showing the various suras of money which had been spent in the different parts of the district,

The matter then dropped. russell’s creek bridge,

iMr W. Moore would like to know how the Chairman could regard money expended on the construction of Russell's Creek Bridge reckless and extravagant

expenditure when at two different meetings tin Bo.;rd hud passed rcso'utions to the effect tint the work should he done. The Board had ordered tenders to be called for the work but they had never been called. Why were the tenders not called for, or whose fault it was that they were not, The Chairman said ho was not at the meeting of the Board when these resolutions wero passed, The reason the bridge was not constructed was because several people pointed out that it was a needless expenditure. He had himself gone to see the place, and several persons living in the district had told him they had never been hindered from crossing (he creek He brought the matter before the notice of the Board, and told tiie members lo go and see for themselves whether it was wanted. Some of them had gone and the Board decided then that it would be a useless expenditure to construct a bridge there and this was the reason the work was not done.

Mr Moore said the residents who bad said the bridge would be unnecessary were those who lived at this side and never used it. There was a member in favor of having the work done. He wanted to know who stopped the work from being carried out. The Chairman said the Overseer hearing the discussions which were going about, very wisely concluded not to call for tenders until the Board had again met. His good judgment told him it would be a great pity to put contractors to trouble when there was very little chance of the work being done. Mr Moore : Well, then, I suppose the Overseer has only to disapprove of any work and it won’t be done ? The Chairman said Mr Patrick was one of those who disapproved of it, although living in the district. Mr Maslin asked whether it would not injure Mr Patrick’s laud to have the work done.

Mr Moore said Mr Patrick was the only man who objected to the bridge. Mr Shiers said the only good the bridge could do was to improve the grade of the cutting. The water would go over all the same

Mr A Sherratt asked how much money it would take. The Chairman : £2lO.

Mr Slack said Mr Postlethwaite s'ated he was not at the meetings of the Board at which it was agreed to build the bridge. He was present at the first meeting. The clerk read the resolutions passed regarding the matter, and from the minutes it appeared that Mr Postlethwaite was present Mr Flatman said at first it was not contemplated to make a traffic bridge. He had visited the place, and Mr Patrick told him that when he signed the petition he thought was he signing for a foot bridge. Mr Moore denied that Mr Patrick was not fu’ly aware of what he was signing. He (Mr Moore) had read the petition to Mr Patrick.

Mr Flatmann said that Mr Cennolly was another who did not want the bridge made. He was glad he was present now. Mr Connolly : Qmte right. Mr Flatman said he afterwards spoke to Mr Shiers to the effect that it was no use calling for tenders as the work would not be done.

Mr De Renzie said it was thought at first it would not cost much monev but when it was found it would cost £2lO it was rejected. He had seen the place and would say it was quite unnecessary. Mr Moore said Mr Deßenzie had seen it in the summer time, if he had seen it in the winter it would be different. Mr Slack believed the work could be done for £l2O.

Mr Boucher said if some people who opposed it were living at the other side of it they would know more about it. It was a one-sided way of looking at it. The Chairman would like to know from Mr Moore whether those who had carted his grain were not able to put 28 bags on their drays Mr Moore said possibly, but it haopened to be a good season of the year Mr Slack said Mr Maslin’s remarks about injuring Mr Patrick’s property were misleading. The bridge would serve Mr Patrick’s land, because a creek which was coming through it now would be diverted from it by the bridge. Mr McShane thought it was an advantage to have the creek open so that people might give drink to their horses there. There were too many bridges, and the one in question would, if constructed, be washed away by the first flood.

Mr Stack thought a saving might be affected by the construction of the bridge. The amount spent on repairing the ford afler floods would be saved.

Mr Flatman said if they built a bridge there, they would next have to build one at Skinner’s.

Mr Flatman asked, was it because they thought if they constructed Russel creek bridge, they were afraid other demands for bridges might be made on them? They might as well lock the money up and dismiss the Board if that was the way. The Chairman said they could not entertain every petition that came to them. If they did people would soon be asking for roads to their back doors. Mr A. Pherratt thought the matter had been discussed enough. He moved—- “ That this meeting endorses the action of the Board with regad to Russell’s creek bridge,” It was their duty to endorse the action of the Board, because the members of it were their representatives. The old saying that the less fences one had on his farm, the less likely his cattle would jump over them would apply in this matter. The fewer bridges the fewer would be swept away by floods.

Mr Coltman said the motion was out of order, as there was another motion for the adoption of the report before the meeting. If they adopted the report they would endorse tho action of the Board.

Mr Moore moved as an amendment — “ That the report be referred back to the Board for reconsideration.” Mr Kelland said that represented the district and thought there was no necessity for the bridge. ‘lt was Capes’ Valley people alone who wanted it. Mr Slack said many Geraldine people wanted it as well The Chairman said the estimated cost of damage done by floods was £ISOO. That would show how careful they ought to be in making bridges Tho mattpr was dropped THE RANOITATA-PEEL FOREST ROAD

Mr A Sherratt wanted to know whether the Clerks of the two Boards had

been authorised by resolutions to sign the agreement between the Geraldine and Mount Peel Road Boards with regard to the maintenance of the road from Rangitata to Peel Forest. He questioned the legality of the document The Chairman said he hud obtained a legal opinion on the subject, and strange to say he went to the same legal firm that the Mount Peel Board had gone to respecting the same question. The Mount Peel Road Board represented to the lawyer that they were not the same corporate body as had entered into the agreement. Their basis was that they all had to resign when some alterations in the boundaries between the two Boards took place. There was, however, some illegality with regard to the proclamation in the Gazette, and so there never was a dissolution of the Board ; they were the same corporate body, and he was perfectly satisfied they were liable under the agreement. They had now an estimate for expending £650 on the road. It was a road that benefited chiefly Mount Peel ratepayers. Mr Postlethwaite then read some communications from the Government regarding the illegality of the Gazette proclamation on which the Mount Peel Board relied.

Mr Maslin \sked whether the agreement would be binding on the new Boards.

The Chairman said it would. Mr Coltman moved — (l Tuat the Geraldine Board do what is necessary to the Rnngitata road, and charge half the cost to the Mount Peel Board.” Mr Kelraan seconded the motion.

Mr Sherratt said the agreement was no use, as it had not been registered. No agreement was any use without being registered after three years. Mr Slack said some of the members of the Mount Peel Board did not agree with repudiating the agreement. Mr Ackland was in favor of it. Like an honest conscientious man he wished it to be carried out.

Tlie Chairman said that when he met Mr Acland they had some conversation on the subject, resulting in the following correspondence : “ August, 24, 1882, “My dear Mr Postlethwaite, I should not object to propose some such motion as the following—“ That this Board will be willing to provide for the future maintenance of the road between the dog and the railway station, upon the following terms : ‘That the Overseers of both Boards shall inspect the road and make a valuation of the probable cost of maintenance, and then divide the road into two equal portions as regards such cost; and that the portion nearest to the dog, i e., the Mount Peel District, shall hereafter be maintained by the Mount Peel District, and that the Geraldine Board shall undertake to keep the other portion in a good state of repair.’ Any ratification of the former agreement appears to mete be out of the question.— Yours, truly, J. Barton A, Acland.”

Proposal made by Mr Postlethwaite, Chairman of the Geraldine Road Board, subject to approval of Board, Hon J. B. A. Acland, Chairman of Mount Peel Road Board : “That the agreement entered into by the two Boards shall on the completion of a fresh agreement be cancelled. The new legal document shall set forth what portion of the road leading from the boundary road to the south Rangitata railway station shall be maintained by each respective Board; the division of road shall not be by equal lengths of road, but.by arrangement; such division of road shall be determined upon by the two respective Overseers, and shall be so made as to assess each Board with half the cost of maintenance and setting forth what portion of the road shall be kept in repair by the Mount Peel Board, and which portion by the Geraldine.” Mr Slack said that proposal was refused by the Mount Peel Road Board. The Chairnian said they had deferred consideration of it until the new Board was elected.

Mr McShane said the best thing they could do was to do nothing. Let the road stand as it was until the Mount Peel Board came round. It was to the Mount Peel people the road was necessary. Mr Flatman said the Mount Peel Board had decided to let the matter stand over till after the election. He believed a great many ratepayers up that way were tired of the road being neglected, and that there would be a different state of things after the election. He for one would do his best in the matter. The fact was that the Geraldine Board had got the best of the Mount. Peel Board all along, and that was the cause of the grievance. They had bested them in many ways. The ra'epayers were inclined to put men on the Board who would look after the roads better.

Mr CoPman thought it would be better to bind them to their agreement. He was confident it was not legal The Chairman said the Geraldine Board owed the Mount Peel Board about £2, so they could test the case by letting them sue for it. Mr Flatman: You are wrong there. We docked it off the timber account.

[We are compelled to hold over the remainder of our report till next issue.]