MAUKORO BRIDGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4776, 14 November 1924, Page 3

MAUKORO BRIDGE.

COUNTYS POLICY. PLAINS COUNCIL TO BE CITED. , A |engtliy discussion took place at the Plains County Council meeting on Tuesday on the bridge question. A report was given by the clerk bn the conference with the Pisko County Council with regard to the award in connection with the Maukoro deviation. It had been agreed .that eacn committee should recommend its council to agree to the Plains County paying the loan money it held and the Piako County paying the interest due (£4'75), and that the Piako County should cite the Plains County under section 119 of the Public Works Act to contribute half the cost of the Maukcro deviation bridge, which sum, when the subsidy was received, would be £925.

Cr. Harris moved, and Cr. Hayward seconded, that the recommendations be adopted. Cr. Hare said he would have to record his vote against the motion to be consistent with hip bridge policy. Cr. Madgwick said that he desired to ge t a guarantee that the council would make all bridges county matters' before he would vote for the motion. Or. Mayn said he would guarantee not to oppose the Kirikiri bridge, . Cr. Madgwick asked how was the council going to get over the Puke and Ngatea bridge rating areas. Cr. McLoughlin said that the council had gone too far to withdraw from the Maukoro proposal. Cr. Mayn said he was opposed to the council's bridge policy, and now did not care what was done. If the county did not build the Maukoro bridge his riding would do go when necessary,

Cr. Hayward moved that the question be deferred until after the poll of ratepayers concerning the spreading tl>e rate for Ngatea and Puke bridges over the whole county. Cr. Mayn spoke against this, contending that it was not honourable to break off the’ agreement. Cr. Hayward said he was opposed to paying two bridge rates. On it being pointed out that Cr. Hayward had seconded a motion .and moved an amendment, which was contrary to the rules of procedure, it. was agreed to take the recommendations separately. Cr. Mayn then moved that the recommendation in regard to the bridg-i iug question be adopted. Cr. McLoughlin seconded. Further discussion ensued, during which Cr. Mayn said that he was agreeable to rating areas being constituted.

Cr. McLoughlin said that he was agreeable to the bridges being county matters provided all' parts of the county were given fair treatment. Those who were opposed to the Maukoro bridge were opposed to all bridges. Cr. Madgwick said that the position was the same as had arisen in connection with Pipiroa bridge. Those councillors who were opposed to the motion only desired that the matter should be delayed until the Empowering Bill was passed as submitted or until the powers sought were approved by a poll of ratepayers. Cr. Hare moved as an amendment that the council objects to be cited for the Maukoro bridge until such time as a poll has been taken t<J spread the rate for the Orchard and Puke bridges over the whole of the counts Seconded by Cr. Madgwick.

After more discussion divisions were taken,an d Cr. Hare’s amendment that the council defer its approval to be cited for the Maukoro bridge until the sanction of the ratepayers had been obtained to spreading the rate for the Puke and Ngatea. bridges over the whole county was lost, Crs. Hare, Hayward, Nicholson, and Madgwick voting for and Crs. Parfitt, Harris, Milfcr, Mayn,, and McLoughlin voting against.

The motion, agreeing to be cited under section 119 of the Public Works Act, -was then carried, the voting for being the same as against the amendment.