PIPIROA BRIDGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5411, 15 April 1929, Page 4

PIPIROA BRIDGE.

NOT YET NECESSARY.

FERRY PROFITS TO BE SAVED.

At the last meeting of the present members of the Hauraki Plains County Council on Thursday the Pipiroa Bridge question was revived by Cr. Parfitt, who advocated the setting aside of the profits from the Pipiroa ferry towards the cost of a bridge. He was of opinion that the profits would be substantial in the next three or four years, and the proposal would be a fair one and would possibly obviate the necessity of striking a rata. He was of opinion that the balance of the receipts over' payments for running costs and maintenance should be set aside.

Cr. Madgwick recalled that when the Pipiroa bridge proposition was in the air it was suggested that a rating area, including Turua, be formed. If the Pipiroa riding member would give an undertaking that the rating area would not be more than, say, the Pipiroa and Kopuarahi ridings, he would agree to the proposal. Cr. Miller, who seconded the motion, pointed out that while the Turua riding was rated for roads, as Cr. Madgwick had stated, there was no knowing but that the Pipiroa and Kopuarahi ridings would have to have a road rate. The rating- area suggested some time ago for the Pipiroa bridge was an attempt to spread the liability over that portion of the county which was not included in other bridge rating areas. He supported the motion.

Cr. Harris also spoke in support. Cr. J. A. Reid could see little merit in the proposal, and pointed out that the general fund of the council was being repaid its outlay on the ferry and in the future the ratepayers would receive a direct benefit) The profits from the Netherton ferries had gone to the benefit of the whole county, and the council had refused to contribute anything towards the maintenance of the roads in the old Netherton riding, which at that time carried the whole of the traffic out of the county.

Cr. Parfitt said that Cr. Madgwick should support his motion, as the proposal would possibly obviate the necessity of a bridge rate over the Turua riding. He was glad to see that Cr.- Reid supported bridges being a charge. on the whole county. He pointed out that the bulk of the revenue from the Pipiroa ferry was contributed by the through traffic, and it was right that a better crossing should be provided.

The chairman pointed out that it was being overlooked that the ferry was on a main highway, and that the bridge proposition was not being advanced because the Main Highways Board was of opinion that the ferry was still adequate. When the board thought a bridge was necessary it would tell the council, and it could then, by a resolution of the majority of the council, make the whole of the county liable for the cost. The coming into force of the Main Highways Act had altered the position entirely from that which prevailed when the matter was previously under discussion. The question of a special rating area need not be considered, as it would never eventuate. To his mind Cr. Parfitt’s suggestion was a good one.

Cr. Madgwick said that in four or five yeai-s’ time the Highways Board might be building bridges, but if the council had an accumulated fund it would undoubtedly be called upon. Under the circumstances he thought that the profits from the ferry should be divided as they were received. In reply to Cr. Reid the chairman said that the original cost was estimated at £12,000, but since then the Public Works Department had increased this to £14,800. The Thames Borough Council had promised £750. With the subsidy of £ for £ the cost to the county would be about £7OOO, or if a £2 for £1 subsidy was received the cost would be approximately £5OOO.

Cr. Madgwick said that if Cr. Reid would move that the cost of the bridge be a charge on the whole county he would second it, but with the proviso that the work be not proceeded with until later on. He took it that the council agreed with the Highways Board that the bridge was not required at the present time.

Cr. Walton said it was saner finance to accumulate the fund than to spend it as it was earned. It appeared to him that the bridge proposition would come to a head in the next three to five years, and in that time the accumulated profits would be insufficient to build the bridge. To earn a big profit without purpose was a strong argument in favour of reducing the ferry fees. Cr. Reid suggested deferring the resolution until the new council took office.

Cr. Fisher supported Cr. Parfitt’s motion, as it would tend to obviate a special rate.

The motion was carried -on the voices.