PIPIROA FERRY.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5436, 17 June 1929, Page 3

PIPIROA FERRY.

PROFITS NOT FOR BRIDGE. RESOLUTION RESCINDED. In accordance with notice given, Cr. J. A. Reid moved at Thursday’s meeting of the Hauraki Plains County Council that the resolution of the council authorising the setting aside of the profits from the Pipiroa ferry as a fund for the building of a bridge be rescinded. Cr. Reid said that he had voted against this motion because he considered all ferries should be a county matter. All losses had to be borne by the whole county, and it would not be fair to give the Pipiroa riding the benefit of the profits from the Pipiroa ferry. Cr. Madgwick seconded, and said that the motion was unnecessary and a dangerous precedent. If the fund was created the council might be called upon at any time to pay over a big amount. It was possible that in years to come the construction and maintenance of highways would be borne by the Main Highways Board, but if the county had a fund for the purpose it would have to hand it over. Cr. Mayn supported the motion, arguing that the county fund should be reimbursed with all the losses and construction costs of other ferries. Cr. C. W. Parfitt, the mover of the original motion, characterised the objections as very thin. In the first place the county fund did not bear the whole cost of the ferry, as over £5OO was found by public subscription and by subsidy. He did not tbmk there was any chance whatever of the fund being seized by the Main Highways Board. There was no doubt that a bridge would eventually be built, and his only object in seeking to create the fund was to obviate the necessity of raising a loan. He thought this was good business, and not a bad precedent by any means. The money would accumulate and would save the council from paying interest on overdraft. The chairman said he had given the matter careful consideration and had formed the opinion that if it was known that the council had a substantial sum in reserve the Highways Board would not subsidise so liberally. It was questionable whether the time was ripe for earmarking the profits from the ferry, as the capital cost of the ferry had not yet been earned. The ferry had cost the county fund by way of original cost, loss on first year’s working, and interest on outlay £1193, while the profits in the second and third years were £6l and £652 respectively, the debit thus being £4BO. Cr. W. E. Hale said he did not know of the past history of the case, and would move as an amendment that further consideration of the matter be deferred foi three months. The amendment was seconded by Cr. Motion and supported on the division by Crs. Parfitt, McDuff, Hale, and Motion. These councillors voted against the rescinding of the resolution, which was carried on the votes of Crs. Reid, Madgwick, Harris, Mayn, and Fisher.