THE PIPIROA BRIDGE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5486, 11 October 1929, Page 2

THE PIPIROA BRIDGE

NO ADVANCEMENT MADE.

SCHEMES FOR PAYMENT. OTHER BRIDGES INVOLVED. As indicated by the county chairman on the occasion of the conference at Pipiroa during the month, when the assitant engineer of the Public Works Department met representatives of the council and the Ratepayers’ Association, the matter of the erection of the Pipiroa bridge came before the council at its monthly meeting yesterday, and the question of payment was the subject of a. long discussion. Likewise, as asserted by Cr;. Madgwick at Pipiroa, the council did not favour any of the systems advanced for payment, and no progress was made.

The matter came up in the following letter from the Public Works Department : “In connection with the representations made for the erection of the Pipiroa bridge in the near future, will you please bring this matter before your council and advise as to whether, in the event of the Main Highways Board agreeing to proceed with this work, the council will find its contribution towards the cost ?”

Cr. Mayn said he did not think the council was in a position to make a statement.

Cr. Reid said that not very long ago the Highways Board had turned down the proposition. The chairman reported on the conference at Pipiroa, and said that of the estimated cost of £16,000 the council’s share would be about £5OOO. Cr. Reid said the council should not object to the ratepayers who carried the resolution at Pipiroa being constituted a special rating area.

The chairman said that if the loan was over the whole county the rate would be very small. If the earnings of the present ferry were set aside for a few years they would pay for the bridge. Cr. Reid said that the ferry was a good paying asset, but the moment a bridge was built a big liability was created, as the opening span necessitated the employment of a bridgekeeper. The chairman said that the profits from the Pipiroa ferry could meet the losses on the other ferries in the county and still provide sufficient for the bridge. If the profits from the ferry were set aside for five years a substantial sum would be held.

Cr. Madgwick asked if the profits from the ferry had already paid for the construction of the ferry. The state of the council’s finances and the rates borne by the greater part of the county made the time inopportune to increase the indebtedness of, the council for a bridge. He was of the opinion that strong representations should be made to get the Main Highways Board to make a free grant for the bridge. This had been done in other places. There were other works in the county which should be a charge on the whole county before this bridge. The Miranda Road settlers had been paying special road rates for many years, but could not use their roads in winter.

Cr. Parfitt stated that the increase of traffic during the last few years was such that the estimate of £5OO a year profit was, to his mind, very much under-estimated. In a short time it would be £lOOO a year.

In reply to Cr. Reid Cr. Parfitt said that 80 per cent, of the traffic was from outside the county. Cr. Parfitt moved : “That this council agrees to find its quota for the construction of the Pipiroa bridge, provided the subsidy is not less than £2 for £1 ; and that this council’s share be found out of the general account, to be spread over three years; that the treasurer be instructed to conserve such sums of money as can be conveniently set aside to meet, our liability upon its completion, and that the same procedure be adopted with regard to the construction of the Ngatea bridge after the completion of the Pipiroa bridge.” Cr. Hale, in seconding,,said that the ferry to-day was handling more traffic than the Kopu ferry ever did. Two ferrymen would shortly be required. In his opinion the ferry was a national link, and unless a definite move was made by the council to build a bridge a body of users would challenge the council to reduce its charges to such that only a reasonable profit was made. He considered that the cost of the bridge would not be as much as was estimated two years ago. Suppose the cost was £15,000, the council’s share would be about £5OOO. Against this there was the Thames contribution of £750, reducing the council’s share. The bridge would mean a saving to the roads of the county, as much of the traffic now used the Ngatea bridge. The rating areas formed for the Puke and Ngatea bridges were very unfair, and he was prepared to support these being made a charge over the whole county. The proposed Ngarua bridge would have to be a county matter, as one approach was in the Puke bridge rating area and the other in the Ngatea bridge area. Cr. Reid asked what would be the cost of maintenance when spread over the whole county. Cr. Hale contended that the estimate given by him would be reasonable, as this was an age of competition. The rate on the loan should be l-14d as an existing loan of £lO,OOO required a rate of l-7d. Cr. Madgwick said that the advocates of the bridge admitted that 80 per cent of the traffic was from outside the county. Under these circumstances he wanted to know why they should rush into rating the settlers of the Plains.

Cr. Mayn agreed with this, and said that the idea of paying for the loan out of the general account was very vague, and to his mind it would be a dangerous decision. On ordinary busigrounds he would oppose the motion. Cr. Motion said he would support the motion. He was of the opinion that the council should move in the matter of making the loans for the

Ngatea and Puke bridges a charge over the whole county. Cr. Fisher said that the council should not rush the matter, in view of the statement of the council’s representatives on the District Council that the Highways Board was making free grants for bridges in other parts of the country.

In reply to a question the clerk said that the special rates on the Pipiroa riding, excluding water rates, was 56-80 d. In Waitakaruru the rates ranged from 11-bd to 2 l-sd. Cr. Madgwick said that in Turua the special rates amounted to over 7d. Cr. Mayn said that the proposition was a scandalous one. The advocates urged throwing away a handsome profit and undertaking a big liability.

Cr. Harris said he was still of the opinion that no hardship would be imposed on anyone by setting aside the profits from the Pipiroa ferry after deducting any losses which might occur on the other ferries for a period of five years, when sufficient money would be in hand to pay the council’s share of the bridge. ; Cr. McDuff said he would oppose making the Pipiroa bridge a charge on the whole county until such time as the Ngatea and Puke bridges were a charge on the whole county. On resuming after lunch Cr. Parfitt asked permission to add to his motion “That the council take immediate steps to have the special rates at present levied for the two bridges, Puke and Ngatea, a liability on the whole county.” This was permitted.

Cr. Mayn asked whether the council had any advice that the Main Highways Board would approve of the bridge. As an amendment he moved : “That the Main Highways Board and the Public Works Department be approached and asked whether they would approve the erection of the bridge at the present time, and to supply an estimate of the cost. Cr. Reid seconded, and said that he was in sympathy with the bridge, but was against pushing the matter at present.. The council had no definite information as to the cost, or whether the Government would subsidise it at the present time. He pointed out that only a few months ago the Highways Board had turned down the proposition as unwarranted at present.

Cr. Madgwick said that the Public Works Department’s engineer’s letter was plainly a request to be advised whether the council favoured the bridge.

Cr. Parfitt said he wished to emphasise that the ratepayers would not be involved iii a big burden. His resolution stated that the bridge would be paid for out of the general account; and the treasurer would be instructed to set aside sums of money which, might be profits from the ferry. The movers of the amendment obviously only intended to defer the bridge. In all their statements they had not stated how the cost would be met in the event of the Highways Board favouring the structure. Cr. Reid said that the statement had been made Several times that there was a resolution on the books of the council that any bridge over a 20ft span would be a charge on the whole county.

On the division being taken the amendment was lost on the votes of Crs. Fisher, McDuff, Parfitt, Hale, Motion, and Harris.

Cr. Madgwick moved as a second amendment: “That considering the state of the finances the council does not consider the construction of the bridge warranted at the present time.” This was lost, being only supported by' Crs. Mayn, Reid, and Madgwick.

Cr. Fisher suggested that the decision be deferred until after the steps had been taken to spread the liability for the Puke and Ngatea bridges over the whole county. The chairman said that this was unnecessary, as the motion provided for the clerk .taking this action. Crs. McDuff and Fisher argued that the liability might not be spread over the whole county. It was turned down by the ratepayers some time ago. The chairman said that under the Counties Act there was provision for the interest and sinking fund on any loan being paid out of the general account provided the local body carried a special order to that effect and the permission of the Audit Department was obtained.

Cr. Fishei' also urged dividing the original motion into two, for the reason that if the subsidy in the bridge was reduced the council would undoubtedly not proceed but the second part of the motion would be acted upon. He wanted the motion simplified.

Cr. Madgwick said that the position was becoming clouded. He would like to see the motion abandoned and the matter decided by simple motion, each on one subject alone.

However, the motion was put and supported by Crs. Parfitt, Hale, Motion, and Harris and opposed by Crs. Madgwick, McDuff, Reid, Fisher, and Mayn, was was declared lost.