Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PLAINS BRIDGE LOANS.

A CHARGE ON COUNTY FUND. DECISION BY COUNTY COUNCIL. The Government Auditor has advised the Hauraki Plains County Council that in compliance with the council’s request, and pursuant to section 22 (2) of the Local Bodies Loans Act, 1926, the Audit Office approved of the council paying out of the County Fund the interest and sinking fund charges on the Waihou Bridge loan and Orchard Bridge loans, respectively, provided that no greater amount than £lOO was paid out of the County Fund during each year in respect of the latter loans. It was understood that a special order stating the intention of the council o pay annual charges on the loans’in question out of the County Fund would be passed by the council. In accordance with notice given, Cr. J. Motion moved : “That Orchard Bridge, £lOO per annum, and Waihou Bridge, £7l 8s per annum interest, be paid from the General Account in future, subject to the consent of the Audit Department.” Speaking to this, Cr. Motion said that the Plains as a whole owed a debt to those who were enterprising enough to load themselves in the early days for bridges. The big bridges built of recent years had been made a liability on the whole county, and it was not fair for the Ngatea and Puke bridges to remain a charge on special rating areas. Cr. C. W. Parfitt seconded.

Cr. Madgwick said he was in accord with‘the motion, but pointed out that there were other loans which had'an equal claim. These loans had been raised by special rating areas and the works were used by all people. As it was not possible for these road loans to be spread, it was possibly quite fair not to interfere with special cases. Cr. Mayn voiced opposition to the motion, and pointed out that the question had been. submitted to the ratepayers and they had turned it down. He understood the motion to be a step in the direction of petting the Pipiroa bridge, and pointed out th*at if this did not eventuate an unfair position would be created.

Cr. Madgwick said the Pipiroa bridge did not enter into the matter as far as he was concerned. His concern was the ratepayers of Turua, who were rated for roads used by everyone and who would have additional rates if the motion was carried. He would vote for the motion in the hope that the council would, at a later date, find a way of giving relief in the direction he had indicated. The motion was carried by six votes to one, Cr. Mayn being the opponent.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HPGAZ19291216.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5514, 16 December 1929, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
439

PLAINS BRIDGE LOANS. Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5514, 16 December 1929, Page 2

PLAINS BRIDGE LOANS. Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5514, 16 December 1929, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert