ACCOUNT FOR MANAWATU BRIDGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4449, 8 May 1930, Page 3

ACCOUNT FOR MANAWATU BRIDGE.

lIORO WIHENUA CO UN TY’ S SHARE OF COST, £6,479. A statement showing the cost of the Manawatu River bridge and approaches on the Slia-iinon-Foxton Main Highway, and the allocation between the Tforowhenua and Mann watu County Councils and the Shannon and .Foxton Borough Councils, was received by the T-loro-wheniia Council on Saturday from the District. Engineer. The liability of flic County was set down at £5,755, 8s 7d, after crediting £724 paid by the Council, and. if was made up as follows: — Manawatu bridge and approaches £4,259 15s 9d; road approaches, £1,410 lGs 9d; portion in Shannon Borough, including Maugaove Stream bridge and approaches, £440 16s Id; land plan survey, £26; compensation for land, £342; less £724 paid in December on account of portion in Shannon Borough—£s,7ss 8s 7d.

Tlie other allocations were shown ns follows:

Manawatu County Council: Alalia watu bridge and approaches, £1,259 15/9; road approaches (metalling only), £125 8/-; land plan survey £290; total £4,405 3/9. Shannon Borough tCouncil; Alannwatu bridge and approaches: £850; land plan, survey, £4; portion iu Shannon Borough, including Alangaone Stream Bridges and approaches, £314 17/2; total £ll6B 17/2.

Foxton Borough Council: Alanawatu Bridge and. approaches £BSO. T he total amount to be recovered from the local bodies is £12,903 9/0. The bridge and its approaches cost £24,135 16/4 and the Highways Board’s subsidy amounts to £13,916 4/10. This leaves £10,219 11/6, the difference between which and the sum of £12,903 9/6 represents the local bodies’ share of road approaches, land plan surveys, and compensation for land taken. The amount of the bridge contract was * 20,335 15/3.

It was mentioned in (he letter, although the cost of the bridge and approaches was more than the original estimate (£23,622), the increased amount of subsidy allowed by the Board on expenditure subsequent to April Ist, 1928, had compensated for this so far as the eoniiibutions of the local bodies were concerned, and (he amounts payable were therefore the same as provided for in the original agreement.

The District Engineer added that tin 1 question of the salvage of the old bridge had not vet been settled, hut when this was done the Council would be notified of any credit which might accrue to it. Tn the meantime lie asked for a cheque in settlement of the Council's liability referred to above.

“Just let them anticipate a little longer,” remarked the Chairman, in reference to the request, for payment.

Or. Gimhlel.f: ](: is pretty cool asking for a. Cheque of that size.

On the motion of the Chairmen it was resolved Hint Mm Idler Im received and that the question of linnnoo he referred to the Finance Committee. He said tliai; the matter would have addition when the money market looked a little lad ter. The Treasury advised dial the loan of ftibOO to In* raised by the Council for the purpose of meeting its share of the cost of t.lm bridge and apprnadms would he governed by Sod ions 3, II and 12 of the Local Government Loans Board Ad, and would mil require the prior sanction of the Loans Board. An Order-in-Connei! only would be necessary as indicated in Section 12. The terms proposed by this Council, such as were approved in the case of the Manawafu County Council—interest (i per cent., term 30 years, and sinking fund II per cent. — were satisfactory, and the consenting Uriler-in-Coiineil embodying these terms would be issued under Section 3 of the Loans Board Act. A copy of the gazetted Order-in-Council was received.