PUTARURU LOAN WORKS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 315, 21 November 1929, Page 5

PUTARURU LOAN WORKS.

/ POSITION REVIEWED. Town Board Discussion. The Putaruru loan works (road improvements) were referred to at length at the November meeting of the Town Board. The chairman (Mr. G. G. Griffiths), in opening the discussion, said members would remember that the whole ■scheme was submitted to the Matamata County Council but was never put in black and white. In order to ease the mind of the County Council the speaker had written a letter to the council embodying the details. Referring to the loan works, the had received the following letter from the county engineer (Mr. M. E. Fitzgerald):— "The estimate revised to fit the lowest tender is £10,482 Is 6d. This ds for carrying out the works regardless of the question of overhead bridges and consequent deviations, and it includes a short section of county road from the town boundary to the level crossing. For the present, the work south of the overhead bridge site would not be put in hand, and by omitting the cost of this section the estimated cost is reduced to £9669 9s sd. It is to be hoped that a definite decision will soon be come to relating to the bridge proposal,' so that continuity of the job may not be unnecessarily interfered with. These revised estimates have been submitted to the Main Highways Board, and it is hoped that no time will be lost in letting the contract.” Continuing, the chairman said the

contract had been accepted by the Matamata County Council, hut it had V yet to be officially accepted by the Main Highways Board. The following set of figures would make the position clearer: — The apportionment *of the cost of -the main scheme, based on the lowest tender and revised estimate, showed that the Main Highways Beard subsidies amounted to £5332 Is 7d, made up as follow : Construction account No. 1, No. 19, £1531 ; construction account No. 314, £Bl6 9s 9d ; maintenance account No. 19, £1455 2s 2d ; maintenance account No. 314, £1529 9s, Bd. The Matamata County Council’s share, £3577 14s lOd, is made up as follows : Half of £lOl 5s 9d—£so 12s lOd ; one third

of £Bl 6s—£27 2s ; by agreement, fc £3’500. The Putaruru Town Board is v- to find the remainder, £1572 5s Id, ’’making the estimated cost £10,482 Is 6d. j The apportionment for immediate works, which omit from the overhead bridge site southwards, is as follows : Main Highways Board subsidies, £4862 12s lOd, made up as follows—construction account No. 19 £1314 2s * 2d, construction account No. 314 £Bl6 9s 9d, maintenance account No. 19 £1202 11s 3d, maintenance account No. 314 £1529 9s 8d ; Matamata County Council’s share, £3500 ; Putaruru Town Board, £1306 16s 7d ; total, £9669 9s sd. The figures in- • eluded the total subsidies from the , Main Highways Board. The £3500 f found by the Matamata County Council is the share of the county’s loan of £200,000, as agreed to. Main Highways Board subsidies were based on construction and maintenance. The Highways Board called bitumenising maintenance. Of the 3i miles in Putaruru some came under maintenance (£2 for £1) and some under construction (£1 for £1). The scale varied, -and in certain exceptional cases £3 for £1 was granted, but generally it was at the rate of £2 for £l. Mr. McDermott was of the opinion that there was not a great deal of difference (under £200) between the . two shares.

The chairman said every loan work was treated by the Main Highways Board on its merits. The Hamilton-Auckland road would get more than the local road. Mr. Yandle, in referring to the £2 for £1 expenditure, said they were not getting much of that. The chairman said that since the point was raised he would get the figures bearing on it. There was not much hope of getting more. The £3500 was Putaruru’s share of the county £200,000 loan. In reply to Mr. Yandle the chairman said the £3500 was intact. The discussion was closed by the •chairman quoting the figures (given above) for the immediate works to be proceeded with as soon as the "Main Highways Board said “ go.”