POHANGINA BRIDGE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9394, 15 March 1909, Page 5

POHANGINA BRIDGE.

At the meeting of the Council ou Saturday a letter was received from John O’Donnell, contractor for erecting'the broken span 01,7 " Pohangina bridge, stating th yAB he was paying seven per for money he would have to obarge it to the Council in view of the delay in settling his account. Also from ,R. S. Rounthwaite, engineer, stating that he was willing to accept Mr Brown’s recollection of the conversation that that had taken place between tbem in reference to the contractor’s claims in respect to the Pohangina bridge, but he wished to emphasise the fact that at the time, the only two questions under consideration were, whether the contract should be proceeded with on the present site, or whether a new bridge should be erected at the ford site. The question of abandoning the contract was not raised. In another letter. Mr Rounthwaite drew attention to the insufficient water wav under the Pohangina bridge. The account included, amounted to £126 15s 3d, of which £l3 was for attending the last meeting of the Council. The County Engineer in his report recommended clearing away the slip at the eastern approach so that the broken span could be erected as soon as possible. The present formation would be a decided advantage to the contractor as it would save him at least £2OO in scaffolding and other material. He could not guarantee to protect the slip so that the water would be confined under the two existing spans, and he was positive there was not sufficient waterway, and considering all circumstances, be was firmly of opinion that the span should be re-erected and he was satisfied that no slip of a serious kind would occur again at the Pohangina bridge site. Should the birdge be re-erected and the slip washed away, the only danger that he would anticipate would bo the river undermining the bottom road.. The Ohaiiman stated that he had conferred with Mrlnnes, the County solicitor, on the matter, and the latter had advised that the Council was liable to pay for the loss of any bridge material placed on the river bank before the work of erection was commenced, but not after. The specification clearly gave no authority to Mr Rounthwaite to promise the contractor that the Council would be liable after the work was started. He had seen Mr Hursfehouse, who while saying that it was not the business of the Department of Roads to interfere between the local body and the. contractor, suggested that the difference should be settled by arbitration. In regard to the waterway, Mr Hursthouse had remarked, that when he visited the site some months ago, both Mr Robinson and Mr Harland were of opinon that there was sufficient, and he was inclined %to allow the bridge to remain as at present. The Chairman stated that he had also seen the contractor, Mr O’Donnell, who was willing to submit the claim to arbitration or complete the contract Mr O’Donnell would have to he informed that Mr Rounthwaite could have had no authority for stating that the Connoil would be liable for safety of material at the bridge site. The position was at present, in regard to the slip, as before; the Council would have to clear it away, if it was decided to proceed with the erection of the span. On the other hand it ould cost £2OO or more to protect the slip. The Engineer stated that he would not undertake to protect the slip for twice that sum.

In reply to a question as to the financial position, the Chairman stated tha he first loan was for £I4OO and the second £BOO. There was £IBO in band. It was possible to raise 10 per cent, on the loans, namely £320 which with £750 Government subsidy would leave a deficiency of £350 on the estimated cost of completing the bridge, namely, contract £IOOO. clerk of works £SO, •Mr Rounthwaite £IOO, clearing slip £2OO contingencies £SO, making a total of £1400; so that if the Government would give an additional subsidy of £250 thete would be, ample funds to complete the bridge. Ors. Eglinton and Bailey expressed themselves as favourable to completing the bridge as soon as possible and to endeavouring to obtain the sanction of the Roads Department to the adoption of that course. It was resolved, subject) to the consent of the Roads Department to proceed with the erection of the span, and it was decided to ask the Department to have the site ianspeoted.