TUKI TUKI BRIDGET

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 54, 14 February 1911, Page 7

TUKI TUKI BRIDGET

THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT.

The committee consisting of the chairman and Cr Rathie submitted a report on the above bridge advising against the erection of a suspension bridge owing to the great length of the spans and the high prevailing winds of the locality. The lowest estimate for a Stringer bridge was £4OOO. The settlers should rate themselves for the amount less the Government grant of £lOOO and the £3OO promised by Sheate Bros, and should also enter into an agreement to pay half the cost of future maintenance If the settlers agree tenders will be called so that the actual cost of the work can be ascertained and the loan raised.

Since the report had been put in the chairman said he had heard of another 3000 odd acres which were likely to come in shortly and of another block that would benefit from the bridge. It would therefore mean a reduction in the rate at first estimated.

Cr. Simson was surprised that the committee had decided not to recommended the erection of a suspension bridge. When the comrnitte met the settlers they practically agreed to a suspension bridge and now the report recommended something else altogether.

The chairman said Mr. McMillan had estimated that a Stringer bridge would cost £3500, but to be on the safe sid£ the committee estimated it at a total of £4OOO. The District Engineer had said that even if he drew plans of a suspension bridge the Department might not pass them. A suspension bridge 4ft. wide was estimated to cost £lBOO and one 9ft. wide £2600. He thought that in constructing the bridge they should have something permanent. Cr. Simson could not see how the life of the bridge would affect the Council if the settlers paid for ’t. If the people were prepared to rate themselves for a £2600 bridge the Council should go on with the work. The question of upkeep could be dealt with generally and he intended later to give notice that the maintenance of all the bridges be provided out of the general fund. The settlers expected to pay only £l6OO. The chairman said that a suspension bridge of that sort would not even carry cattle. Cr. Rathie thought they should do something substantial and agreed with the chairman. He did not mind if the maintenance were made a charge upon the two ridings, and he pointed out that there were other areas that should be rated.

Cr. Simson said the committee had not discussed a £4OOO bridge with the settlers. It was the settlers who had to pay and if the bridge were not good it would be be their funeral. If they were prepared to rate themselves for a bridge the Council should let them have it.

Cr. Rathie remarked the only difference between the chairman and himself and Cr. Simson was that they w’anted to give the settlers a good bridge and he wanted them to have a bad one. Cr. Simson: “No; you want to give them one they cannot pay for.”

The chairman held it was wrong to erect a bridge for 15 years when the loan would not expire for 36 years. They ougnt at least to have a bridge that would last out the term of the loan. He felt sure the settlers saw the advantage of having the more substantial bridge that was at first thought of. He suggested, however, that the report be referred back and the committee asked to again confer with the settlers. Cr. Simson seconded and the motion was carried.