AORANGI BRIDGE

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 111, 10 April 1929, Page 4

AORANGI BRIDGE

RE-ERECTION PROBLEM. ‘ MATTERS NEARING FINALITY. The decision of the Palmerston North Borough Council not to voluntarily contribute towards the cost of the re-erection of the Aorangi bridge seems to have brought matters to a head, so far as the other local bodies are concerned, as to the long-standing controversy regarding the allocation oi the construction costs of this bridge. The matter came up for discussion at yesterday’s meeting of the Manawatu County Council when the following letter was received from the clerk of the Oroua County Council: —“I have been directed to inform you that the Palmerston North Borough Council has decided not to contribute towards the cost of the construction of this bridge. 1 We have since got in touch with representatives of the present contributing locSl bodies and the opinion expressed by them seems to be •in favour of the bridge being built by the four original local bodies in the proportion agreed to at a previous conference, namely: Feilding Borough Council 4-12ths, Oroua County Council 3-l2ths, Kairanga County Council 3-12ths, Manawatu County Council 2-12ths. Plans, etc., have been completed and arrangements are in hand to commence the work as it is important that this matter shall be finalised. “That lets Palmerston North out altogether, doesn’t it?” inquired Cr. Boyce. . , , . . , T “That is the original decision and 1 move that we agree to it at once, stated Cr. Perrett. “I quite agree with you, said the chairman (Cr. Barber) “for I think it will settle the matter more quickly." “I’m still of the opinion that Palmerston North should pay a certain amount to the bridge,” said Cr. Boyce, but Cr. Perrett again pointed out that the wisest course was to agree to the original allocation. If there was a I commission—and there would htive I to be one if the other interested local bodies pressed for the inclusion of i Palmerston Notth—the Manawatu County would perhaps be let off with a little less than the 2-12ths share it had agreed to bear, but in the speaker s opinion there would not be much advantage gained and the 2-12ths represented a fair proportion of the cost which the county should bear. “Does Feilding agree to that proposal?” inquired Cr. Boyce. “They didn’t at first but, from a conversation which I had yesterday, I have reason to believe they will now, stated Cr. Hunt. “The point as regards Feilding is that 1 think they were arriving at the conclusion —and rightly so, too —that if they did not agree to this proposal but pressed for a commission, there was a danger of the Main Highways Board withdrawing the subsidy it is now offering,” remarked Cr. Perrett. The chairman said that the pressing of a contribution from Palmerston North, in his opinion, contained no sound argument. What was a contribution of £SOO on a bridge that was costing £10,000? If the £SOO were pressed for, there would have to be a commission, and that would cost about another £SOO without the assurance that £SOO from Palmerston North would be forthcoming. Cr. Boyce thought that Palmerston North was moro interested in the bridge than the Manawatu County, but the chairman contended that the fact of the county’s area running right on to the bridge on one side was sufficient proof that tile Manawatu County was interested in the bridge. Without further discussion-. Cr. Pearce seconded Cr. Perrett’s motion which was carried unanimously.