TE AWA BRIDGE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 222, 20 August 1931, Page 9

TE AWA BRIDGE.

KIWITEA COUNCIL’S SUBSIDY. ORIGINAL OFFER AFFIRMED. Mention of the proposed bridge at Te Awa across the Oroua River was made at yesterday’s meeting of the Kiwitea County Council when a letter was received from the Pohangina County Council forwarding an estimate of the cost of the work together with plans of the proposed structure. The Pohangina Council also notified the Kiwitea Council of its intention to apply for a warrant to elect the bridge under terms of the Public Works Act, 1928, the cost of the work to be _ apportioned as follows:—Public Works Department subsidy, £1800; Pohangina County Council, £1200; Kiwitea County Council, £6OO. Cr. Williamson asked if there was any chance of the council shelving tire matter for a year. The rates were coining in badly, and the speaker did not like the idea of raising a loan to help another local body when matters were so bad in its own area.

The chairman (Cr. McLean) thought there was little chance of the bridge being gone with just yet. The arrangements being conducted at present were just preliminaries and nothing of a definite nature had been carried out.

Cr. Hair said it was absolutely necessary that the council curtail all expenditure. Times were bad enough at the present, but no one knew what next year would bring forth. Settlers were finding it difficult to pay their rates and the council could not commit itself to increasing its burdens. Cr. Williamson then moved that, in view of the present economic position, the council hold over the proposal to pay a subsidy of £6OO towards the Te Awa bridge. Cr. Stack thought the council should not try and block the settlers who were requiring the outlet, and Cr. Wood also considered the council should not go back on its undertaking. Cr. Williamson said it was not a matter of going back on the council’s undertaking, but as to whether the Kiwitea County ratepayers could afford it. It would be placing them under additional strain to raise a loan for the amount required. The question concerning the speaker most was not the interests of the iatepavers of the Pohangina county, but whether the Kiwitea County Council was doing the right thing by its own ratepayers. Cr. Hair spoke on similar lines, but the chairman held that to do this would be going back on the council’s undertaking. He reminded the council that they had undertaken to find £6OO towards the cost of the bridge, and it had to be remembered also that the Pohangina County Council was bearing a 50-50 share of —the cost of several boundary bridges between the two counties. He could not see that the council could do other than carry out its undertaking to find the money. In reply to Cr. Williamson, the chairman said the finding of a commission if it sat on the matter would undoubtedly go against the Kiwitea County Council. The council had given a promise to nay £6OO towards the bridge, and on the strength of this a few settlers in the Pohangina had agreed to raise £I2OO as their share. Cr. Williamson admitted that he did not like the thought of the council going back on its word, but the raising of a loan at such a time for the bridge was repugnant to him. He wondered if there was a chance of the Pohangina County Council being persuaded to hold the matter over for a year. The chairman said it was more than likely that the bridge would not be started this year or before next March, the county clerk agreeing that there would not be any call on this year’s finances for the council’s share.

Crs. Younger and Shannon spoke against the council going back on its promise, following which the motion was withdrawn and the council agreed to abide by its former decision to provide the £6OO allocated as its share of the bridge.