KAIRANGA C.C. WILL PAY ITS SHARE OF AORANGI BRIDGE COST

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6887, 17 April 1929, Page 2

KAIRANGA C.C. WILL PAY ITS SHARE OF AORANGI BRIDGE COST

Whole County Contributes HIGHWAYS BOARD GRANT CONSIDERED TOO SMALL At its meeting yesterday, the Kairanga County council again considered the evergreen question of the support to bo accoifced the Oroua County council in the proposed erection of the new bridge over the Oroua at Aorangi. When the matter was brought up, Cr. Cheetham rose to niove that the council agree to the work .being proceeded with. He was of the opinion that it was quite time the council gave a decided answer on the matter. With little discussion, the following motion was carried. “That this council approves of the Oroua Council’s proceeding with the erection of the Aorangi bridge and -will pay its quota ot the cost as fixed by the recent conference of local bodies.” The cost to the Kairanga County will be in the vicinity of £llOO. The meeting then proceeded to consider the allocation of the council s share of the cost over the three ridings of Pitzherbert, Taonui and Mangaone. Here again Cr. Cheetham immediately advanced a motion which was as follows; —“That the cost of maintenance and renewal of all boundary bridges over 30ft. in length should in future be paid out of the general county. fund.” , In advancing this motion, Cr. Cheetham contended that the time had now arrived when the cost of the erection of all boundary bridges should be borne by the whole county and not alone by the riding in which the bridge was situated. Cr. Anderson (Mangaone) supported the motion.

■ Mangaone Should Pay. Cr. Moody (Pitzherbert) opposed tho motion on the grounds that the Taonui and Pitzherbert ridings had always previously built their own bridges .and had not asked Mangaone to bear any of the cost. Now when Mangaone found itself faced with finding portion of tho cost of a large, bridge, it 'desired to call upon the other ridings to help. The Pitzherbert riding had borne its share of the cost of the Pitzherbert 'bridge and he thought , that Mangaone should do the right thing in the case under review. Cr. Anderson replied in detail to Cr. Moody, stating that Mangaone had already built a" number of bridges to which the other ridings had not been called upon to contribute. The chairman (Cr. Jos. ißatche-lar) stated that a traffic tally on tho present Aorangi bridge had shown that G 8 per cent, of tho traffic using the bridge had been local and 32 per cent, foreign. Main Highways Subsidy, t

Cr. Small expressed tlie opinion that in view of the importance of the Aorangi bridge and the fact that it was on a main highway, the contribution to bo given by the Main Highways board was not large enough. He thought that steps should be taken to obtain a larger subsidy from the board. Cr. Small then moved the following motion which was carried: “This council protests against the small amount of the Main Highways board subsidy to the cost of the, Aorangi bridge and requests tho board to increase this amount. ’ ’ More Equitable. Cr. Cheetham in replying to Cr. Moody contended that it was more equitable for the whole county to bear the . cost of boundary bridges. In the long run, Mangaone would have to bear a greater burden than Fitzherbert if tho whole cost of these bridges came out of a general fund. The chairman then put Cr. Cheetham’s motion and on a show of hands declared the voting even. Crs. Small, Collis and Batchelar did not record an opinion. No Procrastination. Cr. Anderson contended that it was the duty of all councillors to vote on a matter of this importance. Cr. Collis was of tho opinion that it was unfair to expect councillors to carry such a resolution on the eve of the election for a new council and moved an amendment to the effect that the matter be referred to the incoming council. Cr. Small opposed the amendment and stated that he thought that the matter should be finalised there and then. Cr. Cheetham deprecated the parochial spirit being introduced and pointed out that his resolution had expressly stated that the county would only be called upon to bear the cost of boundary bridges. The amendment moved by Cr. Collis was then put to the meeting and lost on the voices. On Cr. Cheetham’s motion being put, it was carried by five votes to three, the chairman -not voting. Crs. Anderson, Mercer, Small, Collis and Cheetham voted with the ayes and Crs. Moody, Hopcroft and Mildon formed the opposition.