THE TURANGANUI BRIDGE.

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume I, Issue 71, 7 November 1885, Page 3

THE TURANGANUI BRIDGE.

Diking the sitting of the County Council on Thursday a deputation from the Borough Council, consisting of His Worship the Mayor and Cr Townlev, waited upon the Conntv Board for the purpose of urging upon thdr attention the extra large cost which tße construction of the Turanganui Rrid.e'had entailed upon the BorougHfand asking the County to contribute towards the same. His Worship the Mayor an laying the subject before the Council said that a previous application had resulted in the County giving /'a 50 towards the Bridge, which together with the’ Government grant of /750 had made Z 1,000. The Borough had given /500 which with the grant made /"z.ooo. 'I bus there was Z3>°°° available and the Borough thought they could get a good bridge sufficient for their needs for this amount. When the estimate came out it was found that the total cost would be snd the Council thought it |Huld be justified in going on with the ■Eertaking. He would not go into the details, but merely say that when the bridge was nearly' finished it was found that the work was not of that substantial nature it bad been hoped and that it required certain additions and strengthenings which necessitated a further outlay of /197 IJS The total cost of the bridge was Z 3.332 12s, and he would ask that Council to find the half of the extras, or the sum of A U>6. as the resources of the Borough were but small and this work had been a great drain upon them. He hoped the County would see the fairness of the claim and arrive at a favorable decision. Cr Townley had nothing to add beyond pointing ont that the bridge was equally useful to the County as to the Borough. The deputation then withdrew. Cr Gannon supposed that if this money was granted it wonld, according to the new Act, have to come out of the VVaimata rates. But they had had enough of that (laughter). Cr Ferris considered the strongest argument against the application was that they had given /"a 50 which the Borough said was all they wanted. The County Engineer had said that /3.0C0 would be suffic ent to build the bridge, and it was the Borough Council’s own fault if anything went wrong in the construction. He .did not say whose fault it was, but it was not the County Councils fault. If the Borough to incur the expense they must meet it. Cr Chambers would object to the , Council paying anything beyond the Z 2 s° already given. > he County Council was opposed to the work, but

after considerable pressure gave the asked for, 1 hey bad no further responsibility. Cr Gannon moved “ That a letter be written to the Borough Council stating that this Council regrets that it cannoi acceed to the request.”—Carried unanimousley.