TE ORE ORE BRIDGE.

Wairarapa Age, 15 June 1927, Page 5

TE ORE ORE BRIDGE.

COST AND CONTRIBUTIONS. OASTLEPOINT COUNTY OBJECTS. With reference to the proposed new bridge over the Ruamahanga River at Te Ore Ore, it was reported at a greeting of the Masterton County Council yesterday that the District Highways Council had recommended the application of the provisions of Section 119 of the Public Works Act 1908, authorising the Masterton County Council to demand contributions from adjoining boroughs or counties. The Masterton Borough Council requested further particulars with reference to the undertaking. In reply, the clerk gave the particulars request* ed, pointing out that the borough's estimated contribuion, at 10 per cent, would be £699 10s. A similar contribution was also asked from the Castlepoint County Council and the Masterton County’s share was £5596. The estimated cost of the work was £12,417, and the actual cost to local authorities £6995, a 50 per cent subsidy being payable by the Main Highways Board. At the time the county decided on a 10 per cent, contribution no figures were available, but the quota was considered by the council io be quite reasonable. The Masterton County was prepared, should the borough desire to be supplied with exact figures, to take a traffic tally at the Ruamahanga Bridge, and go to a commission, should it prove necessary, to arrive at an agreement as to the quota of contribution. Councillor W. I. Armstrong (chairman) pointed out that it was quite likely that the County Council would be advised by the Main Highways Board to secure from the borough an increased percentage of the cost of the bridge, on account of the borough's interest in the work. The Castlepoint County Council wrote objecting to becoming responsible for 10 per centum of the cost of the bridge. The clerk said he was instucted to point out, that owing to the better roads now provided, giving access to the seaside at Castlepoint, the council had to cope with an ever-in-creasing volume of foreign traffic from Masterton and tho surrounding districts, and further that it had, for the use of its ratepayers and for the use of the general public, constructed its highway bridge at Awatea on a £1 for! £1 subsidy, without assistance from adjacent counties. It therefore considered it was not justified in committing its ratepayers to the expense of contributing to,the cost of the Ruamahanga River Bridge. The clerk was directed to reply that a recommendation had been made for the provisions of the Public Works Act to be applied to the undertaking, authorising the council to demand a percentage of the costs from adjoining counties or boroughs, and that failing an agreement, the Masterton County would be prepared to go to a Commission.