The Waipukurau Press. Published: MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, FRIDAY SATURDAY, APRIL 19, 1930. THE TRAFFIC BRIDGE.

Waipukurau Press, Volume XIV, Issue 45, 19 April 1930, Page 4

The Waipukurau Press. Published: MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, FRIDAY SATURDAY, APRIL 19, 1930. THE TRAFFIC BRIDGE.

In connection with the much-dis-cussed question of the erection of a new traffic bridge over the Tuki Tuki river at Waipukurau, and the payment for erection has now been settled definitely. The estimated cost of the new bridge is £19,000, plus an additional £3OOO for construction of approaches. In November last the Patangata County Council, as the controlling authority, notified the,contributory local bodies that it intended to erect the bridge, and advising that of the total cost the Main Highways Board and the Public Works Department was finding £15,667, leaving a balance of £63 33 to be contributed by the local bodies. The rebuilding assessment figures, as proposed by the Patangata Council, were Waipawa County, 35 per cent.; Patangata County, 15 per cent.; Waipukurau County, 2 5 per cent.; and Wainukuran Borouar. 2 5 ner cent.

The local bodies concerned objected to the assessments made and finally it was agreed to apply for a Com- ' mission to determine the proportion. The Government granted the request and a Commission,’ presided over by Mr E. Bold, of Wellington, ex-Land Purchase Officer for the Railway and Public Works Departments, sat in Waipukurau in January last. At the hearing voluminous evidence was tendered, and in the main each of the local bodies did its best to discredit the value of the bridge to its particular ratepayers, with a view to having the assessment reduced as low as possible. The basis of maintenance allocation prior to the sitting of the Commission was Patangata and Waipawa County, 32 f per cent., Waipukurau Borough 15 per cent. A Warrant, issued by the Governor-General-in-Council authorising the Patangata County Council to construct the bridge has been issued, and the cost, less the Government

j share, to fie borne in the following proportions: — Patangata County ! Council, per cent., Waipawa j County Council, 30 per cent., Wai- | pukurau Borough Council, 25 per 1 cent., and the Waipukurau County Council 17 i per cent. An analysis of the Commission’s figures discloses that on the old maintenance allocation amounts Patangata receives a reduction of five per cent.; Waipawa, two and a half per cent.; Waipukurau, two and a half per cent.; while the Waipukurau Borough has had its portion increased by . ten per cent. Taking such factors as capital and unimproved value and community of interest into consideration it is difficult to understand why the Borough should have been so harshly treated. An outstanding feature is that the

finding represents an increase of 6 6 2-3 per cent, of the total on the Borough’s burden, compared with the previous maintenance contribution. Even on a population basis the Borough was not due for such a high share. It is very evident that the Commissioner did not give very much weight to the Borough's claim for a reduction and in this direction we suggest that the Borough might very well have put forward a far stronger case. However, the Government has given its decision and the assessments will have to stand. Tenders are to be called almost immediately for the construction of the new bridge, which is to be erected on the down-stream side of the present structure. In view of the state of disrepair and decay of the existing bridge no time is to be lost in building the new one, which it is estimated will take from eighteen months to two years to complete. During that period a large gang, of men will be employed and will reside in Waipukurau. It is also hoped that it will be possible to engage a number of local unemployed men on the work.