Matamata Chronicle - - Your Paper, Your Place -

It is no se­cret that I sup­port the re­ten­tion of the foun­tain, how­ever should it be an un­rea­son­able cost to the ratepay­ers I would change my view.

I re­fer to your ar­ti­cle of March 22 re­gard­ing just that is­sue. How any ratepayer could make a de­ci­sion to tick the yes/no box with the in­for­ma­tion sup­plied I have no idea. Firstly re: the $50,000 or $250,000 sum to re­place and re­lo­cate it. That is a wild guessti­mate at best and doesn’t de­serve to be taken se­ri­ously, and I wasn’t aware that re­plac­ing it else­where was an op­tion any­how.

Re: the pump re­place­ment fig­ure of $24,000 when the pump it­self costs around $9000?

Re: the pave­ment re­pairs of $30,000. Surely this sum would be far less than the sum to de­mol­ish the foun­tain and re­place the sur­round­ing pave­ments?

There seems to be lit­tle doubt that the main­te­nance of the foun­tain and pump has been ne­glected by choice for some time by coun­cil so why is the pump is­sue and other gen­eral main­te­nance be­ing cited as a new cost? It is a rea­son­able ex­pec­ta­tion that if ratepay­ers and fam­ily are to de­cide the fate of the foun­tain they need some ac­cu­racy of what the real costs are ex­clud­ing the de­ferred main­te­nance re­ferred to in the last sen­tence, with a con­tin­gency sum to cover un­seen costs.

I sus­pect the pic­ture would be vastly dif­fer­ent and not mislead­ing.

-Bruce Ma­gan

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.