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.