RICCARTON TOWN HALL.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 32, 14 March 1914, Page 3 (Supplement)

RICCARTON TOWN HALL.

THE COUNCIL CRITICISED.

Biecarton is to have a new Town Hall and offices, but the decision of the Borough Council to erect-the, building by day labour in preference to contract jis not by any means pleasing.to a large number of residents. At a meeting of the Biecarton Burgesses' Association' the following motion was proposed:— "That this association strongly pro- j tests against the intention of the Borough Council to erect the Town Hall i and offices by day labour." Mr Stringer was in "favour of- the letting of. the work by: contract, and he gave several instances-in which contract prices were cheaper than day labour. , > Cr Stokes said that certain Australian railway works, when carried out by day labour, had resulted in a saving of cost, but the value ,of his statement was.nullified »by someone else pointing out that the Commonwealth Government had decided to complete, the. transcontinental railway across Australia by contract. Cr Ford said that he had voted to have the work carried out by contract, for he felt sure that this would be the cheaper method. They should call for tendes&jirst, even if they did eventually decide (>n day labour, otherwise there would be no check on the cost. However, to call for tenders simply to arrive at an estimate of the cost would be obviously unfair, and he urged that "the council should call for tenders; if none were accepted the lowest tenderer should receive the. usual uniform fee. He would be quite willing to pay the fee himself. Another member pointed out that the employment of day labour would entail the expense of scaffolding, etc., for which there would be no return. The statement was made that a member of the council had said that if the day labour price were £IOOO, and a tender were received for £BOO, he would still support day labour. After. a great deal of discussion, a question was raised as to the regularity of the meeting. There was a doubt in the minds of some members as toj whether proper notice'had been given. The chairman ruled that any decision , arrived at on the original motion could not be remitted to the Council, as the meeting was not properly constituted. The meeting dispersed without arriving at a decision.