WASTE OF RATEPAYERS’ MONEY.

Waikato Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 2650, 20 July 1926, Page 5

WASTE OF RATEPAYERS’ MONEY.

(To the Editor). j Sir, —For the benefit of the ratepayers, and in the iricrests of .fair play, I would like to bring before the public, through the medium of your paper, tuo way the recent tenters called for by the Water Works Committee of the Cambridge Borough Council have been dealt with. As far as is ascertainable there were quite a number of tenders submitted for their approval, the lowest being -11/6 per ton. The tender that has been accepted was 12/ per ton. Had the lowest tender been accepted it would have meant a saving to the ratepayers of approximately £l6 on the completed contract. Certainly* this is a small amount to such \a wealthy community, but it makes one wonder whether there are any other small matters that we do not know about. Further, the successful tenderer has a much smaller plant than the lowest tenderer, so the question of efficiency can be left to your own common sense.

Had the,Council the interest of the ratepayers at heart, they would have advertised for tenders in other papers, besides our worthy laeal paper. Had this been ’ done, I feel quite sure the work could have been done much cheaper, but if it had been decided to give it to a local man at any cost, then why not give it to- the lowest local tenderer or why waste ratepayers’ money by advertising at all? I would also like to ask, why were deposits refunded to unsuccessful tenderers before the Committee’s action had been confirmed by the Council? Is that business? —I am, etc., RATEPAYER,, Cambridge} July 19th, 1926.