AVONDALE WORRIED ABOUT A ROAD

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 61, 3 June 1927, Page 11

AVONDALE WORRIED ABOUT A ROAD

A CONTRACT MISTAKE ' WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? Already a bone of contention with ratepayers of Avondale, Rosebank Road will be still more unpopular as the result of disclosures made in connection therewith on Wednesday even ing s meeting of the Avondale oßrough Council. Instead of the contractors being responsible for the maintenance of the whole road, approximately two miles in length, for a period of five years, it is now known, as the result of last evening’s discussion and the reading of a letter from the company, that they are only bound in regard to a portion of 850 yards at the further end from Avondale. The matter was the subject of a special meeting’ of the council on Monday, and it was introduced again last evening at the ordinary meeting. The Mayor, Mr. IT. Tiarks, claimed that the council knew nothing of ‘what was going on” in regard to Rosebank Road at the time when negotiations were proceeding in connection with the company for the biturnenising of the road. The ex-Mayor, Mr. Tait, and ex-Councillor Thompson, he said, entered into a contract with the company, or came to an arrangement. He (Mr. Tiarks) personally knew nothing about it until invited to go down and see how the work was progressing. The majority of the council was not responsible. They had believed that the company would keep the road as a whole in good repair for five years. That’s how it was impressed on him. Cr. W. Pendlebury said that Air. Tiarks had correctly stated the case. Along with Cr. Reesterer he had gone down to the road many times, and they both had asked why the work had been given to the company when the council possessed a hot-mix plant that cost £5,000. They were told that they could stop the work. To the best of his recollection the council had been told that the company had written guaranteeing maintenance of the road for five years. Cr. IT. Potter supported the previous speakers. Neither he nor Cr. PVndlebury had previously heard of the company’s letter. Cr. J. V. Reesterer said the council agreed to accept the company’s tender if it would maintain the road for ten years. At the subsequent meeting of the council members were advised that the company had intimated their willingness to maintain the thoroughfare for five years. The clerk, Mr. Nunns, explained that the letter from the company was addressed to the ex-borough engineer and was only found during his absence. It appeared, however, from a review of the minutes, that the letter had been read to the council. Members, however, still contended ignorance thereof and Mr. Tiarks held the council had been committed to the job without its sanction. After further discussion it was decided to invite Mr. Chapman, of the company, to a special meeting of the whole council in committee to go into the matter.