Council
Invercargill’s iconic town clock will now cost $1.98 million to completely restore and reclad, but it will be a sight to behold in Wachner Place.
Question for Council’s chief engineer of infrastructure, Russell Pearson:
Why didn’t you turn up with three quotes? Instead, you arrived with “some numbers on the back of a beer coaster.” As you told councillors: “We have been working on a budget which is what I describe as a rough order of cost.”
Mike.
Councillors debated whether to push on with the new elaborate design that will see the internal mechanisms of the clock on display, and behind weather-proof structural glass.
Council’s chief engineer of infrastructure Russell Pearson said the design he has been shown, combines the old and the new aspects of the clock and had “a strong presence together.”
But councillor Ian Pottinger was not impressed, saying it looked hideous and more suitable for a ‘Burning Man’ event.
Cr Grant Dermody was in support of the clock but not the huge price tag, saying it was extravagant and suggested they take another look at the costings.
Cr Ria Bond also questioned Russell and said while they knew the mechanisms inside the clock were going to cost a fortune, she wanted to know where the rest of the money was going.
External cladding was budgeted at $200,000 and a further $250,000 for landscaping around the clock, “which is a reasonably significant sum to finish around,” Russell said.
But he said the project was more than just about restoring the structure.
Group manager infrastructure Erin Moogan reminded councillors that the desire to have the clock’s mechanisms visible to the public, and the cost of glass to protect it, was what pushed the price up.
Deputy Mayor Tom Campbell said it was a legacy structure that may sit in downtown Invercargill for the next 100 years.
“So we may not want to cut costs for the sake of cutting costs.”
Mayor Clark said he was happy with the design and the price tag, but moved that the council staff come back with some more design options, looking at what the long term maintenance costs would be for each.
Councillors Pottinger, Dermody, Bond and Kett voted against the motion, which was won by a majority.
