AMALGAMATION PROPOSALS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25549, 17 July 1948, Page 8

AMALGAMATION PROPOSALS

Local Government Commission TOWN CLERK’S EVIDENCE The cross-examination of the Town Clerk (Mr H. S. Feast) lasted all yesterday when the hearing of the Christchurch City Council’s claims for Lie amalgamation of the Riccarton borough and parts of adjacent counties and the absorption of the functions of the Christchurch Drainage and Tramway Boards was continued before the Local Government Commission. Many of the questions by counsel dealt wiuh rating, and the City Council’s policy to the displaced staff of local bodies taken over bj’ the City Council. iHr Feast reiterated the council's policy, which was to employ every person displaced by any amalgamation, even though the employees might not be lully employed for some time alter the merger. Mr Feast said the cost of providing New Brighton with a high pressure <'ater supply was estimated at £90.000. He agreed with Mr A. C. Perry (for the - Heathcote County Council) that county areas already reticulated would, if they came into the city, have to bear a share of the cost of reticulating New Brighton and other undeveloped areas. The debt of the city and of amalgamated areas would be combined and spread over the whole area. He knew that the Drainage Board, in deciding to provide New Brighton with sewerage and drainage, considered that the residents of the city should not be called on to pay for the scheme and had struck a special rate on the New Brighton area.

A metropolitan board of works as a form of control for the city had been considered before his council’s claims were made, said Mr Feast, but it was believed that the plan the council had put forward was the most suitable. The Riccarton Borough Council’s working costs and expenditure were reasonable, said Mr Feast, after examining figures produced by Mr H. P. Smith (for the borough council). He had no criticism to make against the administration of Riccarton. If the council’s proposals were agreed to. Riccarton would share both the burdens and amenities of the city. The borough would get the amenities somewhat more cheaply than at present, saving, on the figures given by Mr Smith, £l4O a year. Population Increase To Mr E. B. E. Taylor (for the Waimairi County Council), Mr Feast said he considered that the city’s population could be increased substantially under the present administration. When it reached 250.000 some amendments to the present administration would be necessary. Any part of the county council’s staff, which was not required to administer what might be left of the county, would be employed by the city. Cross-examined by Mr J. D. Hutchison (for the Paparua County Council), Mr Feast said that apart from the need for planning for industrial development he could see no advantage to the city, the county, or residents of the area if the area which included the freezing works at Islington was brought into the city. For the Christchurch Tramway Board, Dr. A. L. Haslam asked Mr Feast whether the council had any future policy for tramways. “Not in relation to tramways,” the witness replied. “They are not counting their chickens before they are hatched,’’ said the chairman (Mr I. J. Goldstine). At present no member of the City Council staff had a special knowledge of public transport, Mr Feast said. Mr Feast agreed with Dr. Haslam that the tramways would be a virtually selfcontained unit within the council. If the local bodies affected by the council’s claims were absorbed there would nave to be an increase in the number of city councillors, or councillors would have to give a little more time to council business. Probably both courses would be adopted. The two additional councillors allowed would not greatly relieve the position.

To Mr C. G. Penlington (for the Halswell County Council and the New Zealand Refrigerating Company), Mr Feast said that committee work would be increased, but councillors in other cities ••stood up to it.” Questioned by Mr A. F. Wright (for the Christchurch Drainage Board), Mr Feast said the submissions which were to be made to the commission did not go before the full council. “Some Friction Likely” There might be some friction between City Council and Drainage Board officers on status, Mr Feast admitted, but there must be a settling-down period during which many unforeseen little difficulties would arise. He felt that the difficulties Would be smoothed out quickly, although possibly the services of some of the Drainage Board's skilled officers might for a time not be used to the best advantage. He did not think it would be necessary to maintain the city offices of the Hep thcote and Waimairi County Councils, said Mr Feast to Mr F. B. (Stephens (counsel to the commission). If the City Council took over the functions of the Drainage Board there would be a financial saving as a result of less committee work, rating work and electoral expenses. There would be greater economy from taking over the Drainage Board than there would in taking over the Tramway Board. Mr Feast said that at the start there Would be a surplus of staff. “You will be the envy of New Zealand,” said Mr Stephens. The Waimairi County Council maintained a higher standard in Fendalton than the general standard of maintenance by county councils of what were urban areas. However, in some respects the standard was not on a level with that of the City -Council. The main road through Fendalton, as it carried trams as well as a large amount of other traffic, should be widened. It was possible that the county council was acquiring properties or parts of properties along the route to widen it. That would have been done already if the city had been in control of the road, Mr Feast said. “We hope that this position, which is wholly inequitable, will be remedied during the present session of Parliament.” added Mr Feast after he had agreed with Mr Stephens that as the law stood the council could not divert profits from any trading fund to the general fund. The profits of the Municipal Electricity Department could be invested in the debentures of any local body in New Zealand except the Christchurch City Council. This, Mr Feast said, was obviously absurd Some persons thought that the ban on the transfer of funds from trading accounts to general purposes should be universal, and offiers considered that it should be abolished. Whichever alternative was adopted, the City Council would accept it, but it objected to being made Unique.

To Mr J. W. Andrews, a commissioner, Mr Feast said that if the council became the drainage authority it would wipe out the special drainage rates at present levied by the Drainage Board. The council wished to do away with all special rating areas. Members of the commission and counsel inspected an aerial photographic map of the areas affected by the City Council’s proposals at the City Council Chambers yesterday morning. When the commission resumes on Monday morning it will hear the evidence of W - L - Sheppard, chairman of the traffic committee of the City Council.