COST OF REJECTED CATCHMENT SCHEMES

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28268, 4 May 1957, Page 2

COST OF REJECTED CATCHMENT SCHEMES

Expenditure on preparing schemes of work which are subsequently rejected by ratepayers is a problem for catchment boards. When the North Canterbury Catchment Board was considering estimates of expenditure for the current financial year yesterday. Mr A. T. Bell said it was a problem to which there seemed to be no answer. When a project was proposed to the board by a body of ratepayers, the board had a duty to investigate the proposals and submit a scheme. This investigation and preparation was costly, but before the works could be put into operation the scheme had to go back to the ratepayers. If the cost was greater than the individual ratepayers expected, it was his natural inclination to vote against it, said Mr Bell. In doing so he might overlook the importance of such a project to the area as a whole. If a scheme was carried on, the cost of the investigations was included in the cost of the scheme, and came back to the board; but if it was rejected the expenditure involved in investigations had been for nothing. Mr Bell spoke after Mr E. J. Stalker had criticised the proposed expenditure for administration.

Mr Stalker voted against the adoption of the estimates providing for the expenditure of £40,783 under this heading—£l4,733 for administration’’ £4BOO for soil conservation, and £21,250. for rivers control and drainage. Rising Steadily

Mr Stalker said that only five years ago* less than £7OOO had been collected in administration rates (£34,500 is expected this year). He had supported an increase in the rate for certain workshop building on the understanding that it would oe reduced when that programme was completed, but the rates had increased steadily. Except for the Waimakariri a -ea, which was financially strong, he said that when it came to big schemes of work they were quite beyond the small rating areas. The only solution seemed to be

to have one rating area, but he doubted if the city and other built-up areas would agree to that. A Comparison Mr C. M. Williams said that the administrative rate collected for three years in the Malvern, Selwyn, Ellesmere and Springs counties amounted to £lOOO less than the cost of the investigation for the Selwyn scheme. Christchurch city provided most of the administrative rate and one of the biggest drains on the funds was in the Selwyn area. Mr Stalker said the administrative rate affected the whole of the board’s area, and it was as fair to say that Selwyn area ratepayers provided funds for the Waimakariri or Selwyn area as to say that Christchurch was providing funds for the Selwyn area. The secretary (Mr W. W. Brough) said that administrative rates collected in recent years were? —1951-52, £9728; 1952-53. £20.338; 1953-54. £37,294; 1954-55. £38,919; 1955-56, £40,655; and 1956-57, £34,500.