Waimairi Supports Town Hall

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30471, 19 June 1964, Page 1

Waimairi Supports Town Hall

The first part of any contribution the Waimairi County Council might make to the town hall project should come from the Municipal Electricity Department and be proportionate to benefits received by Christchurch city ratepayers by way of the transfer of department profits since 1960, Cr. W. T. Rice said at a meeting of the Waimairi council last evening.

“I want to make It perfectly clear that I fully support the principle of a metropolitan town hall,” he said. “But tonight I speak on behalf of some 50,000 disfranchised electricity users who reside in this county and have no say whatever in the continuing transfer of surplus money from a monopoly organisation run by another local body. “Another £50,000 has just been contributed by electricity users to the City Council’s rate fund. Why should Waimairi pay twice for the town hall? “Hand-outs” “Even the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association has now spoken up about the effect of the transfers on future power charges, and Mr Manning has realised that it is a poor system of financing to have to raise further electricity loans to finance what boils down to be hand-outs to city ratepayers. “The practical effect of my suggestions tonight would be that the first portion of our contribution to the town hall would come from the M.E.D. and be proportionate to benefits already received by City Council ratepayers from 1960 onwards. Waimairi would meet, in due course, all further commitments in full with a special town hall rate,” said Cr. Rice, who is chairman of the council’s finance committee. He then moved an amendment that the Waimairi council’s just share of the cost of the hall could be agreed on only when the City Council undertook to transfer to the town ball fund on behalf of other territorial authorities such amount certified by an independent firm of accountants as being necessary to compensate ratepayers in those areas for benefits received from the electricity account from 1960 onwards by city ratepayers only. Seconding the amendment, Cr. A. A. Adcock said the City

Council had taken a most unreasonable attitude. He referred to a decision made by his council several years ago to improve street lighting in the county. “Although we were prepared to pay for it, the M.E.D., controlled by the City Council, would not permit the work to be done,” he said. Amendment Lost The chairman (Mr J. I. Colllgan) and Cr. A. E. Wagner said they could not support the amendment, which was lost by three votes to two. The council adopted a finance committee recommendation confirming a resolution passed by metropolitan local bodies on May 27. This recommended to all constituent councils represented at the meeting the adoption in principle of the proposed stage 1 development of the town hall project, as set out in the planning sub-committee’s report: (a) that the proportion of the cost of the project be determined by the mean of capital value and population: and (b) that the upper limit of the cost of the town hall, land fees, etc., less the amount to be provided by Town Hall promotion, be £1,250,000.