Fire Board Problem Compromise

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31150, 29 August 1966, Page 12

Fire Board Problem Compromise

A compromise solution to the problem of local body representation on the Christchurch Metropolitan Fire Board found favour at a meeting of local body representatives with the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath) on Saturday. The representatives will now refer the matter to their councils.

The issue was that the Waimairi County Council, with other local bodies outside the city area, had proposed that the present number of three Christchurch City Council representatives on the Fire Board be reduced to two, and that instead of one representative for the other councils, one should be appointed to represent Waimairi and one the remaining councils.

The City Council objected to this proposal, which was made because it was felt representation on the board was unbalanced.

Mr Seath suggested what he described as a workable compromise: the alternating of a member among the city and the other areas in alternate three-year terms. Thus, in one term the present representation of three city and one other representative would be retained; in the next term the city would have two representatives, the others also having two. In the terms when the city had three rep-

resentatives —as in the remaining two years of the present term—one representative of the outer areas could attend the board meetings as an observer, this observer possibly becoming the full member in the alternating term.

He felt this arrangement would fill the bill. Mi Seath said, at least until there were moves for a larger board. Presenting the objection on behalf of the Christchurch City Council, Crs. N. G. Pickering and W. E. Olds submitted that under Waimairi’s proposal, representation would be more disproportionate than at present, with two City Council members representing

61.7 per cent of levies, one Waimairi member 21.6 per cent, and one member for the other local bodies representing 16.7 per cent. The metropolitan district was adequately and equitably served by the board as at present constituted.

Crs. Pickering and Olds submitted that the Fire Board area comprised the city of Christchurch, the boroughs of Riccarton and Lyttelton, Waimairi County anil parts of the counties of Paparua, Heathcote and Halswell. Contributors to the board’s finances were insurance companies 50 per cent, local bodies 40 per cent, and the Government 10 per cent.

Contributions from local bodies were assessed on the value of improvements of each local body. The present ratio of levies, Christchurch 61.7 per cent and the other 38.3 per cent, appeared disproportionate, but this was due mainly to the rapid growth in the value of improvements in Waimairi County. Two years ago the proportion was Christchurch 64.5 per cent and the rest, 35.5 per cent. The amount of levies in 1966-67 was Christchurch, £50,094, » Heathcote £2558, Halswell £1064, Paparua £6156, Waimairi £17,486, Riccarton £2680, and Lyttelton £ll7B. Mr Seath said if one calculated strictly on a levy basis, to retain three members, the Christchurch city should be contributing 75 per cent, while other areas need contribute only 25 per cent to retain their present level of representation. Five or six years ago the Christchurch city levy comprised about 68 per cent of the total, and that of the other local bodies was about 32 per cent. However, this had been gradually changing, and Christchurch should recognise that its proportion was decreasing as that of the other areas grew. Crs. Olds and Pickering both spoke favourably of the Minister’s suggestions, describing them as most interesting and meriting serious consideration. They would urge them to the City Council. Mr Seath expressed satisfaction at the way the meeting had gone and at its acceptance of his suggestions. It seemed to him the meeting had resulted in the formulation of a workable solution to the problem.