County acting like a ‘flirtatious woman’

Press, 1 May 1981, Page 4

County acting like a ‘flirtatious woman’

The Mount Herbert County Council's proposed transfer of administative and engineering services to the Lyttelton Borough Council was likened. ,to the action of a "fickle and flirtatious woman" at a meeting of the Heathcote County Council last evening. These services are at present carried out by the Heathcote County. . Cr 0. T. Alpers said that three times Mount Herbert County had asked Heathcote County to provide administrative and engineering services and three times it had taken its business elsewhere. Heathcote County had found out at the end of 1980, as the. result of a "clerical error,” that' Mount Herbert county had been offered these services by Lyttelton Borough. Heathcote County had not heard from . Lyttelton borough or Mount Herbert County until April when it had been told that Mount Herbert County was transferring the serices. At., a meeting with a Heathcote County sub-com-mittee the chairman of the Mount Herbert County, Mrs Katrina Gardiner, had made

it clear that her council was not prepared to enter into any negotiations with Heathcote County or give Heathcote County any chance to right alleged causes of dissatisfaction. Mount Herbert County had also refused to consider a suggestion that the wider question of local-body reorganisation should be looked

at before tinkering with the minor issues of providing services.

The principal factor in transferring these services seemed to be that Lyttelton Borough could offer the service more cheaply. Heathcote County had charged for these services at cost. It was likely that Lyttelton Borough would for the next year at least be subsidising Mount Herbert County. The new union, between a regressing port town and a small but prosperous rural area, was strange. He would have expected Lyttelton Borough to be more concerned with providing proper sewerage and rubbish-dis-posal facilities, urban renewal, and with resolving some, of its social problems instead of “trying to extend its geographical sphere of influence.”

Heathcote County was willing to negotiate with Lyttelton Borough and Mount Herbert County about the reorganisation of local government in the Port Hills area but it would be wary of proposals for future indefinite arrangements such as Mount Herbert County had

had with Heathcote County in the past.

Cr J. Richardson said that he dissociated himself with Cr Alpers' remarks. Heathcote County existed for the benefits of its ratepayers.

The transfer of services to Lyttelton Borough would relieve Heathcote County's staff of much work. He was not convinced that Heathcote County had not subsidised Mount Herbert County. Mrs Gardiner said last evening that details of the arrangement between Lyttelton Borough and Mount Herbert County had not been finalised. It was subject to both sides being satisfied with a number of details.

There were a number of reasons for Mount Herbert County's transferring .these services. Mount Herbert County and Lyttelton Borough probably had more in common that Mount Herbert County and Heathcote County. A secondary factor was that, initially at least, the cost to Mount Herbert County would be less. The transfer would probably take place about the end of July.