Museum funding plan supported

Press, 3 November 1981, Page 6

Museum funding plan supported

A funding formula for the Canterbury Museum, using capital value, population, and distance factors, has been adopted in principle by a a meeting of the contributing local bodies.

Each local body will consider the formula and make submissions to the Museum Trust Board.

The meeting was called to discuss the future funding of the museum and to eliminate the need for the board to ask local bodies for extra contributions when its budget was exceeded. The board’s accountant (Mr K. J. Jensen), told the meeting that if such a funding system was not adopted the museum would not survive next year. / The chairman of the board’s finance committee? Mr A. M. Henderson,: said that the . museum had been caught up in a wage spiral which, along with inflation, made it difficult to budget. The planetarium mechanism needed to be.replaced and a quote, several years- ago for this work had been $50,000. The heating system also,needed to'be improved unless “a very large cool store” was wanted in the middle ofChristchurch. This would cost about $16,000.

The funding formula presented to the meeting was similar to that used for the Otago Museum. The Mayor of Riccarton (Mr R. W. J. Harrington) said that the formula was the best museum-finance measure he had' seen for some time. It was a ’‘very equitable” way of apportioning the: cost of running the museum - and he recommended that it be adopted by the local, bodies. / .

But many representatives at the meeting did not want to adopt, the formula without consulting /-their; -councils. They had not been, able to see the/formula before attending'the meeting. Several.?./ representatives from outlying counties wanted the funding to be based on population, without taking capital value into account.

The chairman of the Eyre

. County Council, Mr C. Tyson, said: “The valuation emphasis is too great on the rural areas, several rural areas have a greater capital value while the value in some urban areas is declining; .“It seems to get away from the user-pay principle. We want this to be entirely population-based.” Mrs M. Cretney, of the Lyttelton Borough Council, said that there would always be conflict on the funding of the museum. “Urban councils will always want capital value because they will pay less, and rural councils will want it. based on population because they will pay less,” she said. Some councils, such as Lyttelton Borough, had their own museums to finance as . well as the Canterbury Museum. The Christchurch Town Clerk (Mr J. H. Gray) said that capital value needed to be included in the formula because it would keep pace with inflation.' Populations in • most areas were static or declining and did ' not increase with inflation.

' A move ;■ to fund the museum on a population basis only was lost.

A suggestion to. charge admission to themuseum was not favoured by most representatives at the meeting.

Ms Vicki Buck, from the Christchurch City Council, said that the idea should be scrapped because it did not make economic sense.

Sir Terence McCombs, also from the City Council, said that for the museum to be totally run on a user-pay basis the admission fee would have to be about $l2 a person. • ,

. . The chairman of the board ■(Mr Hamish Hay) said that the council representatives should ask their councils to press for a Government contribution to the running of the museum. He suggested that remits on the matter be forwarded to local body conferences.

The museum did a “considerable amount”, in the national interest,in both preservation and research work, but did not receive any Government assistance.