Kaiapoi permitted to quit scheme

Press, 16 December 1981, Page 1

Kaiapoi permitted to quit scheme

The Metropolitan Refuse Disposal Committee last evening gave its approval to the withdrawal of the Kaiapoi Borough Council from the committee.

But in doing so the committee insisted that the terms of the committee’s constitution be met.

The constitution requires that any member withdrawing must give 12 months notice of its intention.

Under its terms, the Kaiapoi council would have to pay a year’s subscription, or more than $20,000, to the committee for that 12 months.

The Kaiapoi council had given notice that “owing to the rejection of the landfill site (and) the probable decision that, the Northern Transfer Station will not be proceeded with,” it wished to withdraw. The council had also advised that it would pay nothing further to the scheme as it believed that the terms of the original contract had not been fulfilled.

Cr I. G. Clark said that Kaiapoi should be allowed to withdraw from the Refuse

Committee with no financial penalty because the existing scheme was not the scheme Kaiapoi had joined. “Kaiapoi came into the scheme in the belief that there would be three transfer stations and one in the northern area that would service the Kaiapoi area,” he said.

“We are now in a situation where it looks as though we will not have a northern station, or at least not one that could service Kaiapoi.”

Cr E. C. Britnell said that under the terms of the constitution, “any loss or increased expenditure” caused by Kaiapoi’s withdrawal could be recovered from the Kaiapoi Borough Council.

“The Refuse Committee would have difficulty in showing that Kaiapoi has caused any extra expenditure because of its withdrawal,” he said.

Cr- A. A. Adcock said that because of Kaiapoi’s withdrawal the committee would not have to meet the costs of the mini-transfer station for the borough. Cr D. C. Close agreed that Kaiapoi’s withdrawal would actually be to the advantage

of the metropolitan refuse scheme as a whole. “It is not a case of the scheme’s collapsing without Kaiapoi,” he said.

Kaiapoi was represented at the meeting by Cr Peggy Wade. The council was not hoping to set a precedent by withdrawing, she said. It had made a contribution per capita to the scheme equal to the other councils, and would now be looking at a contribution within the North Canterbury area.

The committee voted its approval of Kaiapoi’s withdrawing under the terms of the constitution.

Cr Clark then moved that the council be allowed to withdraw without having to pay next year’s subscription. “It is morally indefensible to charge them for something which they are not going to use,” he said. The chairman of the committee, Cr H. A. Clark, disallowed the motion on the ground that it was a direct negative of the first motion. A vote by committee members reversed the chairman’s decision, and i the motion was voted on but lost.