Marginal Increase In City Rates

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30469, 17 June 1964, Page 16

Marginal Increase In City Rates

Christchurch ratepayers have reason to be satisfied that the City Council has been able to avoid anything more than a marginal increase in rates and that the biggest part of the small increase is for necessary improvements to a notably good water supply, This result is possible only because of two small windfalls. One is the grant of £23,000 from the Government, ostensibly in lieu of rates on Crown properties but really to quieten the municipalities’ claim for a citizens’ tax. The second is the' renewed transfer to the general account of £50,000 from Municipal Electricity Department profits. But for these two items the increase in the general rate would have been not three thirty-seconds of a penny but fourteen thirty-seconds.

As to the first item, it can be predicted that grants on so low a scale will not satisfy municipalities or their ratepayers for long. As to the second, the principle of drawing on M.E.D„ profits for the relief of rates is wrong; but it will probably be continued until a better way is found to relieve ratepayers of some of the burden of providing amenities and utilities from which they derive no particular, direct benefit. This much may be said for the transfer: that on so modest a scale it can have little influence on the M.E.D. tariff and that it leaves the M.E.D. a useful profit to plough back into its continuallyexpanding business. Domestic users of electricity still get their power cheaply.

The substantial increase in the city’s relatively small expenditure on the water supply is. not unwelcome, because it is evidently part of a coherent policy to preserve the great natural advantages. of Christchurch. Metering is important, although the small return from excess water does not pay for the installation and servicing of meters. They prevent the waste of water; and even assuming our artesian supply to be inexhaustible, pumping and piping costs increase with use. The council is also rightly concerned about the purity Of the supply, as much a feature of the Christchurch water as its cheapness. The council is wise to explore the possibility of using the legislative powers already existing for the establishment of an underground water authority. So far Christchurch has had no real water supply problems; and it need have none if the local authorities in the metropolitan area are vigilant.