Ratepayers unhappy with council replies

Press, 24 January 1986, Page 5

Ratepayers unhappy with council replies

Christchurch City politicians are scoring political points rather than answering genuine ratepayer questions, says the chairman of the Christchurch Ratepayers' Protection Committee, Mr Kim Pettengell. He is unhappy with the reaction of City Council politicians to the formation of his committee, but delighted with community support for the group. "I was disgusted by the way Labour and Citizens Association spokesmen used the formation of our committee to score political points off each other. “It demonstrates just how much politics has apparently polluted the debate and decision-mak-ing around the City Council table, and perhaps explains why the cost of local government is so much higher in Christchurch City than in other areas which do not have party politics,” he said.

Mr Pettengell said ratepayers could no longer rely on either Citizens or Labour effectively to restrain council expenditure.

Labour councillors had said rates were too high but could do nothing because of a Citizens majority.

“All we can conclude from this claim is that our Labour councillors are ineffectual and there is little point in their being there,” Mr Pettengell said.

Ratepayers could also conclude that “our Citizens Association councillors are extracting more money from the ratepayers than the City administration actually needs,” he said.

He dismissed the comments of the Citizens Association chairman, Mr Newton Dodge, that the newly formed committee, which now numbers eight, was a pressure group that wanted the council to put individual interests above those of the city as a whole. "Our concern is for all City ratepayers. We believe all City ratepayers would be better off if we had a better run City administration.”

Mr Pettengell said he had had several hair-rais-ing accounts of “City Council wastage and inefficiency” recounted to him since the committee was formed. Each would be investigated before being made public.

“We want to find out why, on average, City rates assessments are more than $2OO a year higher than those in Riccarton, Heathcote, Paparua or Waimairi. Why, per head of population, the rates in the City are 50 per cent higher. Why, per household, the City charges the average homeowner $lOO a year more ... to provide basically the same services?” Mr Pettengell based those questions on figures

given in the joint City Council and Waimairi District Council working party report and the 73page, $50,000 report commissioned by Waimairi from two consultancy firms, Gabites, Porter and Partners, and Brown Copeland and Company, Ltd.

The Gabites report lists the rates per household for the 1984-85 year for the five councils, as Riccarton $lO6, Heathcote $ll5, Paparua $llB, Waimairi $ll4 and City $l6B.

It also lists the rates per rates assessment, which includes commercial ratepayers, as Riccarton $327, Heathcote $309, Paparua $321, Waimairi $403 and City $649. In the joint report a comparison by council staff, using equalised values, showed the City rated at 1.03 c in the dollar and other councils at between 0.65 c and 0.75 c in the dollar.

The Gabites report was sent with Waimairi submissions to the Local Government Commission.

Mr Pettengell said a number of people had offered their services to the rates committee. The four new members had useful specialist skills in town planning, sociology, resource management, law and reporting of local bodies.