ON AMALGAMATION

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 249, 9 July 1918, Page 6

ON AMALGAMATION

IMPORTANT MEMORANDUM BY HIS WORSHIP THE MAYOR USEFUL COMPARATIVE FIGURES During tho post year there has been a great deal of speculation as to tho advisability of tho city of Wellington extending it's boundaries so as to take in such neighbouring boroughs as Miramar, Karon, and Onslow. The procedure followed in an amalgamation of tho kind is largely built up on sentiment, and can never be made an exact proposal on a hard cash basis. Usually ohe. important consideration is tho prospect on the part of those who live in the suburbs that are proposed to be absorbed of tetter services, such as water, drainage, and tramways, whilst tho city authorities may hold that whilst a good return in rates is assured, they will be able to carry out the administrative and executive work more economically than if complete staffs were needed for each separately-controlled district. The Mayor has prepared an interesting memorandum on the subject, copies of which have been handed (o each member of the council, and which, it is suggested, gives a good basis on which tho whole subject of amalgamation could be discussed. Wellington is destined to become a great city by reason of her central position and manifold natural advantages, and the Mayor would naturally like to see the city's bounds flung back during hie regime. His memorandum is as follows:— No Short Cut. "Tlie proposal to amalgamate some of the adjacent local bodies with the ciiy has been prominently before the public for some tinio. In my opinion, it is desirablo that the Wellington City Council should come to ft resolution as to its policy in regard to the proposal to extend the city's governing function, it will be useless for the adjoining boroughs to propound a scheme and prepare data to bring before the City Council unless the council is willing to give effect to u mutually agreed undertaking without unnecessary delay. "There is no short cijt in' settling conditions .of amalgamation of local authorities as there may bo in bringing about unions of industrial and commercial concerns, where the volume of trado and return for capital invested are tho dominant features. "A good deal of sentiment and local association has' to bo removed before amalgamation can he attained, and the question must not lie considered primarily as to what is being given; tnere is tlie more important one of what is best for the community as a whole, and whether progress in a district can bo better scoured by being, incorporated with other bodies, which will permit the groater number of public services being available at the minimum cost. "The importance of a metropolitan area for water, drainage, light, transit, and other services need not now be stressed, but it is as important to the residents of the city it is to tho smaller communities adjacent to tho city that congestion of population should bo'relieved, and healthy recreation and attractive surroundings should ba enjoyed by nil. i"I hiivo prepared some figures for your consideration, and trust on .perusal of same, with such other information that may bo forthcoming, you will dorermine what is the duty to our citizens aud our interests in. the other localities concerned. A Commissioner Suggested. "I would suggest that the City Council invito tho othor local bodies to join them in appointing a competent person to examine tho wholo proposal of amalgamation, and produce data and reports for consideration 0/ the authorities concerned. I have- not included Johnsouville Town Board in the comparative figures, but I would advise, if you would agree to my suggestion, that the Johnsonvillo Board's request for consideration when a scheme is being set up should be complied with. "The following statistics will enable you to compare in some measure the 1 financial positions of the different local bodies:— Area PopulaDistrict. , (acres) tion. Wellington 9,650 7.1,305 Onslow , 2,000 2,191 Karori 2,2-10 1,674 Miramar 2,251 2,158 Jtateable Vahio value. per head. £ £s. d. Wellington 20,501,100 279 13 5 Onslow 525,613 239 17 11 Karori 491,066 293 10 5 Miramar 766,737 355 G 0 Total net Per indebtedness head. £ £ s. d. Wellington 1,939,307 26 9 1 Onslow 12.919 5 18 2 Karori 74,873 45 9 2 Miramar 107,641 49 17 7 Total annual Per charge. head. £ £&. (1. Wellington 119.231 1 12 6 Onslow 816 , 0 7 5 Karori 5,030 3 1 1 Miramar 6,936 3-13 Revenue from Bates (including. Per Kpecial) head. .£ i £ s. d. Wellington 174,841 2 .7 S Onslow 4,078 117 2 Karori 8,752 5 6 3 Miramar ■ 11,565 5 7 2 Total .Assets. £ ' ■ Wellington 3,557,502 Onslow .". 4,180 Karori 64,132 Miramar 53,017 "The above assets do not include reserves, Town Belt, drainage, or streets. * Expenses of , management. Per cent. £ of receipts. Wellington 14,114 21 percent. Onslow 862 19 percent. Karori 1,305 1\ percent. Mirainnr t!46 2J~ per cent. "As to tho expenses of management, Miramar's position as compared with Karori and Onslow is proportionate to tho services contracted for by: it with the City Council; Miramar lias' trams, light, water (and some sanitation) provided bj: the City Council, the, cost of management being a charge on the City Council's cost of management; the small cost to Miramar for booking as compared to paying managing charges, if they (Miramar) wero directly carrying out the services, must bo apparent—Karori, which contracts with tho city for transit and light, has no receipts for water or sanitation, and Onslow." which only contracts out for electric light, is consequently high on account of its administration being on just street yhrks, etc. A study of the figures will indicate to all well-wishers for progress in the smaller boroughs thiif; nmaleuniation with the cily is desirable."'-.