A submission made by the council on the Government's proposal to address earthquake-prone buildings said the changes were ''completely disproportionate'' to the level of risk involved.
It questioned whether the economic and community costs of the proposals were the best use of the community's resources.
In the submission adopted at last week's council meeting, Clutha Mayor Bryan Cadogan said the council accepted that prudent measures needed to be taken on the issue in response to the tragic events in Christchurch in 2011.
However, any changes needed to be proportionate to the risk, he said.
Clutha had been assessed as having a very low relative earthquake risk and the council's resources and ratepayers' money would be better channelled towards improving core infrastructure and/or mitigating against the many other risks that individuals and communities faced, he said.
''We are being asked to spend millions of dollars on earthquake assessments for very little benefit. It is difficult to imagine the Government intends this to be a benchmark for cost-effectiveness and efficiency.''
A desktop study carried out on behalf of 10 South Island councils estimated the new rules would require the Clutha District Council to assess around 2500 buildings in the district defined as earthquake-prone, at a cost of about $3.1 million over five years. The study forecast around 650 buildings would then have to be strengthened at a total cost of around $153 million - an average of $235,000 per building.
The $3.1 million for council assessment equates to an extra $600,000 per year on rates or a 3% increase. The funding for this would have to come from other activities such as roading, water services and so on despite the fact that they may well be a better investment of ratepayers' money, Mr Cadogan said.
''As a result of concerns about earthquake risk we have already seen the closure of courthouses and banks, leading to the direct loss of employment and service to rural communities. The current proposals impose more costs and shortened time frames, so will only exacerbate these impacts.''
The council ultimately wanted to see local authorities, communities and individuals make their own decisions about how best to prioritise their spending, Mr Cadogan said.helena.dereus@odt.co.nz
