"I'm appalled at the Central Lakes Trust's attitude on this," board member John Lane said at yesterday's board meeting in Roxburgh.
The Millers Flat Hall Committee had received grants from the trust, the board and the Otago Community Trust to boost the funds it had raised to reroof the hall.
Project convener Pat Garden said the committee carried out the project management itself, saving about $3000.
Initially, the trust approved a grant of up to $16,000 to cover the shortfall, but ended up paying $9425.
In a letter to the trust, Mr Garden suggested it should still pay the full amount and the "surplus" funds be apportioned to the four funders of the project.
He believed the committee had been penalised by doing the project management itself and coming in under budget.
"We should have wiped our hands of the project management. We should have employed a professional to lay the Batts while we got on with our own jobs, and sent in the bill," Mr Garden said.
The stance by the trust would encourage community groups to spend all the money budgeted, whether needed or not, he said.
He asked the community board, which had agreed to fund up to $9000 towards the hall roof but contributed $4985, to give another $1000 towards the project.
Board chairman Stephen Jeffery said he thought the board was "duty-bound" to pay the extra $1000.
"Doing the project managing themselves saved them money but cost them money - they'd have been better off sitting home and watching TV," he said.
Mr Lane said legally the trust might be right, but morally it was wrong.
Central Otago Mayor Malcolm Macpherson had been attacking the Dunedin City Council for "raping and pillaging the people of Central Otago through line charges", but the trust, which was the beneficiary of the sale of the lines, seemed to be doing the same thing when projects came in under cost, he said.
Trust chairman Duncan Butcher told the Otago Daily Times when approached last night the hall committee's grant was clearly tagged with conditions right at the start and was aimed at ensuring enough money was available to get the project done.
The trust had underwritten the project.
"They [the hall committee] felt we should still pay the full amount and everyone contributing should get some money back, but not everyone had underwritten the project," he said.
The committee had worked hard on the project and did well to complete the project under budget.
"That $6000 [kept by the trust] will be distributed back into the community, so the community gets it back one way or another," Mr Butcher said.
The board resolved to pay $1000 to the hall committee, to be used to connect water to the hall, and will also seek clarification from the trust on its funding policy when projects are underspent and more than one funder is involved.
