DRAINAGE RATES

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26120, 24 May 1950, Page 6

DRAINAGE RATES

Board’s Spending This Year

NEW VALUATIONS EXPLAINED

On a capital revaluation increasing the value of the whole of its district by £9.000,000, the Christchurch Drainage Board will this year levy for a sum I £3578 ' greater than last year. The total levies are £203,234. I

“There is considerable confusion of thought among ratepayers generally about the effect that the new valuations oi properties will have on their rates this year,” said the chairman (Mr E. H. S. Hamilton), when rating resolutions were adopted last evening by the board. “As it is already apparent that many people believe that an increase in valuation will mean an automatic increase in rates, some explanation is necessary to correct such a false impression. A substantial overall increase in the valuations of a district does not necessarily mean a substantial, or indeed any increase in rates.

“When striking a rate over a particular area the local authority concerned estimates its expenditure for the coming year and divides the total by the valuation of the area, thus arriving at the rate in the £. The higher the total valuation the smaller is the rate in the £ required to produce the necessary amount. Not all the new valuation rolls are available, but as the missing figures relate to a small part only of the board’s district it has been possible to arrive at a total on which to base our calculations after allowing a margin for contingencies.

“The total amount of rates which the ratepayers as a whole are required to pay is a matter within the control of the rating authority, but the proportion that an individual citizen has to pay of such total is beyond the control of such authority, being determined by the value placed on his property by an independent Government department." The point that the higher the total f valuation of an area the smaller was j the rate in the £ required to produce ; an unchanged amount in rales could be i illustrated by a comparison of the! figures relating to the board’s No. 5 ' rate account. For the 1949-50 year, the I amount received by the board from that district was £99,206 from a rate of | 1 3-16 d on the capital value of £20.047,279. For the 1950-51 year the amount estimated as required from the same district vzas £98.108, and the rate required to be levied was 107/128J on a capital value of £29.544,090. Wages Increase Last year the board’s levies on all its district totalled £199,656, and for the current rating year the total was £203.234. which was only £3578 more, an increase of 1.8 per cent. General wage increases since June 1 last more than accounted for the increase. It was estimated that the total of the capital valuations of the whole of the board’s land drainage district this year I would be about 43 per cent, higher than last year, the comparative figures being £45.058.625 in 1949-50 and | £64.478,295 in 1950-51. To produce the board’s requirements the following rates, said Mr Hamilton, would have to be levied:— Sewerage area: 21.G4d, a decrease of 5.64 d. No. 5 rate account: 107.128 d, a decrease of 45.128 d. Sumner: 39.64 d. a decrease of 25.64 d. New Brighton: 41.64 d, a decrease of 13.128 d. No. 1 rate account: 5.512 d, an increase of 1.512 d. Land drainage: 29.128 d, a decrease of 9.123 d. As soon as the pumping station now being built in New Brighton was completed the laying of sewers would be carried out. and increases in the rate levied on that district were inevitable, said Mr Hamilton. The board held very important work to carry out in the improvement of land drainage, and that would involve work on the further improvement of the rivers Avon and Heathcote, and of the estuary. Provision had been made in the estimates for the purchase of additional plant, and the work of protecting Christchurch and its suburbs from flooding by sjorm waters was to be proceeded with a.s rapidly as possible. “Difficulty of Comparisons” “You say rates have not gone up.” said Mr R. Jones. “I say they have.” It was difficult to make comparisons because of the change in valuations, said Mr Hamilton. The rate per £lO6O of capital valuation was now £1 7s 4d against £1 13s lOd last year. Mr J. E. Jones: It sounds good—(laughter). Mr R. Jones: Funny money! On the No. 5 account, the rate per £lOOO of capital value was £3 9s Bd, against £4 19s. continued Mr Hamilton. The Sumner rate was £2 10s 9d. against £4 3s 4d. New Brighton £2 13s sd. against £3 Is lOd. the No. 1 account lOd. against Bd. and land drainage 18s 3d. against £1 4s 9d. "It is impossible Io make a comparison.” Mr Hamilton said. “The point is that we are only asking for £3578 more, over a valuation which has increased by £9.000.000.” Details of the estimates are:— Amount Increase

Required. Increase, on Lev} Sewerage area 36.765 2,030 1,668 No. 5 Rate Account 98,108 3.661 *1,098 Sumner .. 3.661 *443 *605 New Brighton 4,475 772 463 No. 1 Rate Account 2 273 820 946 Land drainage 57,952 2.990 2,204 203.234 9,830 3,578