Farmers say they may not pay rate rise

Press, 17 May 1986, Page 2

Farmers say they may not pay rate rise

North Canterbury Federated Farmers groups have written two letters to the North Canterbury Catchment Board protesting against the board’s proposed 15 per cent Increase in rates this year. Both letters warned that farmers would resist payment of any board rate increase.

The board decided yesterday to seek consultations with the farmers’ groups and requested a general statement to them from the board chairman, Mr R. B. Johnson. Mr F. F. Wilding suggested that the board’s chief executive, Mr Ray Wood, follow up Cheviot Federated Farmers’ interest in discussing the rates with him. Mr Wood said a revised equalisation certificate of property values had shown a trend for rural values to be falling in comparison with urban values.

“The result of this is that even though the draft rating figures have increased 15 per cent some counties will be required to collect less rates for the board,” he said. They included Akaroa, Amuri, Cheviot, Hurunui, Malvern, Oxford and Wairewa. “If the board was to continue the momentum of its current operations it would have to impose a 27 per cent rate increase. The 15 per cent increase therefore represents a substantial reduction in board operations,” he said. The board had been

able to revise and reduce expenditure on some items but it also had to accommodate lower income estimates, Mr Wood said. The board agreed to 1986-87 estimated expenditure of $4.07 million up from last year’s estimate of $3.64 million. The board decided on a rate income of $2.83 million, up from $2.48 million last year, and a budget deficit at March 31, 1987, of about $2O million. This compares with a credit balance at March 31, 1986 of about $370,000 which will be spent this year. Water right investigations The board decided five to three to charge 100 per cent of the direct investigative costs on specific water rights. This overturned a previous policy of charging the water right applicant 50 per cent of direct investigative costs. The board decision followed an attempted amendment to recover 75 per cent of the costs which was rejected five votes to three. About 50 per cent of total water right costs could be recovered from the applicant with this new decision, the board’s group leader in groundwater, Mr John Talbot, said.

“The board will still have to pay for such costs as processing water right inquiries, microfilming and maintenance of the board computer,” he said.