Akaroa rating

Press, 27 June 1987, Page 20

Akaroa rating

Sir,—We view with concern the possibility of uniform annual charges being dropped in the Akaroa County (May 30). As landowners, we see this form of rating as something that is fair and equitable to all ratepayers.

not, as the article states, “a charge benefiting larger properties.” All of us use the county to some extent (e.g., in administration) and for this all of us should pay our fair share. It costs exactly the same to send out a rate demand for $3OOO as $3 and now, with these rate demands three times a year (with instalment rating), we feel that, even more so, these uniform annual charges represent a fair rating base. I am sure that the council’s new computer can remedy the administration difficulties. If not, one must ask if this. multithousand dollar piece of equipment is really justified? — Yours, etc., R. CRAW, Chairman, Banks Peninsula Federated Farmers.

[The Akaroa County Clerk, Mr L. W. M. Graham, replies: “The correspondent’s comments relating to the uniform annual charge are fair, but only represent one side of the argument. Ratepayers in the rural ridings of the Akaroa County are evenly divided between urban and rural and many ratepayers live permanently outside the county boundaries. The reason for introducing a uniform annual charge during the 1986-87 rating year was to share the rating burden more equitably between the rural residential (semi-urban) property and the large rural holding. The basis for this decision was that the council was aware that the new property

valuations would, when coming into effect on April 1, 1987, substantially change the incidence . of rating, resulting in a reduction in rates on the larger rural properties. The council felt it was fair to anticipate this change and the rural ratepayers gained the benefit.”]