AUCKLAND'S RATES

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 119, 22 May 1930, Page 11

AUCKLAND'S RATES

ON ANNUAL VALUE BASIS

WELLINGTON'S DEMANDS

. A : PI . CS9 Association message from Auckland states that an iucrua.se in the total rates to 4s in the £ has been approved bj» the City Council. The estimates as submitted required a total rate of 4s 2d, but the estimates were cut to enable tho rate to be fixed as 'is. On the face of it, tho Auckland rate of 4.5 -in the £ is a fearsome burden for ratepayers to shoulder in comparison with Wellington's total rate of T> 167-200 din the &, but in fact there may not bo a great deal of difference as far as tho average ratepayer is eoucerned. The explanation is that Auckland's rates are struck on annual value and Wellington's on unimproved value; the bases are entirely different. Annual value for rating purposes, is, broadly speaking, the actual rental value of .the property less 20 per cent.; i.e., this basis has to do with the buildings erocted on tho land. In cases where the building is not let (as where tho tenant, is tho owner), the rental is determined by comparison with rentals of other properties nearby. Unimproved value takes the value of Hie land alone into account. •

An Auckland residence' which is let at £2 : per week would be assessed under the annual valuo system at £104 less (20 per cent.) £21—£83 per year; at 4s in the £, say £10 12s per anuum.

Wellington's rate, demands are to be issued this year on 17th July, rather earlier than usual, as the council finalised its side of the business, by determining the estimates, a week or .two earlier than it has been,able to do in the past. ■ Ratepayers will find a small increase '.on'their demands, due to about a farthing's difference accounted for by higher hospital demands and by 'additional"interest and sinking fund charges to be met this year on unemployment relief, street-widening and other special loans raised during tho past year. Charges in respect of the Mount Victoria tunnel 'will not' be felt till next year.

LUMP VALUATIONS AGAIN. There was a big fuss last year over the stand taken1 l>y the Valuation Department that contiguous^ properties under single ownership should be valued as one ' property, i.e., should an owner-possess a residence on_ one section and hold six empty sections in a line-along the street, a lump valuation is made; or, in the city area, a lump valuation is given of a block of shops under one ownership. The first class of ratepayer above found himseli:, billed up for-full water rates for his seven sections, though water was usod(on one only, whereas previoxisly half water rates only were charged for vacant sections. In the second case the shopowner found himself involved in endless arguments with his tenants. The city rate authorities found themselves involved with arguments with everyone 'concerned. ■■'"•: . It was decided to make representations to the Government with a view to having the Department's ruling as to lump valuations reviewed, but so far that ruling stands, and the probability is that there will be plenty more argument and ■ anoyance this year. Though the council may bo in full, agreement with those who 'say. that lump valuations are wrong, it has no power to strike rates on any basis or arrangement' other than that of the valuation roll. , ■