CITY PROPERTIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24221, 13 February 1940, Page 10

CITY PROPERTIES

RECENT VALUATIONS POSITION OF COUNCIL NO INTERFERENCE WITH VALUER EXPLANATION BY MAYOR A full statement of the position of the City Council with regard to the recent valuations of property made by the city valuer was given at last night’s meeting of the council by the Mayor (Mr A. H. Allen) following the receipt of three letters of protest from ratepayers’ associations in the city against the’ increases in the rateable value of properties. Mr Allen emphasised that it was illegal for the council, collectively or individually, to interfere with the making of valuations, and that the valuer was removed by law from the control of the council. He also stated definitely that no direction had been given to the valuer before the present values were fixed. In the discussion that followed the Mayor’s statement the majority of the councillors agreed that the explanation fully covered the position. Cr D. G. McMillan. M.P.. considered that the belief of some citizens that the council controlled the valuer could be traced back to advertisements _ published by the Citizens’ Association during the last election. Erroneous Statements "From time to time,” the Mayor said “statements are made that the Council in some way can and does control and influence the making of city rateable valuations. The statement is quite contrary to the truth. Every successive council has been the subject of the same charge, and, despite authorised statements made m council and explanations given per medium of the press, attempts are still made to implicate in some way the council as at least an influence in causing rateable values to rise. “Once again, therefore, it is necesjary to explain just how impossible and illegal it would be for the council, either collectively or individually, or’, indeed, any officer of the council, to interfere in any way with the making of valuations. The city valuer is a statutory officer, appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Rating Act, 1925. His duties are specifically laid down by that Act, as is also the method upon which he is to make his rating assessments. The city valuer is placed by the law in much the same position as the Auditorrgeneral, in that he is removed, and rightly so, beyond the control of the governing body, in relation to the performance of his functions. Offence Against the Law "Section 4 (6) of the Rating Act” Mr Allen continued, “emphasises that aspect by making it an offence for anyone to interfere with the valuer. The section reads as follows; —‘Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding £lO who obstructs a valuer in the performance of his duty herein . . .’ “In order more effectively to remove any possibility of the local body having any possible influence on valuations, the Act referred to/in making full provision for the making of objections to the valuer’s assessments, contitutes, not the local body, but an independent judicial tribunal, known as the Assessment Court, to hear and determine, all objections to valuations. The magistrate is the judge of court, and the Act specifically provides: ‘That the court shall hear and determine all objections, and may alter the valuation list and in respect of anything objected to . . “ Hence it Will be seen that the valuer is made fully accountable for his valuations, and that he must be prepared to prove his assessments not, as already stated, to the council, but to a judicial tribunal. Precisely the same considerations apply to valuations made by the Government valuers. In that case also, the valuers are not answerable to the Government for their assessments, but are required to submit to the determination of an assessment court. The principles are the same in both cases—that there should be no interference by the governing authorities, and that the appeal by the property owner is to an independent judicial tribunal. Government Revaluation “Recently a complete revaluation of the city was made by the Government Valuation Department,” the Mayor said. “It is perhaps opportune to point out that as a result of such revaluation it is understood that the capital value of the city will be advanced from £18,450,302 approximately to £22,183,605 or by the very substantial increase of £3,733,303. This increase affects every individual ratepayer in the city because the Hospital Board levy is based on Government values—not on city assessments. “It need only be added that the council is concerned, and narticularly so, in the prospect cf any increase in local rates or charges. Any substantial advance in basic rating values, whether local or not, naturally causes as much concern to the council as to ratepayers, and the, council feels strongly that the ratepayers as a whole should recognise that fact. The council has never, however, had the power to regulate or control valuations, nor has if every attempted to do so. The council does, however, control . the basic rate, and there is no doubt that that aspect will receive the fullest consideration at the proper time, that is when the estimates are being prepared next month. “In conclusion,” Mr Allen said, “I would again emphasise that although the city valuer is an employee cf the Dunedin City Corporation, he holds statutory authority and must use his own judgment and kowledge without reference to the Mayor or city councillors. Indeed, it would be an offence against the law for the Mayor or any councillor to attempt to influence the city valuer in his work and judgment. I must say definitely that the City Council has given the valuer no direction whatever in connection with his valuation cf city properties.” Blame for Misconception

“It is apparent that some people believe the council has control over the city valuer,’’ said Cr McMillan, “ but I would like to point out that any action on his part is quite independent of the council. Some of the blame for that misconception, however, must be placed at the door of the Citi2ens’ Association, which, during the last municipal election, inserted advertisements in the papers warning the citizens that if Labour were returned rates would be bumped up. When a responsible body like the Citizens’ Association makes a statement like that, we can excuse the ordinary citizen if he believes it.”

Cr Gibson: Any statement made by the Citizens’ Association has nothing to do with this council. The association is a separate body, formed to run the election, and I object to Cr McMillan inferring that there is any connection between the council and the association.

Cr Taverner considered that the Mayor’s statement admirably covered the position. They were all concerned that the ratepayers should feel perturbed about the values, but he did not think the council was in order in discussing the matter in detail as it would appear that a large number of cases would be coming before the Assessment Court, which was the proper body to discuss the question. He had had considerable experience on Finance Committees of the council, and during all that time not one councillor had ever attempted to influence the position nor could he ever remember the question of rating values being discussed by a Finance Committee. There appeared to be some confusion, Cr Taverner continued, regarding assessment values and the rate that might be levied, some people assuming that

because values had been increased they would be asked to pay a greater sum. It would be some time before the rates would be known. Protests Welcomed Cr Munro agreed that the Mayor was right in making a statement, but he rather thought that the Citizens’ Association’s advertisements were like chickens coming home to roost. Cr Connolly also made reference to the Citizens’ Association, but the Mayor refused to allow the association to be discussed, ruling that it had nothing to do with the question before the meeting. Cr Cameron thought it quite right that the various ratepayers’ associations should hold meetings and protest as they were educational and informative. Had the valuer reduced the rateable values, however, he would have been looked on as a “ good fellow.” The valuer did not care one “iota” what 12 councillors were sitting round the table, and he would have acted just the same in different circumstances. The letters were received.