THOSE OVERPAID RICCARTON RATES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19201, 15 October 1930, Page 14

THOSE OVERPAID RICCARTON RATES.

REFUND FROM DRAINAGE BOARD IS OBJECTED TO.

Strong opposition to the Drainage Board being forced refund to the Riccarton Borough C< cil the amount of rates overpaid by .riccarton, was voiced yesterday afternoon at a meeting of local bodies contributing to the Drainage Board’s £700,000 loan. It was stated that, though the Riccarton rates had been levied on the old valuations and had been collected on the new, the borough was in exactly the same position as had been the other bodies at the time of their revaluations, and that any adjustment equitable to all bodies would have to date back to 1925, when the loan was first raised. A motion was passed requesting the City Council to initiate by petition and legislation the repeal of the existing legislation directing the Drainage Board to refund £2143 7s lOd to Riccarton. During the discussion statements were made that the Drainage Board should, have opposed the legislation from the start. It was urged that any future trouble would be prevented by levying the rates on the previous year’s valuations instead of on those of the current year. Rights o£ Other Bodies. The conference was summoned by the City Council, and the following attended:—Councillors E. H. Andrews (chairman), J. W. Beanland, J. S. Neville (Christchurch City Council), Messrs C. E. Cross, G. S. Cowper (Waimairi County Council), H. J. Otley, S. C. Bingham, C. F. Champion (Drainage Board), W. Kerr, J. H. M’Auliffe (Heathcote County Council), and A. E. Lawry (New Brighton Borough Council). The chairman said that as far as the City Council was concerned it was felt that, if Riccarton received a refund, other bodies would be entitled to the same consideration. If Riccarton were given a refund the other local bodies would have to be rated to make up the difference, which, if left as it was, would adjust itself in time. Mr Cowper, clerk to the Waimairi County Council, said that his council was in the same position as Riccarton. The action of Riccarton would not solve the problem. The Heathcote County, which was revalued in 1926, was the fi.st to suffer, stated Mr M’Auliffe, county clerk. In common with other counties, Heathcote was paying slightly more than was necessary. Mr Otle}% chairman of the Drainage Board, stated that the board had been made liable for about £2IOO, but the legislation had not gone far enough. Further legilsation would not be opposed by the board. The Audit Office, in deciding that £2IOO should be refunded to Ricacrton, had not taken into consideration the amount of £592 7s already repaid. “Would Have Righted Itself.” The Town Clerk of Christchurch (Mr Neville) stated that if the Drainage Board had placed the excess rates to the credit of the interest and sinking fund account, the following year it would have righted itself. Mr Beanland urged that the various councils should make application for a refund. If any rebate were made to Riccarton, stated Mr M’Auliffe, the payments by other bodies would have to be considered as far back as 1925, as all dishad in their time been affected the same as was Riccarton. Mr Otley was the only dissentient to the following motion: “That this meeting of local bodies in the Drainage Board’s £700,000 loan area emphatically protests against a refund being granted to the Riccarton Borough Council, unless other local bodies are placed on the same footing. We are of opinion that the proper method of arriving at an equitable adjustment is to go back to the first year that the rate was levied and see what adjustments can be made.” Mr Otley said that the board was in honour bound to make the refund, according to Act of Parliament. Mr M’Auliffe: The Drainage Board, which Mr Otley represents, is not a contributing body, and is not concerned. “ This thing should not have happened.” declared Mr Otlej*. “ Someone gets it one year and gets out of it the next. The extra amount is paid back to the local body the following }*ear.” Mr Neville: The board has agreed to refund £2IOO to Riccarton, and it should not have refunded anything. Mr Otley: We did not want to refund anything, but the law has forced us. I only wish that we had opposed the Bill in the first place, and this would not have happened. _ Mr Neville quoted the various valuations in the Drainage Board’s hands when the rates were fixed, the valuations actually in force and on which rates were levied by the local authorities, and the amounts levied in excess of requirements, for 1928-29, as follow: City: Valuation in board's hands £6,235,500: in force, £6,542.580; excess, £2959 0s lOd. Riccarton: £894,745, £1,299,778, £592 7s. Waimairi: £1,759,950, fI.SIC.S9o, £826 13s sd. Heathcote: £3965, £2944, £1 6s 7d.

In all cases the striking of a rate of 1 15-64 instead of 1 11-32 would have been sufficient had the correct valuations been available when the rates were fixed.