EXCESS LEVY OF DRAINAGE RATES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 78, 1 April 1931, Page 11

EXCESS LEVY OF DRAINAGE RATES.

NO AGREEMENT HAS YET BEEN ARRIVED AT. A complete agreement could not be reached at a conference of representatives of local bodies held at the Drainage Board’s office yesterday afternoon to consider a suggested basis for the readjustment of rates allegedly collected in excess of the board's requirements. The following delegates were present: Drainage Board: Messrs W. J. Walter, H. G. Livingstone, E. IT. Hamilton, S. *C. Bingham and C. F. Champion (secretary): City Council: Messrs E. IT. Andrews, M. E. Lyons and J. W. Niven (city treasurer) : Riccarton Borough Council: Messrs F, S. Wilding and C. G. M’Kellar; Ileathcote County Council: Messrs W. Kerr and J. IT. M’Auliffe (clerk); Waimari County Council: Messrs G. Gardner, W. G. Chapman and G. S. Cowper. Reporters Excluded. After Mr Hamilton had been voted to the chair, Mr Lyons moved that the reporters be excluded. The motion was seconded by Mr Andrews. Mr Livingstone said he could not see any reason why the representatives of the Press should be excluded. “ The matter to be discussed is of importance to all ratepayers,” he added, “and there is no reason why what is said here to-day should not go forward to them.” Mr M’Auliffe said that as a good deal of publicity had been given to the matter already he thought the reporters should be allowed to remain. “ I can’t see that we have anything to hide, and I will vote against the motion,” said Mr Chapman. Mr Lyons said it was not a question of hiding anything from the public. There was more hope of adjusting the matter if they got together and had a round the table discussion. A statement could be given to the newspapers afterwards. On a show of hands the motion was carried by seven votes to four. Decision of Conference. At the conclusion of the conference it was reported that the following motion had been carried.—

That this conference of representatives of local bodies within the C-hflistchurch Drainage Board’s district believes that the present sj r stem of collecting rates for drainage purposes is inequitable. It accepts the statement submitted by the Drainage Board, and invites the board to promote legislation which will provide for an adjustment of accounts on the basis submitted. The Waimairi, Riccarton and Heathcote representatives voted for the motion, and the City Council representatives against it. The Drainage Board representatives did not vote. Suggested Basis. The basis of adjustment suggested by the Finance Committee of the board was contained in the following letter sent by the secretary to the local bodies concerned: “Referring to the claims by the Riccarton Borough Council and other local authorities concerned, for a refund of special area rates allegedly collected in excess of the board's requirements, I have to inform you that statements have been prepared covering the period from 1925-26 to and including the current 3*ear, setting forth details of rates assessed and collected in respect of each local authority in the board’s special rating area. The board has directed me to forward a copy of these statements for your information. “The chairman proposes to call a conference, at an early date, of all those concerned, with a view to deciding what action, if any, is necessary to adjust matters. “A proposal has been made by the Board's Finance Committee that statements, on the lines of those enclosed, be prepared every seven years, and that adjustments be made in accordance with the results obtained. This procedure would require legislation, as it would entail a differential rate in the special area. It is not proposed that cash refunds, or otherwise, be made, but that the amounts be deducted from, or added to, as the case might be, the sum required from the district of each local authority in the special area. “This proposal is passed on for your consideration, and can be fully discussed at the conference in due course.” Statement of Excess 'Payments. The' second statement gave the following information regarding excess payments, for the period 1925-26 to 193031 (shillings and pence omitted! :

In respect of the City Council £3349 more had been credited back; in the .case of the Riccarton Borough £1092 less had been credited back; in the case of the Waiipairi County £1467 less had been credited back; and in the case of the Heathcote County £47 less had been credited back.

Actual ApparExcess ent credited Excess. Back. £ £ City Council 8842 3340 Riccarton Borough 3058 1967 Waimairi Countv ... 519S 3732 Heathcote County .. 154 107