DRAINAGE RATING.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17221, 3 October 1927, Page 7

DRAINAGE RATING.

SYSTEM ATTACKED. "(DM WRONG BASIS." CLASSIFICATION NEEDED. Objection to the system of rating adopted by drainage boards operating in South Auckland was lodged by several ratepayers at the Hamilton Court to-day, when Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., was considering the rolls of the Woodlands, Te Rapa, Mangawara and Eureka Drainage Boards. The present system is that generally adopted by drainage boards throughout the country. Where only portion of a property comes under the schedule of land benefited by the drainage, this area is regarded in its relation to the whole property, and the rate is fixed proportionately. The objectors in to-day's proceedings contended that only the benefited portion'should be rated, and not the whole property. Mr W. 11. King lodged an objection to the classification of the whole of the Auckland Farmers' Freezing Company's property at Horotiu, .in the Te Rapa drainage area. Mr L. Tompkins lodged an objection on behalf of Mrs Ramsay, and Mr Stace on behalf of W. Kells and Eva May Barclay.

Mr King said the company he represented occupied an area of 85 acres ai Horotiu. The value of the property was £87,000. Of this area only six acres were benefited by the works of the Te Rapa Drainage Board. On the six acres in question there were no improvements, but on the balance of the area the improvements were very considerable. The valuation of this six aores for rating purposes was fixed as six eighty-sevenths of the whole value, or approximately £6OOO. Last year thb company's rates were based on the value of the six acres only, and amounted to £4, but under this new valuation the company would be called upon to pay £7O. Rating on Undrained Land.

Mr King contended that only the property actually benefited by the board's works should be rated. He pointed out that the company could give away or sell this small area. The new owner would then be liable for rates on the six acres alone.

Last year, continued Mr King, a special valuation was made of the land benefited, the value being assessed at £392, and the company paid rates on this valuation only.

His Worship said that under section 31 of the Act, Mr King's contention was not contemplated, the words of the section being that " The board shall levy on all lands within the district." This, added His Worship, was a vastly different thing. Mr N. Johnson, for the board, admitted that last year the company was rated for six acres only. This was due to a special valuation of the six acres being made on the assumption that only the' six acres came within the Te Rapa drainage area. This was an error that had since been rectified, as it had been found that the whole of the company's property was included in the drainage area, according to the Gazette, and had now been classified and rated accordingly. His Worship said that all land within the area was liable to be rated, but the proportion of the rating which the land had to carry was decided by classification.

Mr Johnson said there was, in the Act, apparently a distinction between " properties " and " lands." Properties were regarded as holdings, and lands as areas to be classified for rating. His Worship suggested the possibility of drainage works being extended to benefit lands not at present benefited. Definition of Rateable Property.

His Worship added that the definition of rateable property was very clear. It was. all. property within the district, with certain exemptions. These exemptions were determined by classification. If in the classification it was considered that this six acres alone benefited, then the six acres would probably have been - classified A and the balance B.

On behalf of Mrs Ramsay, Mr Tompkins said his client owned nine acres in the central subdivision. On a small portion of the front Mrs Ramsay had built a £2OOO house. The only area that benefited by the drainage works was 4 i acres at the rear of the section, vet Mrs Ramsay had to pay as on the valuation of the whole property. This 4A acres had been bought from one Kells, and had now been lumped together, for rating purposes, with the whole of her property, and she was, accordingly, paying a far higher rate "on this 4-J acres than was previously paid on the" area when it was in possession of Kells. Mr Tompkins raised no objection to the whole property being rated, but contended there should be two classifications.

Mr Johnson said the board had complied with all the requirements of the Act. It accepted the values supplied by the Valuer-General, and if there was anything wrong in these then the remedv lay with the Valuer-General and not with the board. The ValuerGeneral supplied the valuation of the properties, leaving the board to classify. (Proceeding.)