EXCESS RATES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19957, 18 June 1930, Page 10

EXCESS RATES.

BOARD TO REFUND £2X43. RICCARTON BOROUGH MISTAKE. In the dispute between the Riccarton Borough Council and the Drainage Board, arising out of the excess collection l\? the Council of Drainage Board rates for 1928-9, the Controller and Audi-tor-General has determined that the amount to be refunded by the Board to the Riccarton Borough Council is £2143 7s IQd. The Board's estimate was £692 vs.

Tho Board's solicitors advise that the Board lias no power to impose a rate to raise the amount required to make the refund. At last night's meeting of the Drainage Board a letter Was read from the Controller and Auditor-General enclosing a copy of a letter to the Riccarton Borough Council setting out the basis on which the amount of the refund had been computed. In a later communication he advised that the actual amount to be refunded by the Board to the Riccarton Borough Council was £2143 7s 10d. The Board's Bating Powers. There also was read the following opinion by the . Board's solicitors, Messrs Garrick, Cowlishaw and C<>. "We are asked to advise whether the Board has sufficient authority under its present rating powers to strike a rate to provide the necessary funds in the event of the Audit Office ordering a refund to he made to the Riccarton Borough under the provisions of Section 55, Local Legislation Act, 1929. _

"We understand(l) That tho 'excess collection' claimed by the Council is in respect of the special rate in connexion with the sewerage loan. (2) That the 'excess collection' wqs credited by the to the loan with the result that the requirements for that loan for the yew ending March 31st, 1980, were [ess by that credit than they would otherwise have been. ■ . . - . . "The Board, in applying the 'special rate' in the way it ha# donp, haa, in our opinion, carried out the requirements of the Local Bodies' Loans Act, which provides that all special rates shall be applicable to the loan as security for which they were mad® and to no other purpose, and if, as in the present case.' special legislation is passed directing a refund to be made, a "machinery clause should hare been inserted in such legislative enactment prong power to the ,Board to levy a rate to proride the funds for such payment. . . , , "We are of opiiuon that the ordinary ratine porters of the Board are not sufficient to authorise the timing of a rate to provide fund# to n<ai>e a repavment (if any such be found by the Audit Department under the Mew Legislation Act. 1929, to be j»yable).

Question of Equity. Mr E. H. S. Hamilton *al3 that; there had been no iwesentation of the I Board's caw SinM. it decided _not to i oppose any legjsl&tion profljoted by Riccarton dealing with the matter, pe; moved: , "That the Riccarton Bofough Council be informed that the Board has received from the Controller and Auditor-General a coWfj of his letter of' June 6th tc tj» town clerk, Riccarton. in "which he advises that,,he has determined, pursuant to sub-section 2 of flection 55 of the Local Legislation Act, 1929, that the amount of excess rates to be refunded -by the Christchurch Drainage Board to the Riocarton .Borough. ©tttxneil is . £2143 7s 10dj and that ?tW«; Board has been advised that the .ordinary t atins; powers oftheßoard are not * sufficient to aytborise the striking of a rate to provide funds to make a repayment." He outlined the history of the matter, beginning with, she deputation, from the Riccarton Borough Council" which waited on the' Board on May 21st, 1929. Rifccarton, in claiming £2367, he said, had ignored the fa<*t that as a result of .failing to supply the Board- with its correct valuation of the borough had penalised the otljfer portions of the district (th 6 City, Waimairi, and Heathcote). Owing to Riccarton supplying the Board with the old valuation, the rate over the whole district had been 3-64th,of Id in ( .the £ higher than if . the Board hadbeen supplied with the correct valuation. In other words, the rest, of the district had paid 4id more for every £IOO. of capital value than it would have otherwise paid. He represented the Riccarton district and was ready to re-r ceive anything due to it, but not at the expense of the rest of the district. An attempt had been made to shaW that the dispute aliduld be settled on an equitable basis.

Alleged Breach of Faith. Mr H. 6. Livingstone Eaid that he would second the motion »f Mr Hamilton added that the Board recommended the Iticcarton Council to promote, the necessary • legislation to/ enable the Board to rate for the amount to be refunded to the Council. The chairman (Mr J. W. Beanland): I don't think Mr Hamilton will add that. That will be quite a matter for the Riccarton borough. < Mr W. R. Carey seconded pro forma, Mr Livingstone moved an amend* ment on the lines he - had indicated, and said that in view of the Board's previous resolution not to oppose Ribcarton's legislation, it woUla be rer grettable if it created further diffipulties in order to prevent the passing of legislation to prevent the payment of the money to be refunded He characterised the attitude suggested by Mr Hamilton as "stonewall tactics." Mr W. J. Walter, seconded the amendment.

The chairman said that most of the members of the Board ki»w that some of the other districts- wore going to feel very much aggrieved if a rate were struck to make the refund. After some discussion, Mr Livingstone's amendment was. negatived, only th® mover and seconder voting for it, and Mr Hamilton's motion was agreed