CITY AND COUNTY

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22513, 22 September 1938, Page 4

CITY AND COUNTY

LONG-STANDING DISPUTE CONTINUES

PAPANUI MEMORIAL HALL RATES

A settlement of the long-standing dispute between the Christchurch City Council and the Waimairi County Council about the payment of rates on the Papanui Memorial Hall has been further deferred. At one stage in the meeting of the county council last evening it appeared that a motion to pay the city an outstanding amount of £lO3 might be carried, but this was later replaced by a decision that a deputation should wait on the City Council to discuss the position fully. The deficiency in the Papanui Town Hall account was a hardy annual, said Cr. J. Liggins, chairman of the finance committee, in moving the adoption of the committee’s recommendation that the amount of £lO3 owing to the Christchurch City Council be paid, and also that the accumulated debit balance of £3OO be met. This second sum, he said, included debits dating back to 1923.

The position had to be faced at some time or other, and his opinion was that it should be “cleaned up” now once and for all. It had always been his opinion that the amount owing should be paid to the Christchurch City Council. . “If the council had sent us a credit for £lO3. instead of an account for that sum, would we have accepted it?” he asked. “We have accepted certain profits in the past, and if it is good enough for us to accept profits it should be good enough for us to face nthe losses.”

The City Council had paid its share on the hall and had recently spent another £ISOO on it. If the Waimairi County Council’s liability for rates was not expressed in the Papanui Memorial Hall Act, it was implied. Cr. W. J. Walter: What accounts would you charge with this amount? Cr. Liggins suggested that it might come from the four ridings concerned.

Cr. H. Kitson seconded the motion for adopting the recommendation. He agreed with Cr. Liggins that the position should be faced. He did not think the City Council should charge rates, but the best thing was to ask what the city would take. The sum of £3OO mentioned was really owed to Waimairi’s own consolidated funds.

Unwillingness to Pay

Cr. W. G. Chapman said that Waimairi had met all its obligations except these rates. The City Council had taken over full control of the hall, and so recognised its ownership. He would not agree to paying these rates. If the City Council had a leg to stand on it would have sued Waimairi, but it knew it could not do so. Cr. Kitson said that apparently the rates had been paid for 1932, 1933, and 1934.

“I cannot see how you can get out of paying the rates,” said the chairman (Cr. F. S. Scott). “It is a charge the county agreed to pay.” Cr. Chapman claimed that the deficiency last year, set out by the City Council as £B6, comprised £37 in rates. He had no. objection to paying Waimairi’s two-fifths share of the balance of about £SO, but not the £37 in rates, and not the £79 rates owing from previous years. Cr. W. J. Walter said that if Waimairi owed these rates the Audit Department would have forced it to pay them. Waimairi should pay only what it was legally responsible for. The chairman said that it would be best to wait on the City Council. Waimairi had had legal advice on its liability, and was told the position was “50-50.”

“If you pay that money, where will you get it from?” asked Cr. Chapman. “You can’t legally .take' it from my riding.” Cr. Liggins said that Waimairi County had had its legal position explained to it, and it appeared that it had hot a leg to stand on. If there was not a legal obligation there was a moral obligation. The only reason why the City Council did hot sue was that it did not like to sue another local body. Cr. Chapman laughed at this. "You know we have been talking tonight about people not paying us their rates. Yet we don’t sue them,” said Cr. Kitson. “The reason is that we prefer to avoid unpleasantness. This is a parallel case. We should be frank and put the position before the City Council and see what can be done.” Cr. Liggins withdrew his motion, and an ■' amendment was carried that a deputation, comprising Crs. Chapman and Kitson, should wait on the City Council.’