Drainage Board’s Rates Fall Slightly

Press, Volume C, Issue 29515, 17 May 1961, Page 14

Drainage Board’s Rates Fall Slightly

A “very slight” reduction in rates was approved by the Christchurch Drainage Board last evening, when it fixed its estimates for the 1961-62 financial year. Mr F. R. Price, the chairman of . the board, gave the description of the reduction when he reviewed the estimates; and said the over-all decrease was Is 2d a £lOOO of capital value. Increases had been avoidM by limiting the works to be done out of revenue. The new housing areas and extension of the board’s activities brought in a wider rating potential, spreading the cost of major capital works already completed and reducing to some extent the individual rating burden.

A comparative statement showed that the board planned to spend £773,457 from rates this year, compared with an estimate of £747,027 last year. The board began the year with a surplus of £102,637. It estimated its rate levy this year to produce £670,800. compared with £650,638 last year. The new rates for each £lOOO of capital value were approved as follows: Sewer Extension Area Christchurch City.—£3 17s lOd (£3 18s Id last year). Riccarton Borough.—£4 Is 3d (£3 18s 6d). Waimairi County.—£3 14s 8d (£4 0s sd). Heathcote County.—£3 15s 5d (£3 19s 8d). Paparua County.—£3 17s 3d (£3 16s 9d). Old Sewerage Area Christchurch City.—£2 13s 9d (£2 14s 9d). Riccarton.—£2 16s Id (£2 15s). The following rates were approved for loan areas where sewers are not completed:—City, £2 18s Ud (£2 19s 4d); Waimairi, £2 16s 6d (£3 Is 2d); Heathcote, £2 17s Id (£3 Os 7d); Paparua, £2 18s 6d (£2 18s 4d).

The land drainage rate in the Halswell county was fixed at 13s 7d. compared with 19s Id last year. "Heavy Programme” "The board h<fs carried out a heavy programme of development in the post-war years, and a large reticulation programme still lies ahead,” said Mr Price. “Even if the board had not been faced with any such programme, increases in rates would have been inevitable in view of steadily rising costs and the general depreciation of money. “However, the large capital programme has added very considerably to the board’s rates. Loan rates at present comprise over half the total rates levied by the board, and the total of these loan rates must increase steadily as the board's reticulation programme is developed.” Mr Price said it was hoped that the present hold-up of the reticulation programme would be brief, as the heavy cost of the large sewer relief programme already carried out was designed to be spread over a much greater reticulation, and hence rating, area than at present. Of the rate reduction, Mr

Price said that some land drainage works listed last year from revenue had been transferred to the loan programme. As a policy measure, the board hoped to carry out more and more land drainage work by loan leaving maintenance and small works only to be provided for out of rates. "This is the only policy which will permit the board to have a vigorous attitude towards its many problems, while keeping rates to a more or less stable figure,” Mr Price said. Since the introduction of valuation equalisation legislation, it was difficult to make effective comparisons on actual rates levied, he continued. A true comparison was possible by ignoring valuation equalisation and working out flat rates over the whole of the board’s ratings area. Such a comparison showed the rates for each £lOOO of capital value as:—sewerage. 1961-62, 18s lOd (1960-61. 18s lOd); land drainage, 14s 4d (18s Ud); reticulation loans. £1 3s lid (£1 3s 6d); major works loans, 13s Id (12s Id': treatment works loans. 7s 3d (5s 3d); total. £3 17s 5d (£3 18s 7d).