PAYING FOR DRAINAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5356, 26 November 1928, Page 2

PAYING FOR DRAINAGE.

PLEA FDR ACREAGE BASIS.

DISCUSSION BY UNITED BOARD.

The Hauraki United Drainage Board at a special meeting qn Friday evening grappled with the vexed problem of evolving an equitable system of rating for drainage benefits. Rates are levied according to the government valuation, which is fixed more or less accqr.ding to the proximity of the section to main roads and) townships. The effect is that rates for. drainage vary according to the valuation and nqt according to .the drainage benefits received. Some contend that the difficulty can be satisfactory ily overcome by classification, yrh'l® others consider that the only equitable system would be to rate on an acreage basis with classification. All members of the board were present, and discussiqn ensued 8,11 evening, for the difficulty of the problem was apparent fiom the following motiqn, of which Mr. F. L. Hamilton gave notice: “That the equalisation of equity per acre tq coincide with the principle of A classification per acre, thereby not jeopardising the security of .the unimproved value as used fqr the rajsing of moneys; that all special and prospective special loans come under this category ; that all Hauraki loans be spread over the qldl Hauraki area, and all Horahia loans be spread over the eld Horahia area; that all areas fqr the raising of . money for special loans the mode of procedure be as heretofore, but eventually be treated in same as first part qf thiS motion. A poll of ratepayers to be taken as per valuation roll, and if a favourable poll, application fot legislation be made. For ex'ajmple: Farm, 100 acres, unimproved l value £l7, rate l%d, 2s l%d per acre; £lB value, rate 2s 3di per acre ; £2O value, ra.te 2s 6d per acre; £25 value, 3s Id per acre; average per acre £2O upimproved value, average rate per acre 2s 6d.”

Further to motiqn : “That areas or wards be recognised for election purposes only, and that maintenance be treated as general maintenance account, as at present.”

Explaining his proposition, Mr Hamilton said that the present uniform A classification was generally recognised as fair and equitable. Some lands were valued very highly and some lands 'had. to carry special rates. The effeet was that in seine cases men with only fair quajity land had, by reason of special rates, been rated considerably higher, than the most valuable land. His idea was a system whereby all settlers wqull pay the same per acre. Of course, it rested with the ratepayers themselves, as polls would have to be taken before legislative authority could be sought.

Mr Heappey said that under the Lands Drainage Act, 1908, boards were given authority to classify in A, B, C, or; D. M properly carried 1 out by a competent classifier the effect would be os desired by Mi; F. L. Hamilton.

Referring to the Hauraki loans. Mr Heappey explained that the Hauraki Board had raised its loan over its whole area, but on the understanding thqt ridings wquld be rated accord-, ing to the amount of loan money spent in the separate ridings. The land was glassified for that purpose. The loans had been raised on A classification, and he equid not see that the United Board had! ;qny right to charge an A rate on land which had been classed as C or B When given as security for the loan. He had always been in favour of separate rating on classification and separate ac-, counts' for each hiding, and had been elected by settlers who knew that these were his views. If the proposal was carried he would not remain a member, of the board; As special loans were raised for. improving special areas, there was nq reason for asking other areas to help carry the burden. In regard to the Opou special loan, he was of opinion that the Horahia Board Should have increased its big loan sufficiently to take over, and pay off the small Opdu loan. Mr J. C. Miller, said that the board was quite in sympathy with the Idee, of wards and separate accounts for each area. Regarding the special loans, he explained that the Horahia Board had discussed including the Opou special loan, but agreed that if it was included the whole loan would have been turned down. As it was, the Southern area Voted solidly against it. When the Horahia, Bqard planned its, loan proposal it designed equal ex* penditure for every part of the district. He quite recognised that the Opotf area was double-banked, but could a Solution for them, nqr c.ould he see any reason why other ar.eas should vote >the liability on to themselves.

Mr Murray agreed that there was no c.hange in the Whole of the board’s area taking over the Opou and Hau-, raki special Iqans. He agreed that separte riding acounts should be kept and each area should bear its own maintenance. Mr. Hicks said that in the main the present classification, which was almost entirely A, was satisfactory, the benefit was nullifie 1 to a certain extent by the varying land values and by the special loans. These factors raised the rates on certain sections above the general average; On the other hand, some sections had drainage facilities below the general average.

The matter was discused at length and many other subjects were introduced. Amendments to the Lands Drainage Act were suggested, though the .difficulty of securing such Acts for the benefit of flat land's such as the Hauraki Plains was recognised.

When it became obvious that no solution could be arrived at, Mir Hicks suggested deferring the - matter for. future consideration.

The question of separate accounts for maintenance was then discussed on Mr Murray moving that each area bear its own cost.

Mr Miller seconded, and said that the area was subdivided into wards for. that purpose. Mr Hicks raised the question of main outlets from one subdivision passing through another ward, and

quoted the cases of the Willow drain and the Thames Valley outlet. lit was agreed' to add to the motion a clause excepting the Te Kauri Nq. 1 from Huiran Road to the river, which would be borne equally by the two areas concerned.

Mr F. Kneebone r;ajseid the question of his area being unable to find all the money required for necessary work, and suggested' a proviso in the resolution to meet the case if necessary. '

Mr Heappey said that the case could be considered fairly by the board on the merits of the case, in unforeseen, circumstances, such *g the vollapse of a flood-gate, temporary advances could be made from other acj counts.

On the motion being put Mr F. Hamilton voted against it, as no prQciso was included.

On Mr Hicks’ motion discussion of the other points of the motion of which Mr Hamilton had given notice were postponed sine die.