PLAINS DRAINAGE RATING

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5395, 4 March 1929, Page 3

PLAINS DRAINAGE RATING

COMPLIC ATED POSITION.

RIGHTING O.LD WRONGS.

Efforts to even up the incidence otf rating for drainage purposes, andi to right an injustice done to the ratepayer of the old Hauraki Board’s area by a misunderstanding of the terms of the amalgamation agree,ment, ha.’e been discussed 1 by the

Hauraki United Drainage Board on

several occasions on the representa-

tions of Mir. R. H. Heappey. At the last monthly meeting the matter was again introduced, and a special meeting to deal with it was decided upon. This was held on Friday last, when all members were present. In accordance with notice given, Mr Heappey mWed the following two motions :— “That in future all rates in connection With thq old Hauraki • Board’s loans be levied in accordance with the terms and conditions .under which these loans were raised a,nd by the terms and renditions laid down by the Minister .when amalgamation was granted “That the classification of the whole United District he reviewed and amended so 1 as to remove the present cases of hardship and unfairness. Seconded by Mr F. L. Hamilton. Speaking to \ the motion, Mr Heappey said that when the Hauraki Board was constituted mptet of. the lanfii was the Turua, estate. 'At that time theji'e were several main drains, some ifi good order and some in a neglected state. The settlers, desired adequate drainage, and the question arose as to who should provide it. It wak not a jpto for. the riverfront settlers,, who had direct access to the river, so groups of. settlers co-operat-’ ,ed an<l drains were made. However, there was an agitation for the formation of a drainage board, but the committee which had the matter in hand was faced with difficulties in devising means for pleasing each group of settlers. Accordingly, it was agreed to devise a scheme for each of the defined subdivisions, and it was also agreed that each particular area would be responsible for thq capital cost and maintenance of the drains in that area. The board was then formed, and it proceeded) to raise a lc|an, but as the subdivisions had not then been legally made the loan was raised over the wjiol'q area. The board while' in existence had faithfully observed the undertaking entered into prior to its formation. When amalgamation with the Horahia, Board was being opposed this matter was explained to the commissioner, and he understood) it and S ave his finding accordingly- On the union of. the two boards the Hauraki United Board adopted' what was prac,tica.lly a uniform classification of A. The effect of this was that in some localities the loan rates increased l on the average by five times, a.nd in one section from £1 9s 6d to £l6-pdd'. This particular land had beqn drained by the owner prior to the formation of the first board, and not loan money had at any time been spent within 1% miles of it. Under the Hauraki Board this particular land was classed D, so was not rated, and therefore was not given as- security for a- loan and could not now be rated for the loan. It was almost entirely on the score of classification that, amalgamation was opposed by the Hauraki Board, and all fair-minded men would realise the fairness of reverting at once, for loan purposes, to the old classiflc,ation used) by the old Hauraki Board. Mr F. Hamilton asked if there were not Certain amounts of; the Hauraki Board’s first loan earmarked for work in the different areas. Mr Heappey replied in the negative. The chairman raised) the question as to what land was givep as security for a loan. He considered that all land within the boundary of the Area was pledged, and. that the classification cpuld be altered! at any time. The liability whuld alter as, the classification was amended'. The clerk explained that the land was classified prior to the raising of the; loan. When application for permission to raise the loan was made a statement was presented showing the proposed l rate to be gjven as security o n A class land, on B class land, and on C class land. As the D class land was not liable to be rated, such land was not shown as part of the security. The loan was raised over the; whole area, irrespective of subdivisions, and the settlers were not. told what the board had in mind concerning where the money was tq be spent. To the chairman Mr Heappey said that the; Hauraki Board’s seednd classification, made in 1925, was to suit the conditions as improved by the expenditure of the loan, money. Mr Hicks pointed out that Mr Heappey’s request for a classification for loan purposes only would' mean two separate classifications, and) tha,t was not possible. Mr Hicks pointed out tha.t the Hauraki Central special area had lately raised a £lOOO loan for additional drainage. If the classification was lowered there would be insufficient money raised to maintain the drains. Mr F. L. Hamilton s.aid that a flat rate on an acreage basis was the solu-. tion. Mr Heappey mentioned tha,t in connection with • the Hauraki Central £lOOO loan the Bank of New Zealand had refused to, lend the money, as the board had pledged a security on a classification of A, B, and C and proposed to ra,te on a uniform A rate. The; board had been forced to agree to rate on the A, B, and C classification. The chairman mentioned that this was sP, but the board was now rating on the A classification, for there was aio B or C class land to rate. Referring to the second motion, the chairman asked the clerk if he; could find the conditions placed before the amalgamation commission by the old H;sS>y aki Board. Mr Green said he; could) look up the old files, but it would take time.

Mr F. Hamilton thought the classification on which a loan was raised could be amended. Mr Heappey agreed that amend-, ments might become desirable, but there was nc Justification fplr altering A, B, C, and D, to all A. The easiest was for the board to proceed) was to adopt the Hauraki Board’s 1925 classification, all the details of which were in the board’s books.

The clerk pointed out that this was not feasible owing to the subdivision of thq area. Each area now! comprised both Horahia and Hauraki land.

Mr Hicks said that if it was possible to have two rates, one for maintenance and) one for loans, the position would be simple. Competent legpl advice was desirable; and he would suggest referring the matter to the Solicitor-Genera] or to the Internal Affairs Department. ■Mr Heappey concurred, and sug-. gested that the Internal Affairs Department be asked for a definition of the motion required by it to be passed by both the old beards as a basis of amalgamation.

Mr F. Hamilton said his viqw was that, the United Board was to keep the loans, of the two old boards separate. It was decided that the Internal Affairs Department be asked whether two classifications, were possible, One for loan and one for the general account ; also for an interpretation of the .terms of amalgamation in so far as the keeping intact of the loans in force; prior to amalgamation. Consideration of the second 1 part, of the - motion was. deferred until the position in regard to the first part was finalised.