Matamata and Piako County Rates.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 4425, 17 June 1909, Page 2

Matamata and Piako County Rates.

A MISUNDERSTANDING. Ax the Piako County Council meeting on Tuesday the Chairman read the following letter which he had received from the County Clerk (Mr R. S. Hanna). “I beg leave to draw your attent' n to the following paragiapli which appeared in last Wednesday's issue of the NVaikato Times and Waikato ArguS with reference to the Ma‘aiuata County Council’s meeting : “ The Chairman stated that the collecting of outstanding rates| had entailed a great amount of work on the County Clerk, who was not appe inted to collect them. He considered Mr Hanna, Clerk to the Piako County Council, had not done his duty to get in outstanding rates ? considering that the Council had paid a portion of hi? salary. The whole of the burden had been thrown on their clerk.”

From this paragraph the Chairman to the Matamata County Council, Mr Charles William Keeley, infers that I had not done my duty towards the Council iu regard to the collection of rates, seeing that his Council had paid a portion of my salary, but he seems to have forgotten that, according to the agreement, the Matamata Countv Council only paid a portion of my salary up to the 31st January, 1909, and not the 3lst March as one would be led to believe.

In regard to the question of rates the agreement states that the Piako County Council shall continue to collect all rates until the 31st March, and thereafter all rates outstanding at that date shall belong to Matamata, I would therefore like to mention that the amount of rates colhcted by me between the date of signing the Agreement and the 31st March, from ratepayers whose properties are situated within the boundaries of the Matamata County amounted to £2,396. I think that this alone joints out clearly that I did the utmost I could, and to a great extent succeeded, in getting in the rates for the Matamata County. I would also like to state that the total amount of rates collected by me, as per audited balance-sheet, for the year ending 31st March. 1909, amounted to £10,572. I am attaching a copy of a demand that was sent to nil defaulting ratepayers in both counties, between the Ist und 15th March, which states that if rates are not paid by the 31st March, proce- lings will be taken for their recovery, bul at the 31st March the Matamata County' Council’s rates were taken from me, as per agreement, and now Mr Keeley complains that the collecting of the outstanding rates had entailed a great amount of work on the Clerk, who he states, was appointed to collect them. If the Matamata Clerk was not to collect them, I would like to know who is to, as I have no power to do so. I also notice that Mr Keoloy infers that I was to blame for not collecting a rate of £Bl odd from the Bartholomew Timber Company. According to the minutes of a meeting held on the 16th November last, at which Mr Keeley was present, the question of this rate was brought before the Council and it was resolved that this rate should bo allowed to stand until the new valuation of the County was made and that the rate to be collected be in accordance with the new valuation. I therefore need say nothing more on this question, as the minute speaks for itself. Mr Keeley also stated that the Clerk : could not get much satisfaction from me on the question of outstanding rates. On this matter, however,, I have received a letter from Mr Lewis, explaining the matter.

Iu conclusion I must say that I consider Mr Keeley’s remarks uiost uncalled for, and I take this opportunity of placing tbe facts before you which I think clearly indemnify me from neglecting my work as suggested by Mr Keeley, The Clerk intimated that be felt very sore over the attimk-—The Chairman considered that the Clerk jn'd completely exonerated hipp self, and moved “That after hearing tfo® letter real tbe Council js of the opinion that the Clerk hri done hjs duty to this Council, and also to tbe Matamata Council, and jp accordance with the agreement between the two bodies.’’—Cp Thomas seconded the motion which was parried unanimously,