John Murrihy replies:

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 244, 31 May 1988, Page 3

John Murrihy replies:

Simply stated, while the three examples you quote are no doubt accurate, you have misdirected yourself in the general thrust of your argument.

Simply stated, while the three examples you : quote are no doubt accurate, you have misdirected yourself in the general thrust of your argument. Dealing firstly with the Rural Ward. The bottom line is that council require an extra 1.8 per cent in 1988/89 from ratepayers, that is an increase in rates lrom $773,557 to $787,298. Council was at pains to point out publicly that the increase was not across the board because of the recent revaluation over which council had absolutely no control as y o u

would be well aware. The fact that the rate in the dollar rose from 0.6629 (1987/88) to 0.8131 (1988/89) is due to the revaluation reducing the total land value. Hypothetically speaking, if the revaluation had increased the land value (as is usually the case) and the 1988/89 rate fell to 0.5127 would you have expected council to announce that rates had fallen by 22.65 per cent when clearly they had not? Council has increased the Uniform Annual Charge from $50 to $100 because there is a basic cost of running Councils' activities which, as you would know, cannot be said to be land related, but instead people related, and given Council's limited rating abilities under the Rating Act 1967 this is the best method to set about readdressing this situation. The calculations you did from Rangataua and Horopito, while n o doubt correct, are directly brought about by the effects of reval-

uation over which, as I have stated before, council has no control. The revaluation reflects that fact that the value of the properties concerned have increased and should the owners wish to sell, then they should be able to make substantial capital gains. Please contrast this with other land owners, particularly those in the back country, whose land value has fallen substantially. While their rates will probably decrease, if they were to sell their properties they would make a substantial capital loss. I note in your own case, for example, that your rates will drop b.y over 19.5 per cent. In relation to the rates struck for the Ohakune ward, firstly, I must confess to not being able to understand the last sentence in your penultimate paragraph. I am not aware of any "extra $87,000 needed to bring the Ohakune ward's expenditure to a nit balance". There are three reasons why the rate in

the dollar has decreased from the Ohakune ward: firstly, the catchment board rate is now being shown separately; secondly, the uniform annual charge has been increased from $140 to $150; thirdly, and this has only been pointed out to me in the last few days, that due to subdivisions within the ward the land value for the ward has increased. Again the bottom line is that council is asking the ratepayers of the Ohakune ward to increase their contribution from $793,181 to $858,952, an increase of 8.3 per cent. I appreciate your comments in relation to the rating system in Kiwitea County, and while I am not currently familiar with it I will be investigating the same in the near future as council will be undertaking a complete review of the rating system in time for the 1989/90 financial year. There will be ample opportunity for all interested persons to present their comments to Council on what system of rating best suits the district.