Councillors torn between sympathy and policy

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 274, 14 February 1989, Page 3

Councillors torn between sympathy and policy

Waimarino councillors face a dilemma over writing off rates for two occupiers of small rural blocks.

One of the ratepayers, Mr D Kinnaird, was at the council finance committee last week to ask for his and his neighbour's rates to be reduced. While the councillors were sympathetic they expressed concern at the precedent if would set if they agreed to the request. One of the ratepayers occupies nine separate titled blocks of land which border each other, adding up to about 35 acres. Contiguous (bordering) properties which are occupied by one owner and listed with the Valuation Department under one occupier are levied one uniform annual charge, of $100. When the rates for 1988/89 were struck the properties in question were charged one UAC ($100) for each separate title, which added to the other rates meant Mr Kinnaird was charged over $2000 for his 35 acres. Rate jump Mr Kinnaird told the committee since the introduction of the Uniform Annual Charge his rates had jumped from $600 to $2000 in three years. "We're being charged $65 an acre," said Mr Kinnaird. He said the $2000 took all his wool cheque. (The Bulletin understands he was levied the UAC nine times, adding up to $900). After his first rate demand Mr Kinnaird had the listing changed believing that to mean he would not be charged the extra UAC's in the second and final rate demand for 1988/89. District Manager John Murrihy explained to the committee that for contiguous properties to be rated just one UAC they had to be listed under one occupier, before March 31 of the year of the rate demand. He said Mr Kinnaird would

only be charged one UAC in the 1989/90 year but that, according to the rules decided by councillors last year, he still had to pay the UAC's for 1988/89. Instalments "All the second instalment is, is the second half of the rates," said Mr Murrihy. He said the whole year's rates were levied at one time even though the demands were sent out in instalments. Mr Murrihy said according to law the occupier for any one year was that person listed 'as at March 31'. "In this case the name change was done well after that date." "I'm certainly not without sympathy for his situation, it's unfortunate to say the least," said Mr Murrihy. He said he would be concerned at the precedent it would set to write' off the rates. Chairman Bennett said he would like to see the extra UAC's in the second rate demand written off. Cr Compton said if council did that, any other property owner who was not previously aware of the

contiguous property factor may ask for the same treatment. Dodging Chairman Bennett said he was not in a position to make an unbiased decision so he would leave it up to the committee. "I will move nothing then," said Cr Compton. Cr Bennett said he thought the local government act stated the committee couldn't abstain from such decisions.

"Can hardship come into this?" asked Cr Thompson. "Yes, you have the ability to write it off if you so desire," said Mr Murrihy. "I do feel the gentleman has made that effort to change the name," said Cr Thompson. "It does seem that it's an unfair charge." Mayor Workman said he was trying to reconcile the case with

earlier ones the council had turned down. Cr Thompson said Mr Kinnaird had been asked to meet certain criteria and had done so. "No, he has not met it," said Mr Murrihy. "He will have met the criteria in time for the next year's rates." He reminded the committee that the council had set the policy. Cr Compton moved that the rates be writ-

ten off, including in the recommendation the reasons for writing them off. Good reason "If it is passed we must give very good reasons," said Mayor Workman. "If we are going to do that, then we must treat any further request to council of this nature in a similar fashion. We must be consistent." "I can hear the howls now if we give way here and refuse someone else," he said. Cr Thompson said he felt that in the past the

contiguous property factor wasn't widely understood, even among councillors in the past. Mr Murrihy told the committee he had been approached by a number of ratepayers in similar situations and he had applied council's policy in those cases. The committee decided to recommend to full council to waive the rates in question, which means the full council will have to make the final decision, next week.