68
Date:
Time:
25.11.86
2.15 to 5.00
Reporter:
JPM
1
CHAIRMAN:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MR CHEONG:
Stephen ?
Mr Chairman, I think the administration
basically tries to put a fairly convincing case but there are two flaws basically; the one flaw is that you are assuming that each and every market stall has got to be assessed individually, but since this is under the management of the Urban Council or the Regional Council, could it not be or is it against the law for the Commissioner
of Rating & Valuation to put an overall rating onto Urban Council or Regional Council?
1
1
14
15
16
17
18
11
12
13
CRV:
because in point of fact, about four or five years ago we suggested
that that happened. Unfortunately the Urban Council got legal opinion
that they weren't in paramount occupation, and therefore they were not prepared to be assessed as a ratepayer, and therefore our only course
of action was in fact, to separately assess the tenants of the stalls,
hence the problem.
1
Yes, I am glad you raised that point
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
2
20
MR CHEONG:
If I may carry on with the second point
2
21
22
and that is, I just want a clarification; the rental that is going
to be received by the Urban Council is accrued to Urban Council?
2
2
23
2
24
CRV:
Yes.
2
25
2
26
MR CHEONG:
And it is not accrued to general revenue
2
ON
27
of the coffers?
2
28
AY
2
29
CRV:
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
MR CHEONG:
That's right.
I mean, I just want to make that distinction
first, so could I therefore say that it is in fact the Urban Council
who if they were to accept the Commissioner of Rating & Valuation's
advice, whatever the rates you could settle between yourselves, but the fact that the Urban Council do not agree to pay a lump-sum rate
to the Rating & Valuation has given rise to this argument about the
་་་་་་