There are no comments up to now.
| Ratepayer anger at Clarence rate increase |
|
By INGRID HARRISON THE delivery of annual rates’ demands in Clarence has met with considerable ratepayer anger as despite Council claims of providing significant relief many property owners, will pay substantially more this year. The Clarence City Council rejected the option of applying a flat rate approach like that introduced in neighbouring Brighton on the grounds that the Local Government Act requires rating to be based on the assessed annual value (AAV) of properties. In a letter to the Eastern Shore Sun, Deputy Mayor Martin McManus said aldermen had considered Brighton’s approach but rejected it because although it offered significant savings in some areas of Clarence, it would have resulted in dramatic rate increases in other areas of the city. Clarence Council has, for the first time, varied rates between different categories of property and introduced remissions to ensure that no eligible pensioner will face an increase in excess of 10 per cent. Ald McManus confirmed that more than 80 per cent of residential ratepayers faced rate increases of up to 10 per cent. Mayor Jock Campbell said almost 4000 ratepayers, generally in areas with lower market values, would see their rates go down. “The average reduction for residential properties in Clarendon Vale is seven per cent, in Risdon Vale five per cent and Rokeby three per cent, Ald Campbell said. This advice provides little comfort for the majority of ratepayers throughout the city, many of them suffering substantial rate rises. In a prepared statement, the council said the majority of residential ratepayers would experience a rates increase below 10 per cent, while a number would have a higher increase. However, council would provide rebates ensuring that residential rate increases are no more than 30 per cent. A similar rebate is being provided for farm properties. However, the council’s statements have failed to allay ratepayer fears or concerns that the flat rate option was summarily rejected. Last month’s report in the Eastern Shore Sun on the pending rate increase and the impact of the recent property revaluation in Clarence attracted considerable comment from residents, all of whom called on council to rethink its rating approach. Typical was the comment from a single pensioner ratepayer living in a small house on a small block of land who has seen his assessed annual value almost double and as a consequence, his rates rise by almost eight per cent. He asks if the council truly believes it is equitable that he pays the same rates as a family of five living in a property of the same value. A Lindisfarne family has received a demand with a rate increase of 6.2 per cent including a general rate rise of 11 per cent and one Howrah resident is facing an increase of 9.2 per cent with a general rate rise of a whopping 18 per cent. These examples appear to give lie to the Clarence Council’s claim that it has achieved a fair outcome. Council’s claim that it is legally required to determine rates according to property valuations is not in accord with advice provided by some local government experts. Eastern Shore Sun has received advice that councils are able to set a minimum rate that effectively negates the AAV. Section 107 of the Local Government Act enables the use of classifications as employed by Brighton in determining rate levels. While it won’t soften the blow this year, Clarence is, however, moving to change the way rates are calculated for the city. Ald McManus successfully gained council agreement to ask the Local Government Association to repeal the four per cent of AAV provision. Ald McManus said aldermen agreed that the charging model used to levy rates must be fair an equitable across the community. Ratepayers facing major increases this year can only echo this sentiment. At the same time, they will rightly be asking why council has chosen now to look at the way rates are being calculated and why this couldn’t have been done years ago. It seems it has taken another council’s action, and the resultant pressure that this is putting on aldermen and councillors, to spur them into action.
» No Comments
» Post Comment
|