|
| |
OVERVIEW:
The Association takes the view that instead
of establishing a list of municipal expenditure items and then setting a Rate that will
pay for these, LCC should first determine just what level of income can be raised from its
ratepayers and then set priorities as to how, when and where this income is spent.
The Association believes that the
municipality is living beyond its means - in other words, spending more than it is able to
sustain earning.
The unprecedented rate burden on its
ratepayers is causing distress, and will continue to cause distress, for so long as
ratepayer-originated funds are spent on activities that are not strictly provided for as
core business of municipalities under the Local Government Act.
THE WAY RATES INCOME IS
RAISED:
- While
there has been a token adjustment to a "user-pays" aspect of the rates bill, the
Assessed Annual Value (AAV) system is still, in effect, a wealth tax.
- The
AAV is not a true assessment of the net rental income value of all properties.
- If it
was, then these assessments would be done individually, property-by-property, using
appropriate market rental data and not be simply a 4.0% mathematical calculation based on
the Capital Improved Value (CIV).
- Such
calculations produce theoretical AAV's that bear no relationship to market reality.
- We
believe that the LCC should adopt the recent initiative of the Brighton Council and
introduce a Fixed Rate system of rating whereby all types of properties within various
categories pay the same amount of rates.
- Failing
that, we believe that an Unimproved Capital Value (UCV) system, common to NSW and Queensland, would produce more equitable results.
- The UCV,
as a basis of valuation, is simpler to assess as the Valuer General has the data for Land
Tax purposes.
- The
UCV system should, therefore, reduce the cost of municipal valuation and reduce the rate
burden of ratepayers.
- The
UCV system does not penalise property improvements as is the case with the CIV-AAV
system.
- There
should be a distinction between Urban and Non-Urban properties insofar as the level
of rates is concerned.
- Similar
to Devonport Council policy, we believe that, failing all of the above, there should at
least be some rate capping mechanism, irrespective of the method of valuation.
THE WAY RATES INCOME IS SPENT:
Launceston ratepayers are burdened beyond a
reasonable level by the following discretionary expenditure:
- Queen
Victoria Museum and Art Gallery which should be a totally State
Government responsibility.
- York Park and Inveresk precinct generally which should be a totally
State Government responsibility.
- Tamar River levee works which should be a totally State Government or State-Federal
Government responsibility.
- Regional
Aquatic Centre which should be a totally State Government responsibility.
- Tourism
which should be a totally State Government responsibility.
- Festivale
which should be a "user pays"-funded event.
- Northern
Tasmanian Development which should be a totally State
Government responsibility;
to mentioned but a few.
THE WAY INCOME IS FOREGONE
Launceston ratepayers are burdened beyond a
reasonable level through Council-owned properties not being let to the public at large at
commercial rental rates plus equivalent Municipal Rates (including Water, Sewerage and
Fire levys etc.) and Land Tax, commonly charged in the private sector for commercial
tenancies, such as, to mention a few:
- Restaurants
and Chairlift at the First Basin and Cataract Gorge Reserve.
- Tenancies
at Inveresk and York Park.
- Tenancies
at Royal Park/Home Point.
- Albert
Hall.
- Victorias.
- City Park Radio.
- Design
Centre of Tasmania.
- Wood
Design Collection.
- Princess
Theatre.
- Earl
Arts Centre.
- Cafe
Eleven.
- Trustees
Court.
- Carparks.
- Halls
for itinerant traders/businesses.
- Mowbray
Skating Rink.
- Brisbane
Street Mall.
Back to Top
|