The Battle of the Rates continues in The Daily Examiner as Orams gets trounced

The rate debate

IN response to Graham Orams' letter (Rate Response, DEX May 13) I would like to make three points.
Firstly, I was pleased to read that Graham accepts that in reality 'Residential A (Yamba,
Wooloweyah) and D (inc Angourie) pay higher rates than Grafton... because of higher average land values'.
It is in recognition of the huge range in 'land values' across the Valley that CVC sets different ad valorem rates for different areas and rightly so.
A flat dollar-value rate would see some residents paying ridiculously high amounts. Secondly, Graham stands by the claim that 'dollar-for-dollar, Grafton and Junction Hill residents still pay the highest rates'.
This is a claim which has been repeated by a number of others in recent months and it is false.
The 2008/09 CVC Management Plan (p66) shows that Residential B (Maclean, Lawrence, Townsend) at an ad valorem rate. of 0.6320 is the highest.
What is more, the 2009/10 CVC Plan (p68) shows that Res B (Maclean, Townsend) at 0.7181 and Res F (Lawrence) at 0.7040 will both be significantly higher than 'Grafton' at 0.6049.
Despite being false, this claim was used to lobby for relative rate reductions in the 2009/10 Plan.
It has succeeded in having Grafton rates frozen while all other areas will be increased by
3.5 per cent or more, particularly Maclean (2009/2010 CVC Plan pp65-6e).
Thirdly, Graham uses a hypothetical Grafton property with a rateable land value (not market value) of $700,000 to again try to suggest that Angourie residents are not paying enough. This is misinformation at best.
In the interests of fair debate, I provide the following real figures calculated from the CVC Management Plans relating to residential properties: In 2008/09 Residential
A (inc Angourie) made up 4.6 per cent of residential properties in the Valley but contributed 5.7 per cent of the residential rates or 1.24 times their share.
Residential D (Yamba, Wooloweyah) had 15.9 per cent of properties and contributed 19 per cent of the rates, 1.19 times their share.
Residential E (Grafton, Junction Hill) had 34.6 per cent of the properties and contributed 39 per cent of the rates, 1.13 times their share.
These figures show that 'Grafton' residents have indeed been paying more than their fair share.
But so too are Residential A and D.
To claim that Res A and D should pay even more has nothing to do with equity.
The CVC Plan for 2009/10 (p65) acknowledges the imbalance and attempts 'to achieve a little more equity' as Graham puts it.
However, it focuses only on reducing Grafton's share and increasing 'Maclean and Lawrence'.
In light of the actual figures I am not sure why Res A and D were not given similar relief,
particularly when their land values will continue to rise faster than other areas in the Valley.
In 2009/10, there will be little change in the share paid by Res A and D while Res E will reduce their contribution to 1.09 times their share -a significant win for 'Grafton' ratepayers, not so for A and D.
Put simply, Grafton rates have been held at 2008/9 levels while all others have gone up, some significantly more than others.
Their valiant attempt to establish fair and equitable rates will always be a problem while
ever they are tied to 'land values'.
This juggling act will be repeated every year.
I urge CVC to move away from this method and adopt a better and fairer rating model in future years.
I would strongly urge all residents to look at the Draft CVC Management Plan 2009/10, available from council offices and on the CVC website, to make your own informed judgement based on real facts.
There is a public meeting at Iluka Community Hall -Wednesday, May 20, 5pm and at Treelands Drive Community Centre Yamba -Thursday, May 21, 5pm.
Public meetings in other centres were held last week.
Also be aware that submissions regarding the Draft will be accepted up to Friday, June 5.

RON LOVERIDGE, [The Daily Examiner, 20 May 2009]