Share with the "My Say" community how Council's proposals might impact on you?

I am a non residential interstate (NSW) rate payer with a vacant residential block. The cheap rates were one of the reasons we invested in this area. We do plan to build eventually and move or use it for holidays. We bring family and friends from interstate many times (at least two weeks a year). We are not wealthy, we still have a mortgage and pay two lots of rates. Our rates are set to go up by close to three hundred dollars a year. This may stop our long term strategy of retiring and holidaying in this beautiful area as there are now many NSW spots that are closer and as cost effective. As a wage earner rates on a vacant block of land are not tax deductible.

I disagree with Council's view that it is "equitable in that those with higher-valued properties will be expected to pay more than those with lesser-valued properties". Many people have held properties for some time or have been fortunate to have them passed on to them. Just because their property may be higher in value than others does not mean that the owners have more income. People can be asset-rich but cashflow poor. It is more equitable that user pays.

I am a non-resident rate payer with a family holiday dwelling at middleton . I have owned and used the property (recreation only) for the past 13 years. In this time i have seen many good changes and improvements around other areas ,but not very many in the strip between middleton point and the end of surfers parade.The council have upgraded some of the carparks along this strip (bitumen and lines) ,but there has been a massive increase in owners and holiday makers and residents in this strip but still not a lot of infrastructure put in.There should be at least a couple of change area/toilets along this strip to cope with the number of people that go to the beach. At present there are none apart from an old toilet block that no-one wants to use. A new toilet block/change area was installed at middleton point many years ago but nothing further s/e.

Please do something about this as changing in the car park and some people urinating in the same area is not acceptable.

My house is rated at $235K and my block of contiguous land is rated at $66K(used as a garden and workshed) a total value of $301K. Rates this year were $874.20 and $245.50. New system $967.88 and $403.20- total $1371.10 a rise of $251.40. This the fixed rate figure proposed by council.

Should I own a house valued at $365K rates under the new system would be $1365.00 so I am penalised for my lifestyle.

A house valued at $900K would pay $2,999.32 a decrease of $348.68 for the proposed system.

There are approximately 40 vacant blocks in Clayton Bay which have been more…

It is unfortunate that the people I consider the least able to pay are the ones that get hit with the rises. In Model 3a, if you own a property with a capital value of between $130k and $375K your rates will increase, in one instance over 20%. If your property has a capital value of $175k, your rates would rise by 55% if Model 3f were adopted. Fair and equitable?

If you own a vacant block of land you will be paying double the residential rate. Fair and equitable?

If you own a commercial property where you can claim your rates as a tax deduction, the average rate charged will decrease by up to 15%. Council spends money raised from residential rates to attract visitors to the area. Who benefits? Business of course. Fair and equitable?

Primary production, whose rates are already discounted by 17%, receive a FURTHER average 9% reduction and then they can claim a tax deduction . Fair and equitable?

I think the answer to the question is obvious.

Further to my above comment, I believe Council missed an opportunity to inform ratepayers about this proposal by not including any information in their recent newsletter. This newsletter is included with every rate notice.

I have spoken to numerous residents that have no idea as to what is being proposed. Many are not computer literate and many don't bother to buy the local paper. However, they do receive Council's newsletter and expect to be informed, not only of the wonderful things council has been doing, but of things that could affect them financially in the future.

To me it seems like the council is the issue not the review, they are trying to simplify a rates system which is by nature very complicated. It's not possible to use 2 or 3 criteria to rate properties with so many uses and varying facilities; some with more than one use, like holiday letting your home when you don't use it, some with no foot path or drains.

We elect and pay council to get things done properly, not to look for options that make their job easy. Council need to look at this proposal in fare more detail as it does seem like a money grab. If it's all about money and the "GFC" be honest and start looking at cutting costs.

Accept that it is a "zero sum" game - ie total rates raised irrespective of the system used will be the same it just depends on who pays what share and on what basis.

An element of fixed cost would be reasonable for those using council services [ie per rate payer as opposed to per property] - and that raises the question of who is a user and who is not - is resident / non resident a fair determinant? how to identify?

and how much should the base fixed cost be?

what are the minimum / base costs incurred by more…

After meeting with a council rep this week I am sceptical that a new rates system will be of any benefit to the community. Council will put up the rates to collect their money whichever way they see necessary. The new system will disadvantage those who can least afford it. My rates have doubled in the last assessment and I don’t understand why. Appears that council will do whatever it wants, totally disregarding the community’s opinion.

Are nice new shiny council offices in the best interest of the community? I think NOT!

Perhaps it’s time for a fairer system for all.

Council rates should be based on Site Value and not the improved Capital Value. The size and value of anyones house on the land should have no bearing on their contribution to the council. Both Land Tax and the Emergency Services Levy are based on Site Values. All blocks should have a fixed charge component and all vacant blocks pay the fixed charge part only. Then all all blocks with any improvements should pay the vacant land fixed charge plus a rateable component based on the site value of the property. The rateable component should have categories for residential (principal place of residence only), investment (rented / holiday shack properties), commercial and primary production, with residential properties being the lower rateable category, the other categories can all be claimed as tax deductions for those who own them. A much fairer system for all.

I imagine it is very difficult to be fair and equitable in regards to rates. Moving to a user pays system is problematical because so much of Council revenue is spent on roads - how do you monitor each individual's use of roads? A rate based on property values (as we have now) is not so bad as long as Council is seen to be using the money wisely. Doubling rates for vacant blocks is a bad idea. I'm sure Council is striving to provide better things for it's rate payers and this comes at a cost. I'm sure they would like to offer all Council staff good wages and conditions and this comes at a cost. If we want a Council that strives for excellence we are just going to have to pay for it. Here's an idea - base rates on every residents (not just land owners)taxable income.

We thought that the new proposal would actually be "fairer" and more equitable calculation for property owners. By using the online calculator however, as pensioners (in our case) would save less than $33 per year!! Hardly worth the effort. How can the Alexandrina council say that this "new" calculation would be fairer ?? You have really let down the ratepayers. We are very disappointed!!

Ann, If council rates were to increase on the vacant bloke it would put me into extreme hardship since I am a sole parent. I would not be able to pay increased council rates and I would not have bought the bloke of land if I knew there was likely of an increase in rates. If rates go up I will have no choice to sell the bloke even if I sell it at a loss.