Council denies rate changes are cash grab
Director of Corporate and Community Services Mark Dupe said the shire was “legally bound” to review any anomalies in valuations that were also used by the State Revenue Office for land tax assessments.
He said it has been a “major exercise” that in wider terms was about fairness and equity.
It was not about finding ways around the State Government’s cap of two per cent for year on year rate increases. (The cap applies to the total amount of rates collected by a council, not individual properties).
Mr Dupe conceded a small number of errors had been made when property details were transferred from manual paper files to the council’s computer system in 2009 but not identified until now, some properties were incorrectly zoned and there had been some failures to update files when approved building developments were completed.
Hopefully these things won’t happen again, he said.
Mr Dupe pointed out that council had not retrospectively re-rated properties where errors up until the 2016-2017 year were discovered.
He strongly rejected claims that supplementary valuations had been applied to about one-third of the shire’s rural properties and social media criticisms relating to some quoted examples.
“Only 15 of 3200 rural assessments have been audited this year”.
In total, values of 1264 properties out of a total of 25,500 assessments across the shire – about 0.05 per cent - were audited.
Mr Dupe said all owners had the opportunity to object if they felt a revised valuation was inaccurate but there had been only 16 objections to this year’s supplementary revaluations, two of which were later withdrawn.
He said most of the supplementary valuations and amended rate notices related to normal changes to values through house extensions and other new features for which permits had been issued.
Mr Dupe said in a small number of cases previous administration errors were discovered in the audit by new independent valuers contracted by council to undertake a general revaluation of the shire that will take effect in the 2018-2019 year, as well as make supplementary valuations.
The breakdown of categories for which supplementary valuations have been made this year is:
852 building audits relating to extensions or other building additions. A new $40,000 structure, for example, normally triggers a supplementary valuation after an on-site assessment of the total value of the property.
49 properties with second dwellings, even if not occupied, but not demolished.
125 energy and communications substations and towers on private property.
153 multiple lots where a property may contain two or more titles but have previously been rated as one and where owners would not have to go through a sub-division process to sell any of the lots deemed vacant land. 5 properties with incorrect zonings. 80 Englobo. (“Englobo” is a term that applies to an undeveloped lot, group of lots or parcel of land that is zoned to allow for, and is capable of, significant sub-division into smaller parcels under existing land use provisions. It is used mainly as a deterrent to “land banking” by large scale developers).
The Englobo category has predominantly captured farms and farmlets that were identified as urban growth areas in the Precinct Structure Plans for Warragul and Drouin adopted by Baw Baw Council about three years ago.
Mr Dupe said valuations took into consideration recent property sales activity in areas, any restrictions due to the zoning of particular properties and the potential use of specific blocks.
A Warragul woman says she’ll take up the fight for people that have received higher amended Baw Baw Shire rate notices due to supplementary valuations, although she’s not one of them.
Toni Johnstone’s anger about the issue came after reading some complaints and comments on social media, articles in The Gazette and “bumping into people”.
“It’s just a money grab, a rort, not fair and a council stuff up,” she claimed.
Ms Johnstone said she had made contact with 17 to 18 people that received supplementary valuations and would take up their cases.
A lot of the people are not game to go public or rock the boat, she said, but one couple indicated they were considering initiating a class action against the shire.
“If there have been errors transferring information from manual files to computers then council has to wear it”.
She claimed there were cases where one property valuation included a swimming pool that was removed a number of years ago and before the owner bought the house and another where a property rose $200,000 in assessed value after a $40,000 shed was built.
Ms Johnstone described herself as someone that “doesn’t back down to any argument”. “I will take this as far as I can”. I will contact the Premier, Auditor-General and all shire councillors and, with several others that have complaints, plan to go along to a council meeting, Ms Johnstone said.
“What is the council doing with the extra money? Paying to plant pretty flowers around town?, she asked.