The extraordinary council meeting considered placing the draft management plan and rates and charges on public exhibition.
I moved (seconded Cr Crackenthorp) that Council place on exhibition the Ad Valorum with a minimum rating structure and the Ad Valorum with a base rate rating structure.
The Motion was put to the meeting and a show of hands was requested which resulted as follows:
For the Motion: 6
Against the Motion: 6
As the vote resulted in a tied vote the Lord Mayor exercised his casting vote and declared the Motion defeated.
In the end, Council decided to let local residents comment only on an Ad Valorum with a Base Rate rating structure, one at 30%, one at 40% and one at 50%.
The amendment then became the motion and as such was put to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which resulted as follows:
For the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, S Connell, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.
Against the Motion: Councillors A Buman, S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.
The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the result of seven votes to six votes.
The Ad Valorum with a Base Rate structure favours those people who own expensive properties at the expense of those who own less expensive properties. The Ad Valorum with a minimum structure favours those people who own less expensive properties at the expense of those on expensive properties.
According to data provided to all Councillors:
The Ad Valorum with a minimum structure would have meant that 66% of the rates of households would not rise by more than 3.5%.
The Ad Valorum with a Base Rate of 30% would have meant that 39% of the rates of households would not rise by more than 3.5% (rates for land valued at $100,000 would rise 5.5%).
The Ad Valorum with a Base Rate of 40% would have meant that 13% of the rates of households would not rise by more than 3.5% (rates for land valued at $100,000 would rise 14.3%).
The Ad Valorum with a Base Rate of 50% would have meant that 39% of the rates of households would not rise by more than 3.5% (rates for land valued at $100,000 would rise 22.9%).
These kinds of public policies should be about the greatest good for the greatest number.
No comments:
Post a Comment