The proposed rating structure will be simpler with a significant reduction in the number of rating sub-categories and the number of different rates.

almost 6 years ago
CLOSED: This map consultation has concluded

This will ensure that it:

  • is easier for ratepayers to understand
  • levels out the current inequitable rates
  • is fairer and more equitable overall
  • all ratepayers pay their fair share of rates.

Importantly, the proposed new rating structure only changes the distribution of rates across the City, it does not increase revenue from rates for the Council. 

  • Fair go almost 9 years ago
    The above are all subjective opinions.Wouldn't it be fairer to level out the rates so there is not so much variation. Say a minimum rate of $600 - $800.With this proposed rating structure there will be some big losers. In fact some will close down there business. Often the tenant pays the rates. The land lord just passes the rates on. So meddling with the status quo could cause the loss of jobs. And what for? So a lot of people get a $39 rate reduction per annum. Less than $1 per week. All of this restructure seems a waste of time. As council point out time and time again, there will be no increase in council revenue.Council want to use a lower rate per dollar in the middle mountains and upper mountains and the land values are generally lower, so they are getting a double discount. They have all the services other towns have. Very expensive under utilised swimming pools for starters.Council have got this very wrong(in my opinion).Back to the drawing board.
    Hide reply (1)
    • mt tomah almost 9 years ago
      Mt Tomah residents on the "other" side of the Blue Mountains get pretty much no services at all. We don't get pools, libraries, street-scaping, gutters, footpaths, bike paths, or indeed any other services - apart from a weekly garbage collection. Averaging out my annual rates, I pay $40 a week to have my bins emptied - and clearly also for the consultants to strategise these ideas.
  • very concerned almost 9 years ago
    How much do we pay people to come up with these ideas. Thats okay if your in business you must be rich enough to afford it. Have they got any other ideas that might help businesses, we dont all have big money making supermarkets and those sorts of businesses. Plenty of businesses struggling right now. I think the rates system is fair the way it is,.
  • Governor almost 9 years ago
    It is outrageous that Lapstone should have a proposed 7% increase in rates as there is very little to show for any money spent on the area by Council, other than the invasive Sports facilities (particularly netball). Those responsible for rates in the BMCC should read the history of distribution of rates across the City. Lapstone was established by a private developer who chose to place electricity and telephone lines underground and developed proper kerbing and guttering, as well as the railway station, all this being paid for by anyone who bought property in Lapstone. What percentage of rates funding is spent in Lapstone? Precious little, I would suggest. Go back to the drawing board. Why should Lapstone residents subsidize spending in other parts of the City. We already pay higher rates than anywhere else in the City.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Rural Conservation over 8 years ago
      GovernorI know that you think you are paying the highest rates in the city but if you go to the council figures you will find that actually the Faulconbridge, Springwood, Winmallee areas are paying the highest average rates in the city at present. I do agree with you though that there is no rational application of principle in the proposed structure.
  • Fair go over 8 years ago
    I consider that this whole restructure has been a gross waste of time and resources and done in a completely unfair and incompetent manner. In the whole forum I have only seen (correct me if I am wrong) one in support, a person in Leura. Does that person know exactly how much their rates will go up? They might get a shock. Mine are going up $500! That is not fair.In fact I'll be paying about 9 times the minimum rate.Please BMCC, get it right! Stop wasting our money and spread the rates more evenly.This would be easily done by trying this. It would need to be refined to allow for special properties.Take the total revenue then divide by the total number of propertiesThis gives a starting point to work out the MINIMUM RATE. Lets say that gives $900Then apply the land values. Just one residential ratio. Business a little higher, Rural a little lower.I do not think it is rocket science.Put a few good people in workshop for a few days and it would be all worked out.Anyway, council have said the new restructure would only go ahead if the community supports it.By my observations the community has spoken against it.Therefore council will have to revert to the old system this year.
  • fido's friend over 8 years ago
    This restructure is indeed a waste of time, Fair Go. Very few residents in the towns facing increases realise just how much their rates will go up. Some people have experienced massive increases in the VG's valuation of their land over the 15 or 25 years they've lived here, and it is that valuation upon which the the ad valorem rate is calculated. Longterm residents in Leura and Katoomba are in for a very big shock when they see the actual increases. They will also get a shock when they go to sell their properties and realise how much actual values have dropped since the GFC. Current estimates are between 10% and 20% in Leura, where it's a buyer's market. The only 2 houses to sell in my street this year had to drop 13% and 27% respectively to achieve sales. So much for basing rates on supposed land values. The proposed system claims to be more equitable, but it is actually a type of enforced discrimination which has no basis in services offered or evidence of income. Any millionaire from Sydney with a weekender in Mt Vic or the mid-mountains will be laughing all the way to the bank.