XN000022-1984-03-22 — Page 9

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1984

+THUS THE VALUE OF THE CONCESSION WOULD BE MAINTAINED IN ABSOLUTE TERMS. HOWEVER, THESE PERCENTAGES CAN ALSO BE AMENDED BY RESOLUTION OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, MR FRY EXPLAINED.

ANOTHER MAJOR CHANGE IS THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN THE $200 MINIMUM RATEABLE VALUE DETERMINED IN 1961 TO $1 000.

+IN THIS CONNECTION, I SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT THE MINIMUM RATEABLE VALUE IS NOT A SOCIAL EXEMPTION FOR SMALL PREMISES, BUT AN ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE TO ENSURE THAT THE COST OF RAISING AND MAINTAINING AN ASSESSMENT DOES NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT RECOVERED IN RATES, HE SAID.

DURING THIS MONTH RATEPAYERS CAN LODGE OBJECTIONS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BY SENIOR RATING AND VALUATION OFFICERS WHO MAY DECIDE TO REDUCE AN ASSESSMENT, INCREASE IT OR LEAVE IT UNCHANGED.

SO FAR THE RATING AND VALUATION DEPARTMENT HAS REGISTERED SOME 15 000 VALID PROPOSALS, OR JUST OVER TWO PER CENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ASSESSMENTS. HOWEVER, MORE WERE BEING RECEIVED EVERY DAY, AND THERE WERE STILL NINE DAYS TO GO TO THE END OF THE MONTH.

+THIS MIGHT SEEM A LARGE NUMBER BUT IT DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE NEW VALUES HAVE BEEN OVER-ASSESSED.

+ IN SOME INSTANCES, I BELIEVE, PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN LODGED BECAUSE THE RATEPAYERS HAVE NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE BASIS OF RATEABLE VALUE AND I HOPE THAT ONCE THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED IN GREATER DETAIL MOST WILL NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO PURSUE THE MATTER TO APPEAL.

+MAY ADD THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE WORRIED HAD THERE BEEN ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF PROPOSALS, FOR THAT MIGHT INDICATE THAT THE NEW VALUES WERE UNDER-ASSESSED, MR FRY SAID.

HE STRESSED THAT WHATEVER THE RATE ABLE VALUE, THE RATES MUST BE PAID BY APRIL 30.

IF THE RATEABLE VALUE IS SUBSEQUENTLY REDUCED, AN ADJUSTMENT WILL BE MADE FOR ANY RATES OVERPAID.

19