{"content":[{"text":"The General Rate is based on a proportion (ratio) of Capital Value (we believe this should be \n Land Value – see below) because originally the idea was to pay for property related services \n - 3 waters, transport, waste and related urban community services.","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.085935,"width":0.752313,"height":0.052177000000000015}},{"text":"In equity terms it is fair that people whose wealth have increased most have benefited more \n and should pay more for the AC services they receive. They also can afford it (if necessary by \n borrowing against their equity since rates are so low – AC even has a scheme for that).","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.155492,"width":0.757066,"height":0.052178}},{"text":"The General Rate also endeavours to provide fairness in relation to the different level of \n services provided by having different rates for rural, residential etc.","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.22505,"width":0.72016,"height":0.03478899999999999}},{"text":"AC was meant to do a general property revaluation this year, but has deferred it to next \n year because of Covid. If it was urgent (i.e.for this year’s budget) we expect it could be done \n quickly, or on a temporary (for this year) basis. (there are always provisions for people to \n object to their own valuation).","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.277218,"width":0.752672,"height":0.06956799999999996}},{"text":"Instead of talking about a rate INCREASE - why not plan to, and say that AC intends to, keep \n the ratio the same this year, and not increase it. Make this the selling point – no ratio \n increase. Complete the valuation review urgently and base the rates on that.","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.364451,"width":0.749162,"height":0.05217799999999995}},{"text":"[Officials will no doubt argue that it is now too late for a rating review for this year’s rates \n accounts. If that is the case, we suggest the policy receive serious consideration for next \n year’s rates exercise.]","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.434009,"width":0.732242,"height":0.05217700000000003}},{"text":"AC would take on the risk of the effect of property price volatility on rating revenues. This is \n a manageable risk over time and would create an added incentive for AC to make Auckland \n an attractive place to live, work and play - keeping up property prices.","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.503566,"width":0.750499,"height":0.05217800000000006}},{"text":"Ratepayers will appreciate knowing that if their property values decline they will see a \n matching reduction in rates.","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.573124,"width":0.704871,"height":0.03478900000000007}},{"text":"Furthermore if the ratio is based on land values rather than capital values this would reduce \n variability, as the supply of land remains fixed and demand for land uses is growing. The \n package would then be tailored, fair, equitable and efficient.","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.625292,"width":0.7526269999999999,"height":0.05217800000000006}},{"text":"AC could plan to do a valuation review (even if only a broad brush one) every year and keep \n the ratios the same. [A ratio review would then be a major exercise - like a representation \n review - done say every 6 years.]","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.69485,"width":0.750245,"height":0.05217800000000006}},{"text":"If property values have gone up 10%, then rates revenue will increase accordingly - but you \n can say the general rates ratio hasn’t increased. People are just paying more because they \n have become wealthier and the cost of providing AC services has increased. (Depending on \n the modelling AC might even be able to decrease the ratios initially and still achieve its \n target revenues.)","bbox":{"left":0.121822,"top":0.764408,"width":0.7456900000000001,"height":0.08724200000000004}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}