HOW DO OUR COUNCIL RATES COMPARE?
South Burnett Regional Council recently released a document comparing S.B. rates with other Regional and
neighbouring Councils. The conclusion of this document stated that compared to neighbouring councils the South
Burnett was “mid-range” and measured up as “among the lowest in regional Queensland” when compared to 10
other Councils from the Gold Coast to Cairns. If this comparison is fair and correct then why do so many
Ratepayers have the opinion that rates in the South Burnett are high?
In a recent survey of members of the South Burnett Residents Action Group there was a clear majority of
members (77%) who consider Council rates are far too high. A 2004 rate notice for a residential block in Tingoora
shows an increase in rates and charges from $387.81 (after deducting a 15% discount) to $2,038.60 (discount now
only 10%) in 2014. Some services have increased but that’s more than a 500% increase in 10 years. Is it any
wonder ratepayers are feeling the pinch? Much of this exorbitant increase is due to rate notices being loaded up
with an array of charges and levies that in many cases far exceed the amount for actual rates.
An objective and honest comparison of rates requires a deal of research. The State Government publish Regional
Council Rate Comparisons on the web so these are the figures which will be used throughout this comparison.
All rates are set in direct relationship to the designated “Rateable Value.” This is why all Rate Notices state the
lands rateable value. (Eg Valuation $50,000) Council sets a level of cents in the dollar that must be paid in relation
to your lands valuation. There are numerous categories of rateable levels – residential/ commercial/ rural etc. For
the purpose of this comparison only the “Residential” category will be used as this is a common category across
all regions. Because our Rates are charged in direct relationship to “Rateable Value,” any genuine comparison
must begin with a comparison of land with similar rateable value.
The Council comparison has chosen to ignore the “valuation of land” factor and therefore their comparisons are
misleading. They have compared Wondai (average residential valuation of $50,716 and rates of $1920) with
Mackay (average residential valuation of $183,672 and rates of $2215) A residential block in Mackay is valued at
$132,956 more than a Wondai block but Mackay is paying just $295 more. The land is worth 360% more but the
rates are only 15% more.
It gets worse. Our Council has compared Wondai with places such as Nerang (average residential valuation
$204,000) and Surfers Paradise (average residential valuation $818,000).Surfers residential land is worth 16 times
more than Wondai land but the Rates are only $5,069 or 2.6 times more. These are the Councils own figures
being quoted. There can be no honest comparison of land in Wondai with land in Gold Coast Cities. You can’t
compare apples with oranges or sand castles with bricks and mortar castles.
Let’s compare from another direction.
Kingaroy residential land has an average valuation of $82,279 (2012 – 2013) There are 7 other towns on the
Government web site with a similar valuation. (between $80,000 and $85,378) Moura, Alpha, Home Hill, Imbil,
Clermont, Forest Hill, Killarney. When we take an average of General Rates payable per annum in these towns it is
$870. Kingaroy pays $1093 or 20% more on average.
Nanango (average residential valuation $65,122) when compared to other towns with a similar valuation like
Crows Nest, Barcaldine, Giru reveals Nanango pays $876 while the other towns average $730. Nanango pays 15%
more. Note: Charters Towers (valuation $65,099) but has been omitted because it is a city.
Blackbutt (valuation $58,687) is paying 20% more than towns listed with similar residential land valuations such
as St. George, Barcaldine, Giru, Middle Mount, Crows Nest.
Murgon (valuation $38,742) pays 10% more than similar valued residential blocks. (Texas, Illfracombe, Charleville,
Tara, Collinsville)
One Council table attempts to show our rate charges are mid-range for both lowest and highest residential
categories compared to our neighbouring Councils. Instead of cherry picking it is more accurate to compare
overall rate payment averages and we must factor in valuations.
Below are the results.
Average Value Residential Land / Average General Rates per Annum / $ Paid per $1000 of Value
South Burnett $59,109
$828
$14.00
Somerset $125,509
$743
$5.92
Western Downs $72,427
$828
$11.43
North Burnett $38,722
$580
$14.98
Gympie* $98,026
$957
$9.76
Toowoomba* $98,026
$934
$9.57
Only North Burnett is marginally higher while all others are much lower. Nothing mid-range about this! South
Burnett Rates are high in comparison.
Note;*The actual cities themselves were not included in these figures, just the towns within the region (eg for
Gympie; Tin Can Bay, Imbil, Kilkivan) because there are no comparable cities in the other Council regions. If they
were included it would distort the results and make the South Burnett compare even worse.
At first glance the figures displayed under the “General Rates per Annum” column may seem lower than you
thought but on many Rate Notices the extra levies and charges more than double the actual Rate amount.
Let’s do one further comparison. How about we compare the actual cents in the dollar being charged by South
Burnett and its neighbouring councils? The most honest and accurate comparison is revealed through averages of
the towns listed on the State Government Comparison web site rather than selectively picking a particular town
here and there.
GENERAL RATE 2013/14
Regional Council
Average Cents in the Dollar Residential Land
South Burnett
1.506
North Burnett
1.0075
Western Downs
0.7881
Somerset
0.6676
The South Burnett rate in the dollar is 50% higher than the next highest.
Both Toowoomba and Gympie have not supplied enough information on their various rating categories to make
an accurate comparison.
An interesting point: From 2011/2012 to 2012/2013 the State Government lists the gross Rates and Utility
charges as follows.
South Burnett Regional Council: 16% Rise.
The average of North Burnett/Western Downs/Somerset/Gympie/Southern Downs: 9.8% Rise.
This begs the question: Why is the S.B. Regional Council so expensive??
SUMMARY
The above report makes two points very clear.
1. The comparison issued by South Burnett Regional Council is flawed and misleading.
2. The results of the South Burnett Residents Action Group survey has correctly identified that residents in this
region are paying very expensive rates. (77% of members named rates as a major concern)
Our Mayor may be disappointed that the Federal Government and South Burnett residents are complaining about
these higher rates but it’s the struggling homeowners, businesses and farmers that have to find the money. They
are the ones suffering financial hardship. On the above figures it’s no surprise the Federal Government is telling
Mayor Kratzmann that South Burnett rates are high.
Directly comparing Rates between different towns and regions is never entirely straight forward because no two
regions are exactly the same. Given this, we have endeavoured to use “Averages” and “Rateable Values” as the
best and most accurate methodology.
Nevertheless, it is hard to argue against the conclusion that our rates are well above comparable regions.
Something must be done to rectify this injustice. The first step is to make residents well aware of the problem. SBRAG will certainly be doing its best to inform residents. Secondly, S-BRAG will also provide leadership in the
hope of producing a much fairer and reasonable outcome for Ratepayers.
This Rate Comparison Report has been compiled by the S-BRAG Management Committee and unanimously
endorsed by Wondai S-BRAG membership.
Don Pinwill
President, Management Committee, South Burnett Residents Action Group.
RESPONSE TO S-BRAG RATES COMPARISON
South Burnett Online has attacked S-BRAG over its Rates Report.
In response to information presented by S-BRAG showing South Burnett rates are 15% to 20% above
neighbouring or similar shires, S.B. Online has dismissed the comparison as “ludicrous”. Their grounds for
objection centre on the methodology of using “Rateable Values or Unimproved Values” as a reasonable basis to
make comparisons between one Shire and another.
However, “Unimproved Values” are a very strong indicator of the economic strength of any region. If land values
are low then it can be reasonably assumed that the region is not affluent or have a high percentage of residents
with a large disposable income. Lower land values suggest a lower ability for residents to pay higher rates. This is
the case in the South Burnett where 60% of people are categorised as being on or below the poverty line. A small
rise in rates under these conditions will always create far greater financial hardship than a much larger rise where
residents are economically strong.
While S.B. Online has vehemently object to S-BRAG using “Unimproved Values” as a comparison, they are quite
happy to use the same methodology themselves when circumstances suite. For example;
A contributor to S.B. Online (Nanna Dot 28th July 2014) asked a question, “I live out of Kingaroy and have a
friend at Oakwood, Bundaberg. His rates are lower than mine and have been for years, he also has more land, but
like me no sewerage.”
S.B. Online replied, “Don’t forget Nanna Dot, that rates also depend on the valuation of your land...to be fair
you would need to compare the unimproved value of your land against the unimproved value of your friends
land.”
Who is looking “ludicrous” now?
Come on, S.B. Online – Let’s have a little consistency in your reporting.
A MAYOR WHO UNDERSTANDS
The Mayor of Paroo Shire has got the message.
In a recent ABC interview Lindsay Godfrey (Paroo Mayor) was being interviewed about the financial position of his
Council. Mayor Godfrey explained how difficult it now was to maintain services because of the lack of funds and
the continuing cutbacks from higher levels of government. He was asked what he intended to do about this.
Mayor Godfrey replied, “I am unsure what to do about it. It is a very difficult problem. UNDER CURRENT
CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT AN OPTION TO RAISE RATES!!”
Here’s a mayor who understands. The whole purpose of Local Government is to service residents. When the cost
of those services are beyond the ability of the residents to pay then the best way to service residents is to put a
freeze on further rate rises. Councils who continue to milk ratepayers for every last cent are killing the cow that
produces the cream.
Congratulations Mayor Lindsay – You really do understand the many financial burdens (not just rates) and
drought hardships facing your region.