Council alternative revenue

I read with interest the letter from Phillip Young regarding non-resident ratepayers (Fleurieu Sun, 10 September). I imagine most non-resident ratepayers would agree with the sentiment expressed in the letter. However, I suspect many resident ratepayers would be less enthusiastic about extending the 15 per cent cap on rate increases to non-residents. 

If Council allowed non-resident ratepayers to access the 15 per cent cap, it would have to make up the “lost” revenue somehow -- potentially from resident ratepayers. Similarly, businesses are probably not that keen on paying the differential (higher) rate they currently pay, particularly if they do not believe they are receiving the economic development benefits that differential rate is intended to deliver. 

It’s quite the conundrum. 

This raises one of the critical issues the City of Victor Harbor Council faces: how do we reduce the burden on residential ratepayers at a time of higher costs? Alternative revenue sources, differential rates, and fees and charges are all "tools in a Council toolbox”. 

Council administration should be presenting elected members with a range of options for reducing, or at least constraining, the burden on residential and other ratepayers.  Elected members may, in turn, identify other ideas that the administration has not considered.

Importantly, I would argue that the Council should be transparent about this process. Ratepayers should be able to see which options were considered, which were rejected, and why. That kind of transparency, and a demonstrated willingness to explore every reasonable option before increasing rates, would help build confidence in our Council.

Peter Hanlon
Victor Harbor