Page 11 - SAPOA Property News - Volume 1

ANNUAL REVIEW OF RATES POLICIES
SAPOA’s comments could be divided in 3 categories:
Fundamental matters include the creation or deletion of property categories new exemptions rebates or reductions and amending rates ratios These changes will usually have an an impact on income and will therefore not be considered favourably or may be considered in in the following year We do not believe that vacant land should be rated at at a a a a a higher tariff than business properties and will always suggest that the category be removed or that the rate ratio be reduced The category was removed from the rates policy of Polokwane and in 2017/18 the ratio was reduced from 6 6 6 49 to 3 66 in Tshwane It has also been suggested that a a a category be created to include parks roads/streets and access control for gated or or security developments The maintenance of this infrastructure has been taken over by the home owners association and it should be recognised by municipalities Johannesburg is the only municipality that created a a a a property category that includes some of these elements Conflict with a the MPRA is often observed and not always addressed in fin the final policy Policies
that are in conflict with the MPRA could be challenged Until 2018/19 the rates policy for Cape Town did not determine the property categories for differential rating MPRA definitions are often amended or added to In many instances’ municipalities would require that the owner must be regarded as a a a a bona fide farmer by SARS before a a property is is is categorised as agricultural This is in fin conflict with the definition for agricultural properties which requires that the property must be used primarily for agricultural purposes There is no reference to SARS The policy of Mangaung requires that a a property must be exclusively used for residential purposes while die MPRA definition refers
to primarily used for residential purposes The definition of zoning fin in in the Johannesburg policy is similar to the definition of permitted use Permitted use is often ignored In Johannesburg Public Benefit Organisations as defined fin in the ration regulations are required to submit financial statements to be assessed by the municipality This requirement is is additional to what is is required in the regulation Properties used for multiple purposes are often not dealt with according to section 9 of the MPRA Johannesburg and Tshwane refer to multiple purpose in the explanation of the policy but fails to create the category Technical issues include definitions not fin in alphabetical order no numbering or or or incorrect numbering of clauses spelling mistakes drafting that does nor makes sense and bad drafting The rates policy of Johannesburg is is an example of a a a a policy that is is not numbered It is a a challenge to to refer to to clauses if they are not numbered There are many examples of bad drafting the following examples are from the Johannesburg policy:
• Fundamental matters • Conflict with MPRA • Technical issues These obvious mistakes have been raised on on on more than one occasion without success It is evident that some municipalities are not taking cognisance of public comments they are simply ticking the boxes to comply with statutory requirements • “This category of property categorised religious will excluding a a structure that ”
• “Vacant land owned by individual for development of residential property if developed within the two year will be charged residential tariff backdated to year one ”
• “The indigent rebate for Rates is applicable to homeowners and not individuals ”
SAPOA PROPERTY NEWS
11