Dear Editor

I reply to Councillor Johns’  answer to Frank Giles in the Valley Voice 11/9/2013.

I find that your broad consensus of the community was of little value as you did not consult the farming community as seen at the Council meeting farmers attended.

You stated that you wanted the farming sector to pay the same as the commercial sector  (9¢ in the rateable dollar), too bad this is an  untruth as the commercial rate was dropped from 7.5¢ in the dollar to 6.8¢ in the dollar.

The commercial rateable value is less than the farming rateable value by about $605,535.00 (amounts quoted from freedom of information request). By dropping the commercial rate to 6.8¢ in the dollar the Council dropped its revenue by nearly $38,000.00; by raising the farming rate to 12.6¢ in the dollar Council would have gained $309,699.00 extra revenue.

You seem to think that the commercial and residential ratepayers pay 85% of the bill towards Council spending, why don’t you quote the amounts that  Council gets from grants and assistance throughout the year – people may like to know that.  There are farming sectors still paying 12.5¢ in the dollar today – why is this so?

You should also know that DIER is not responsible for lighting, Council pays the bill for street lighting.

You have been in Council long enough to know that very seldom or never does a rate increase ever get reduced in following years.

The last paragraph in your letter is nothing more than pie in the sky, nothing to do with the matter being referred to and a slur on people’s intelligence.

Remember one thing, there is a limit to what people of all walks in life can pay. I was under the impression that the Council was trying to get people to come to this Municipality not drive them away.

Robert Legge   St Marys