I take pity on Puan Kamariah Ibrahim of Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL). Section 142 of the Local Government Act (LGA) requires each person who files an objection must be heard individually. Imagine the amount of work and overtime she and her team has to do to peruse about half a million letters (if everybody in KL responds) on the assessment matter.
To assist her in saving time and money, I wish to write in to her on behalf of those who would agree with me on the points raised in the letter below. In the 2013 budget, provision for overtime increased by more than 19 percent from the previous year! I think this initiative would greatly reduce the overtime and the number of letters going her way.
However, this would would not be in compliance with Section 142 of the LGA. But I hope it is excusable because the Federal Territory Minister (FTM) himself has allowed rate payers to defer their assessment payments to later until a final decision is made based on the feedback i.e. March 2014.
Note, the last date for payment of assessment is Feb 28, 2014. The allowance given is not in compliance with Section 147(2) of the same Act where it is considered as arrears and can be claimed as provided in Section 148 (DBKL can issue warrant of arrest and seal the property).
The following is the objection letter.
Kuala Lumpur Residents Affected by the Assessment Rates to be Increased
Kuala Lumpur Date: Dec 4, 2013
No Fail: (as per the notice sent by DBKL)
No Akaun: (individual property account nos.)
Puan Kamariah Binti Ibrahim
Pengarah Penilaian
Jabatan Penilaian dan Pengurusan Harta
Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur
Tingkat 5, Bangunan TH Perdana
1001, Jalan Sultan Ismail
50250 Kuala Lumpur
Puan,
NOTIS MENYEMAK SEMULA SENARAI NILAIAN BAGI NO LOT: (as per the notice sent by DBKL) MUKIM: KUALA LUMPUR KEDUDUKAN HARTA: (individual property addresses)
We refer to the above notice dated (individual dates of the notices).
We hereby state our objection to the proposed increase in the assessment rates where the rate of increase is up to about 270 percent. As provided under Section 142 of the Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976, we are making an official objection towards the proposed increase which will be imposed with effect from Jan 1, 2014.
The reasons for our objection are as follows:
1. For the 2013 budget, DBKL assured city dwellers that there will be no increase in assessment rates because of an increase in revenue from collection of assessment rates due to the increase in the number of properties and boost in development projects in the Federal capital.
For the 2011 budget, the then-mayor said DBKL would not raise the assessment rate since it was in a good financial position and said from Jan 1, 2011, DBKL would reduce the assessment rate for service apartments and apartments in commercial buildings by 2 percent. It was reported the cashflow and cash reserve position of DBKL as at 2010 year-end was at a ratio 1.4 that afford to finance 12 month operational expenditure.
Has the financial position of DBKL deteriorated to such an extent that it needs a boost in income of up to more than 200 percent? And we do not believe the costs of providing its services has increased to such an extent.
2. Has DBKL and its advisers looked at how to improve efficiency and reduce wastages? Were there any visible improvement to public amenities and services? KL roads are riddled with potholes and when patched up following complaints, the work is shoddy. Traffic congestion has also become worse especially with MRT works and trees have been cut for the sake of development.
3. The justifications given for the increase are subjective. We demand DBKL to provide quantitative information/details for the justifications given.
4. Has DBKL’s strategic plan changed from that of 2013 and 2012?
5. The mayor at the 2014 DBKL Budget dialogue in October 2013, said DBKL is in the midst of reviewing the quit rent rates for properties in the city and the new rates are expected to take effect on Jan 1, 2014. He also said DBKL had received the mandate from Federal Territories Minister (FTM) to re-evaluate the rates. There is no mention of reviewing the annual rental value.
6. Has the valuers considered points that would actually bring down the value of our properties, like having our houses located a few metres from the MRT track, near a cemetery or a sewerage treatment plant? There are cases where property values have dropped by about 35 percent due to its proximity to the MRT track.
7. What are the steps taken by DBKL to collect arrears in assessment? The Federal Territory Minister (FTM) was reported as saying DBKL still have not collected RM300 million in arrears.
8. How much is DBKL expecting to increase its revenue with this increase in assessment rates? Is DBKL planning to do some massive development next year that would necessitate a huge increase in revenue? Revenue from assessment in 2013 is budgeted at RM880.5 million. At an average 200 percent increase, DBKL will add approximately RM1.76 billion to its coffers.
Or is there a plan where the Federal government will absolve itself from providing funds to DBKL?
9. Has DBKL reviewed unnecessary upgrading works or programme especially at a time when the rakyat is advised to tighten their belt? As an example, around RM54 million was budgeted for the ‘Komuniti Harmoni 1Malaysia’ programme for the last two years.
10. Has DBKL reviewed the effectiveness of its enforcement divisions?
11. Many of our houses have not had renovations which are now overvalued versus those who have had complete face-lifts. With our original untouched houses having a lower property price in the market, we do not deserve to be served with such a hefty hike.
12. Since the assessments are based on annual rental value, the houses which we occupy as original owners should not be slapped with such a hefty increase We bought property to live in, not invest. To say that the increase is because the value of houses have increased is not logical. Further, many home owners in mature housing estates are in their twilight years and the high assessment would put a strain on their total expenses and well being.
13. Why had DBKL not announced this earlier and or held a town-hall meetings or dialogue sessions with relevant stakeholders?
14. The sudden hike in assessment rates will result in a spiral effect which will push up the rental rates.
15. There is confusion. The deputy FTM was reported as saying in Parliament the increase had been deferred to March but the FTM said the hike in assessment rates in the city will proceed as planned in January, although ratepayers could defer their assessment payments to later, until the panel makes a decision.
The latter said that he has yet to fix the assessment rate, saying it will be set after the March deadline for property owners to vent out their dissatisfaction and reasons behind the disagreement. A notice will still be issued in January on the re-evaluation exercise but only after March next year will the rates be notified.
The question now is which amount will be shown in the notice to be sent out in January and how about the penalties and consequences as per sections 147(2) and 148 of the Local Government Act?
Please contact us if there is a hearing on this objection.
Sekian, terima kasih.
Yang benar,
XXXXXXXXXX
