The Makhado Municipality received around 800 objections from property owners who did not agree with the outcome of the valuation process for the period 2014 to 2018.

This was disclosed at a valuation roll public steering committee meeting held on 12 May. The Soutpansberg Ratepayers Association (SRPA), the Chairpersons Association (CA) and the Soutpansberg Chamber of Commerce were represented at the meeting, chaired by Ms Dakalo Sinthumule, municipal director of development and planning.  The meeting ended abruptly when representatives of all the associations walked out, stating that they were not afforded the opportunity to air their views and were silenced by Sinthumule.

The municipal manager, Mr Sakkie Mutshinyali, said on 19 May that the valuation roll was a challenge. “I established a team to advise me and I must instruct the valuer to correct the mistakes,” Mutshinyali said.

The SRPA said that they had addressed a letter to the municipality to complain about the valuation roll in general “as certain areas were valued too high, street addresses were wrong and the basis of the rate randage had not been disclosed” but that the director was uninformed about their complaint.  “Ms Sinthumule explained that ± 800 objections had been received but that no complaint had been received. We disagreed and referred her to our letter of complaint,” said the SRPA manager, Mr Phillip Olivier.

The SRPA had certain suggestions which they could not voice at the meeting. They explained in a letter to Mutshinyali that they wanted the rate randage to be determined in consultation with the ratepayers. They argued for an increase of 6% across the board on the 2008 values. In that case, time for specific objections needs to be given again. “Another possibility could be that the values of the 800 objectors’ properties be increased by 6 % across the board,” the SRPA added in an interview. 

The main complaint concerning the steering committee meeting, however, was the way in which the meeting was conducted by Sinthumule. “No consultation, only imposing and autocratic actions were rendered from the chairperson on this meeting ... It thus follows that no consultation has been done by the municipality regarding the implementation of the valuation roll. Comments and representations have not been entertained or considered. This meeting was thus just called to rubber stamp requirements that had not been met,” states the CA in its letter of objection against the meeting.

"The invitation clearly stated that solving discrepancies on the roll and other issues attendees might have, would be entertained, but none was addressed, because as soon as such were raised,  the chairperson  said she would not entertain them, and only specific stand numbers with specific problems could be raised,” said Ms Inga Gilfillan, secretary of the CA. Gilfillan said that the chairperson seemed to want only the specific cases to be explained again, although the municipality had already received 800 specific formal written objections.

Ms Jana Smith, who represented the Chamber of Commerce and who has 30 years of experience in real estate and property values, was in total shock about the way the meeting was conducted. “I wanted to explain that there was no way in which the area below Rissik Street with its specific soil type could be valued as high as the other areas in town. I started by saying that ‘If these valuers had been from town’ and it was as if the chairperson saw a red flag and she silenced me. I wanted to say that if the valuers had been from town, they would have been knowledgeable about the different areas in town. You cannot attach such high values to these properties since the banks would be reluctant to give bonds for prices that are too high. That area was valued much higher than market value," Smith said. 

Concerning the 800 objections, Smith said that so many objections said something about the valuation roll. “The valuation roll in general was not a true reflection of the property values," Smith said.  

At the time of our going to press, the municipality was still working on answers to media questions regarding the high number of objections against the valuation roll and complaints about the valuation steering committee meeting.