A housing development rebate introduced to help stimulate the local business community may be abolished under a new move by Griffith City Council.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A motion is set to appear before the next council meeting and could see the end of the ‘Griffith Local Economic Development Assistance Program’ which gives developers a rebate of Section 94A contributions required for development applications.
Section 94A mandates developers pay council one per cent of the total value of their development. For example a $10 million investment, would require a $100,000 up-front payment.
The debate surrounding the proposal divided Griffith groups and developers alike. Griffith Business Chamber President Paul Pierotti has called on councillors to vote against the proposal when it comes to them in a few weeks.
RELATED:
“The Griffith Business Chamber is adamantly against any tax on development. 94a is simply an extra tax and an extra cost burden,” he said.
Griffith Mayor John Dal Broi said council had always committed to reviewing the rebate.
“The program was put in place to assist the local economy through the tough times and to help stimulate planning, development, and construction and drive investment growth, and was not intended to be a permanent arrangement,” he said.
“Now that the city has seen improvement the program will be reviewed.”
The discount on the 94A levy was introduced a few years ago to support Griffith development.
Cr Dal Broi said contributions from developers were used to fund the city’s infrastructure improvements and open spaces around the area, like City Park.
“Griffith City Council has done nowhere near enough to encourage development and address significant and severe housing crisis that affects our people, our economy and our skills gap.” Mr Pierotti said.
Griffith property developer Zep Lanza said while the levy isn’t ideal, he doesn’t think it will affect the property market overall.
“The 94A cost for residential subdivision is only a small cost so it's not going to be the be-all and end-all for property subdivision,” he said.
“My biggest fear is that it's going to slow stuff at the higher end of the residential market, as well as commercial and agricultural investment.”
The issue is set to be considered by council at a meeting on June 26.