How to change the world: RECOMMENDED READING

Dorothy from the Midlands writes to tell us about this "change technique." Well it is worth a look and I would go so far as to say that every Alderman and Councillor in Tasmania should read this 12 page pamphlet. However, as Dorothy says "ratepayers trying to get through to their [elected representative] will find this useful" too!

Yes, Dorothy it may well be useful but some of our representatives believe they have been elected to make decisions and NOT to listen to their constituency on every issue that comes up for them. It is hard to have a productive conversation with them but it is worth trying. But we should not tar all our representatives with the same brush as there are quite a few who take their 'representation' seriously.

Then there are the unelected managers. Some of them believe that they have all the answers so listening to ratepayers and residents is often seen as a waste of their time. Nonetheless this pamphlet could be useful even in having a productive conversation with such an officer.

The website where you download this paper from is an interesting one and Les Robinson the author has some interesting things to say about economic rationalism. In fact he gives us "Eight tools to fight economic rationalism" with! Take a look, its worth the effort.

A Launceston Alderman Stands Up To Be Counted.

If you live in South Launceston most likely you will have received one of these leaflets in your letterbox. It is really good that our elected representatives get out and about doing letter drops and letting us know what they are doing for us. Its the kind of thing you are unlikely to read about in The Examiner anytime soon.Parking is one of Ald. Soward's hot topics and it is good to see that he has done a reality check and that he has discovered that in order to bring about change you need to get going and do some lobbying.

He also made some promises about rates that it seems he'll need to do a bit more work on in order to close the credibility gap. If you say one thing and vote another way there is a gap to be filled. Why did Ald. Soward vote for the rate increase despite the level of services Launceston City Council has to deliver shrinking somewhat now that the Sate Govt. has taken water management out of the equation?

However, South Launcestonians have been doing it tough in the parking stakes for a long time. So too have hospital patients, staff and relatives! CARe PARK AUSTRALIA has a grip on the situation that is going to be hard to overcome but all strength to Ald. Soward's elbow. Nonetheless he'll need the support of a few more Aldermen before he'll be able to make much headway.

We also need to remember that the hospital is cash strapped. No wonder the management has turned to CARe. It is going to be hard to wean the hospital's administration from that funding drip!

Wherever You Go Pool Problems Seem To Follow

Pools seem to generate problems for bureaucrats no where they go and how much you pay them.

RESIDENTS in the Maroondah Leader 's catchment "will need to double the number of times they take a dip if Ringwood’s proposed mega-pool is to deliver its promised financial return to ratepayers, council documents show."
Maroondah Council’s budget has revealed plans to build a $48 million Regional Leisure and Aquatic Centre in Ringwood.

The council plans to borrow between $38 million and $40 million to fund the new pool, which is set to open by 2013.

The existing Ringwood Aquatic Centre is set to close in May next year, with the 90 staff at the centre being made redundant.

The council budget will see rates jump by 9.8 per cent as the council attempts to end it’s budget deficit, but 1.1 per cent of the rate hike will be used to help plan for the new pool. If any of this sounds familiar to Launcestonians that is no surprise at all.

The Maroondah Leader won access to parts of the Ringwood Aquatic Centre Redevelopment Feasibility Study (unsurprisingly this is not publicly available), and it outlines the Maroondah Council’s $48 million new swimming centre plan.

There were consultants, the Simply Great Leisure Group (SGL), and they it seems developed the new pool’s business plan. That plan had some "key assumptions” it seems. Anyone receiving a report from a consultant who makes "assumptions" should be very worried. Yes it seems they did survey 500 residents but an assumption is an assumption.

It is being assumed that the new centre will attract "600,000 to 720,000, compared with the existing pool’s 287,426 visitors in 2008-09". TRA has been informed that for Launceston's facility:

• the old pool attracted something in the order of 120,000 visits pa
• The assumption upon which the new pool was built was approx 420,000 visits pa
• The budgeted deficit for its first year of operation was approx $450,000
• The actual deficit was in the order of $1 million.

If Launceston could turn back the the clock it is hard to imagine ratepayers, and even some Aldermen, approving the folly of building Launceston's Aquatic Centre – or at least the way it was built and where. It is a magnificent facility but it has contributed significantly to Launceston's average 5.5% rate rise this year.

The Maroondah Leader story has a thread .... click here to read more
However, does any of this ring a bell?

"MAROONDAH Council’s budget has revealed plans to build a $48 million Regional Leisure and Aquatic Centre in Ringwood. The council plans to borrow between $38 million and $40 million to fund the new pool, which is set to open by 2013. The existing Ringwood Aquatic Centre is set to close in May next year, with the 90 staff at the centre being made redundant.

The council budget will see rates jump by 9.8 per cent as the council attempts to end it’s budget deficit, but 1.1 per cent of the rate hike will be used to help plan for the new pool."

Petar Hill

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: A promise about rates

In the Jun-Sep 09 issue of the Launceston News published by the LCC, on the front page is the following statement...

"Water and Sewer: As of 1 July 2009, three local government owned corporations took over the delivery and maintenance of water and sewer services in Tasmania. In the north, Ben Lomond Water will provide these services. In the past, the fee for water and sewer services has been included in your rates bill. You will now receive a separate notice from Ben Lomond Water (BUW) for these services. As a result of this, your Council rates will be substantially less than last year...."

Now it is just possible that someone will try and explain this away but when you put things on the record at ratepayers' expense it might be a good idea to try and keep the promises that are made.

As they used to say on the radio ... "keep those cards and letters coming in folks!"

Local Government: What's legal and what's illegal

Wat's legal and illegal in Local Government is often the subject of contentious debate. If you are a ratepayer you are ever likely to told what your obligations are but rarely are your rights explained to you it seems. Likewise, it seems that Aldermen & Councillors are often unclear about what the Local Government Act has to say about an issue and more than a few report that they receive confusing advice from Council officers.

Is a 21st C context this should no longer be the case because the Local Government Act. is very accessible and really quite strait forward. Certainly there are complexities in the Act but Council officers should be able to clarify (in Council or privately) an issue for an Alderman/Councillor where these things impinge upon a Council decision. If this is not the case then ratepayers have something to worry about and especially if it turns out that Aldermen/Councillors wind up working with flawed or inadequate advice – it seems that in some cases this may be happening.

It is also important that ratepayers be aware of the laws governing Local Government. Unless they are there is no real way they can lobby their representatives on Council – or even negotiate effectively with Council officer when they need to.

There are some links below to parts of the Act that are all too often 'Hot Issues'. However, there seems to be a need for 'Ratepayer Groups' to start to be somewhat more proactive than they have been in educating ratepayers about their rights and obligations along with what they should be able to expect from their elected representatives and Council officers.

• LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 20 20. Functions and powers
• LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 28 28. Functions of councillors – 28(2) (iii) & (28) (3) (a) are of particular interest
• LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 22 22. Delegation by council – 21 (1) (a) & 21 (4) (a) are of particular interest
• LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 62 62. Functions and powers of general manager
  

The Vexed Question of Rates in Tasmania

Council in Tasmania are striking their 2010-2011 rates and for some ratepayers it is not a happy time. In Launceston the rate rise is on average 5.5%. So long as rates continue to rise incrementally the ability of a great many ratepayers decreases incrementally. Launceston's ratepayers have been advocating a change to the method of striking the rates but they have had no joy at all to date.

By and large their Aldermen have let them down and it seems that the tail is still wagging the dog at Town Hall in Launceston. Council officers seem to be delivering Alderman with an ultimatum that is otherwise called a budget. It seems that they (the officers) decide upon the method that suits their purposes best. Yes, that's the one that maintains status quo staffing levels, determines salary levels and delivers bonuses plus benefits the higher up the pecking order you go. In short it seems that their is no incentive whatsoever for Council officers to lower the rate base.

Then we come to Aldermen and Councilors. Again it seems that they are presented with budget that is in fact a 'fete de compli'. It also seems they do not have the appetite to take their officers on in the cause of delivering a more equitable system. Some officers even go so far as to suggest that "rates are a kind of wealth tax." From the luxurious position of being relatively highly paid and being appointed rather than elected that's a bit rich – and somewhat inappropriate as well.

The question about the legality of the models used by Devonport, Georgetown, Brighton Councils has been around for quite some time – there has been plenty of time to fix the legislation, and that can still be done if Councils lobbied for it. Of course, the opinions about the legality of these flat rating or capped rating municipalities are nothing more than that, opinions. The so called "delinquent councils" have been told that they are out of order – but they continue nonetheless. So why can’t other councils join them ? Launceston even?

Focusing on Launceston again, Rob Soward, paraphrased, promised to fix the system. He may have been a little naive in imagining that he could effect change all by himself , but there you go. He could only count on one vote in twelve – but after all it was election time. Interestingly only one Alderman on LCC voted against the 5.5% rate rise, Ald. Ball, and Ald. Soward was missing in action – he voted for the rise. Nonetheless Ald Soward has said that he had :

• "a detailed and extensive briefing (on two seperate occasions) around a number of rating models and what they can offer for Launceston (benefits/ negatives etc) . I am in favour of the so called Devonport model where rates are capped ... It is a model that would lead to very very slight increases in some rating areas (low SES areas like Waverley, Ravenswood etc) and huge reductions in prime residential areas. There would be some increases in business property rates but these would be far less than the reduction in prime residential rates- the only people who would be worse off in my view under the new "Devonport"model would be a Waverley ratepayer and resident who owned a large factory in Launceston (and I don’t think there would be too many of those) The areas that would see an increase would see an increase of around 2 percent- under CPI."

Well, Launceston's ratepayers are not happy, and have not been since the massive increases were implemented. There are over 8,000 (out of 27,000) ratepayers affected by unfairly high rates . Many ratepayer’s found their rates reduced, static or not rising in accordance with CPI during this period. However, Launcestonians pay higher rates than residential ratepayers in many interstate suburbs whose property values are several times more valuable than they are in Launceston.

Clearly, there is an equity issue to be answered here not to mention the fact that other budget restraints are necessary. Over the same period, council’s budget increased by $30 million. Who benefits form this? It certainly isn't the ratepayers. This an issue that is not going to go away and it is one where Aldermen/Councillors and Council officer alike will be called upon to engage with their constituencies

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE Comments and opinions are welcomed.
Please use the comment section below.