Comment Posted by Brighton Council ... click here to see it
Brighton Council has kept rates at CPI for 15 years in a row. Brighton Council provides a flat rate for all residential properties although the rate is discounted to 3 suburbs that are predominately Housing dept areas. The maximum any residential property pays for its general rate is $780.00 ... The total rate paid in each commercial sector is also linked to CPI.
On 4/07/11 5:23 PM, "Ivan Dean" wrote:
To: Launceston Ratepayer who drew Launceston Aldermen's attention to Brighton Council's comment
Brighton is a very small council with nowhere near the infrastructure we have and from memory they have no regional facilities and there are many other differences.
If you are going to compare councils you need to do so on an apples with apples basis and not water melons and grapes basis. There is also some evidence to show that what Brighton has done is not in compliance with the local govt Act.
The Launceston Ratepayer's reply to Ald. Dean,
Dear Ald. Dean,
Thank you for your eMail. Might I point out that I’ve not made a comparison between Launceston and Brighton. However it seems that you are doing so. I am simply a subscriber to the Tasmanian Ratepayer’s website and I found it somewhat interesting that the “Brighton Council” posted the comment on the site. Just who at Brighton Council I have no idea but it is of interest, some interest to me, that this council should make the comment that it did and that it was moved to do so for whatever reason.
In the light of all that I thought that it was worth drawing this to Aldermen’s attention. Make of it what you will but as time progresses I suspect Brighton’s stance may well gain some perspective. I am sure that in the end justice will prevail if the council is in contravention of the Act.
Regards,
Ratepayer R ( Name withheld for privacy reasons)
THE EDITOR SAYS: In its own way this thread of correspondence tells a tale.
3 comments:
Firstly, there is no pre-requisite for using the AAV Valuation system for rating purposes in Launceston.
There is no reason why Launceston City Council can’t increase the General Charge,currently $120,(and significantly say as much as 50% of the rate income for the city)to $600, so as to thereby reduce the General Rate component.
The proposed 20% cap by LCC on residential rate increases is purely an arbitrary figure. Why not 10% or 5% or even 4% across the board based on last year’s rate? That would create the least harm to ratepayers.
State Parliament has already debated the Georgetown/Brighton model just a few weeks back in May. We are surprised Launceston Aldermen are not kept informed on this and continue to criticize and question Brighton Council. A legal opinion is JUST THAT, a legal opinion, not a judgement.
We cannot really believe that the Attorney General would permit Georgetown, Brighton and to a lesser extent, Devonport, to continue to rate their ratepayers on a basis that has no legal standing ?
There appears to be no impediment to other municipalities following the Brighton method.
According to a LGAT submission to a Commonwealth Select Committee,
"Brighton Council has adopted such a rating methodology.... which sees different flat rates being applied across its various land categories but all within those categories paying the same amount. It has acknowledged that there are some areas of the municipality that are subject to greater financial hardship than others and has implemented some transitional arrangements in its residential rating regime.
Brighton Council has a strong record of user pays for the provision of services and has received strong support from its community to implement this particular mix of revenue raising."
LGAT certainly does not seem to chide Brighton for not acting legally, to the contrary.
Now there is some inconsistency in Ivan Dean's response to the Brighton Council comment. So far as I am aware it is not illegal for councils to fail to increase their rates above the CPI.
I would call keeping the rates in line with the CPI very good management and keeping an eye on wastful spending.
Launceston City Council consistently increases its rate level above the CPI. Over successive years increasing the rate above the CPI happens again and again and it has become a habit.
To a large extent this explains Launceston's excessive rate and lack of competativenes.
On top of that there is Ivan Dean's argument about Launceston funding "regional facilities." But these facilities' spending tends to increase above the CPI and the Aldermen tick off on it time and time again.
Ivan Dean was mayor when Launceston built the Aquatic Centre and in fact he was a key proponent. I also seem to remember that he promised to go out and get support for the project from surrounding councils. Their support is yet to arrive.
The challenge Brighton Council presents, and the proof is in the pudding, is keeping the rates at the CPI via spending constraint. It is not illegal to do that.
At least Ald. Dean is persistent in one thing in life. That is he keeps on wanting to prove Ald. Sands absolutely right. Remember all the fuss about name calling a while back?
Post a Comment