Launceston City Council's 2011-2012 rate striking process

The General Manager's initiative to consult with Launceston's ratepayers in regard to the striking of the annual rate before it was actually struck was unwelcomed by three Aldermen but wholeheartedly endorsed by the city's Ratepayer's Association. Does that tell you anything?

Well the Association has taken the opportunity to make a submission to Council on the subject, so let's see where that goes. Ratepayers write to the press and one imagines that the bureaucrats at Town Hall will disregard them as will many Aldermen. The bureaucrats seem to think that more of the same will do it for them – it has up to now. They'll predictably be fighting for the status quo – unless there has been a mind shattering shift in their sentiments – and all the consultation will look like just so much window dressing.

Typically 'community consultation' in Launceston involves bureaucrats telling ratepayers and residents what is good for them rather than an opportunity to listen to them and to take on board new information.

The cynics seem to be finding indicators that the process here was less genuine than it might have been and has been presented as. If ratepayers are treated like mushrooms, and in the past they have been, their cynicism should have been expected. The test will be when the rate is struck! Let us see if there is indeed an effort to be more equitable and better financial managers.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE RATEPAYERS' ASSOCIATION SUBMISSION TO COUNCIL

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!

Bureaucrats and Politician Try to Explain Rate Rises

Just as soon as there is a ruckus about issues like rates the bureaucrats and politician emerge from the haze around an issue to try to put some kind of spin on it – here it is rate hikes in Launceston. Read with an eye to the spin, this story reveals much and mostly that Local Govt. management is not all that interested in pensioners' plight. There is no empathy here for the pensioner's ability to pay.

If you are managing a Local Govt. budget it is within your interests that the gross budget is as high as possible given that salaries tend to be set in relation to the budget being managed. A diminishing budget offers no incentive for a manager looking for an incremental salary rise.

Perhaps more to the point is the opacity of Launceston City Council's budget. Apparently the Auditor General finds the method of reporting acceptable but a ratepayer trying to make sense of it – even ratepayers with accounting backgrounds – find the budget not all that informative. One might think that shareholders in a large corporation might well find them wanting in their style of presentation and their relative opacity.

For instance, it has been reported to TRA that when asked at a recent public meeting concerning the budget, the relevant council officers were unable to identify what proportion of the Councils debt was attributable to an aspect of Council operations – and thus its impact upon rates. If ratepayers are unable to garner this kind of information, even on notice, it is little wonder that Aldermen do not seem to have a handle on this kind of issue – the TRA would be happy to hear from any Launceston Alderman that did.

It seems that it is time for ratepayers to begin to lobby for not only transparency in reporting but also clarity. The State Govt. needs to be setting a minimum standard that includes program funding and thus program budgeting along with line item reporting.

Petar Hill

ARE YOUR RATES IN THE 5.5% INCREASE RANGE?

This Launceston ratepayer is suffering it seems and it also seems that Launceston City Council's rate increase is sometimes far from an average of 5.5%. How many more ratepayers like this are out there?

16%, well that's way outside the promised average and what this ratepayer hasn't mentioned is that there are water rates yet to be paid.

The promise was of course that rates would fall with the new water management arrangements. Well that promise hasn't been delivered on – and neither does it seem that correspondence is going to be entered into in regard to this issue.

Then there is the argument that rates are a kind of "Wealth Tax" and one that's within the powers of Local Govt. If it is , Aldermen/Councillors have not been out there on the hustings promoting that idea when they were looking for votes. No prizes for guessing why!

All the evidence seems to be pointing towards it being Council officers determining the rates in virtual isolation from ratepayers' representatives. Only one Launceston Alderman voted against the recent rate rise. There seems to be a message there for ratepayers and residents.

Meanwhile a pensioner's rates increase by 16%, against the promise of a decrease. It seems that there is nobody at Town Hall – Aldermen or officers – who is paying any real attention to the issue – and using all manner of excuse for not doing so. And, it seems that very little attention is being paid to cost cutting or the minimisation of waste.

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!"

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.