NSW Berejiklian Coalition Government will no longer offer $250 pa council rates rebate to new pensioners from 2020?

It has been on the NSW Government agenda for some years now, but it is looking highly likely that the Berejiklian Liberal-Nationals Government is going to scrap the annual $250 rates rebate for homeowners holding a Commonwealth Pensioner Concession Card for all but existing Age, Veterans Affairs TPI/EDA, War Widow and Disability Support pensioners.

All future homeowning pensioners will instead be able to defer the first $1,000 of their annual rate payments (CPI indexed), with full payment of the debt (plus interest) on sale of the house/unit/flat.

The Daily Examiner, 30 August 2019, p.4: 

Council has expressed disappointment at being unable to provide feedback on a critical pensioner concession. 

After the Office of Local Government invited feedback on the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s report into the review of the Local Government Rating System, Deputy Mayor Jason Kingsley moved a motion to have council express disappointment there was no further consultation on the pensioner concession. 

Clarence Valley Council was able to provide feedback on a raft of recommendations by IPART but could not comment on a proposal to introduce a scheme to allow eligible pensioners to defer up to $1000 of their rates. 

Cr Kingsley was scathing in his assessment of the scheme which he said appeared “has been decided” and involved indexing the rates to CPI to be paid when the house was sold. 

“Not only is the recommendation to remove the current $250 concession in lieu of the deferral... but it will also be charged interest until the full amount is recovered,” he said. 

“So the financial legacy the pensioner was hoping to leave to their families may be eaten up in deferred rate charges as well as interest.” 

Cr Karen Toms as “devil’s advocate” said while she agreed with the motion on the principle that they had not been able to provide feedback, she was “a little bit torn” as the council spends about $1 million on pensioner subsidies each year. 

“I actually quite liked the idea of perhaps deferring it. I know it sounds mercenary perhaps but the reality is that house is going to be sold one day. I am torn a little bit,” she said. 

Clarence MP Chris Gulaptis said since 2011 the NSW Government had invested $694 million to help pensioners make ends meet and IPART’s recommendation to create a rate deferral scheme had been ruled out. 

“It is important to strike a balance between providing rebates and continuing to fund the services that local communities need – services such as hospitals, roads, education and child care.” he said. 

In 2017 when the issue was last raised, council did not support the recommendation to introduce rate deferrals and said it was “council’s strong view pensioner concession must be fully funded by the State Government”. 

“A rate deferral scheme is problematic in local government areas with a high proportion of pensioners and low property values as it may result in less than full recovery of deferred debts from sale of properties and create cash flow issues for the council” the resolution from the October 18 meeting stated.....

First in series Clarence Valley Council "roundtables" to discuss a special rates variation is to be held in Iluka on Thursday, 1 June 2017

Clarence Valley Council, media release, 30 May 2017:

Rates roundtables kick off on Thursday

THE first of a series of “roundtables” where people can discuss a possible application by the Clarence Valley Council for a special rates variation is to be held in Iluka on Thursday (June 1).

Council is considering making an application for an 8% rate rise each year for three years (cumulative impact of 25.9%) but is keen to consult with the community to see if there are other proposals that would help it meet the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future financial benchmarks. If adopted, the rate increase would apply only to a portion of people’s total rates notice.

The first of the roundtables is to be held at the Iluka Library from 5:30-7:30pm on Thursday.

Further roundtables will be held at the Maclean Council Chambers from 5.30-7.30pm on Friday, the New School of Arts Neighbourhood House South Grafton from 4-6pm on Saturday and the Treelands Drive Community Centre Yamba from 11am-1pm on Sunday (June 4).

To help council with staffing arrangements, RSVPs are required. For Iluka, RSVPs will be required by 3pm Thursday. All other RSVPs will need to be submitted by 3pm Friday. Contact Karlie on 6643 0200 to register.

People with questions about a possible special rates variation or who cannot make a written submission can call 6643 0230.

Release ends.

And people wonder why their council rates keep rising

Council rates don't just rise because the dollar value of lots in a local government area increase or because a council needs to play catch-up with its infrastucture build and road maintenance debts.

Rates may also rise over time because of other cumulative costs. Including the cost of too many people vandalizing or illegally dumping on property owned or managed by a council.

Here is a classic example. The result of someone obviously wanting to take a vehicle somewhere a vehicle was not meant to go.

There are timber bollards at both ends of a walking track at the rear of the Bowling Club in Iluka, a quiet little village at the mouth of the Clarence River.

Replacing, repositioning or re-erecting these bollards costs Clarence Valley Council money in the form of material and/or manhours. 

I am reliably informed that this is the third time this has happened in the last four weeks and that these bollards were also vandalised around 18 months ago.

 Photographs of vandalised bollards supplied

Now the majority of people living in the NSW Northern Rivers region are rightly proud of the greenspaces within their towns and villages and the natural forests inbetween.

So the next time you see someone doing something like this - report it to your local council and if appropriate then call the police.

Remember, doing so just might save you some money in the long run.

Clarence Valley councillors bite the bullet in order to save the local government area from threat of a state government-imposed administrator

Mayor: Jim Simmons    

A/General Manager: Ashley Lindsay                                                                                                                           

LOCKED BAG 23 GRAFTON NSW 2460

Telephone: (02) 6643 0200

Fax: (02) 6642 7647

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 19, 2017

Making the Clarence Valley Council financially sustainable

CLARENCE Valley Council has voted to introduce a range of measures to improve its long-term financial position and help it meet the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future benchmarks.

The measures include applying for a special rates variation of 8% each year for three years, including an estimated rate pegged limit of 2%. The cumulative impact would be a rise in the  general rate of 25.9%, which would be retained permanently in council’s rate base. Council will also implement a host of savings measures totalling more than $8 million over four years.

Acting general manager, Ashley Lindsay, said a special rates variation, if approved, would raise an additional $7.08 million over three years.

“These measures will improve our financial position by more than $15 million over four years,” he said.

“None of this will be easy. No-one wants to pay more rates and we don’t want to charge them, but the harsh reality is the only alternative to a special rates variation is deep cuts to, or the elimination of, many of the services council provides and the community expects.

“We have been told by the Office of Local Government we need to have a balanced operating result by 2021.

“The cost-cutting measures we will introduce result in the loss of the equivalent of 24.5 full time staff positions, cuts to a range of services and better cost recovery on others. We have done everything possible to keep rate rises to a minimum.”

At the council meeting on Tuesday night, Cr Andrew Baker said that in 2012 the NSW Government’s TCorp identified the need for council to make efficiency savings and introduce a special rates variation.

He said that since then he and fellow councillors had tried to find ways to make the council financially sustainable without the need for a rates variation.

“I’m certain that each councillor that is here today was elected with an ambition to not increase the rates, to not cut services, to not cut employment, to not reduce facilities and amenities, to not increase debt and to provide responsible governance,” he said.

“Council has individually and collectively examined, debated, challenged and examined again every suggestion in every possible way to deliver on those noble aspirations of no rates increases, no service cuts, no employment reductions, no reduced facilities and amenities, and no more debt.

“While I can’t see how we can avoid a rates increase, I can say we have all made a big attempt to do just that.

“We’ve exhausted the discovery of all options and examined the possibilities and variations; we’ve called for and listened to expert advice, numerous reports and finance models. Some advice we have accepted and some we haven’t.

“We’ve looked for the best outcomes and least pain for our residents and ratepayers.”

Cr Peter Ellem said councillors had no choice but to put their hard hats on and make unpopular decisions to meet the State Government's Fit for The Future benchmarks to become financially sustainable by the end of the current four-year term, and indeed, for the decade thereafter.

“It is the shared responsibility of the nine duly-elected councillors, and not that of a financial controller or administrator, to adopt a draft package of job cuts, to be made in full consultation with the United Services Union, efficiency savings, and regrettably rate increases, to be put up for community consultation,” he said.

Mr Lindsay said council would seek the views of the community before reaching a final decision on a special rates variation application and some of the efficiency measures, and would consider a report at its May meeting on a schedule for community engagement.

Release ends. 

UPDATE

The Daily Examiner, 20 April 2017:

A pre-election survey by The DEX pinned four councillors against the SRV and only two, Cr Debrah Novak and Cr Greg Clancy, remained true to their word……

Cr Toms said voting for the SRV was a hard pill to swallow.

"I made declarations that I wanted better financial management and I wouldn't support the SRV and I wouldn't support excessive rate increase," she said.

"But I've had to change that position.

"When I had that position, I truly meant it... but now I have a lot more information and after a full day with the Office of Local Government (I have changed my mind)."

Cr Toms said despite the community backlash, the councillors had to make the decision.

"It's easy to criticise, people think we do the wrong thing, but the reality is that the councillors make the best decisions they can," Cr Toms said.

"I did change my mind over the SRV and that was also a very difficult decision to make, but I have to make it and I do believe I didn't have a choice."

The adopted recommendation included a detailed report which outlined that from 2017/18 to 2019/20, the council would make $15,566,987, which is more than the council's total debt of $15,343,127. The rates rise is to be rolled out 8% each year over three years which will amount to an expected total of $7.8million in revenue to come from the SRV.

Seven of the nine councillors voted for the SRV recommendation.

It will go to community consultation at the May council meeting……..

Cr Peter Ellem said the council had no choice but to make the unpopular decision.

"I believe that it is the shared responsibility of the nine duly-elected councillors, and not that of a financial controller or administrator, to adopt a draft package of job cuts, to be made in full consultation with the United Services Union, efficiency savings, and regrettably rate increases, to be put up for community consultation," Cr Ellem said.

"As a new councillor I am wiser because we have demanded and recently received more detailed information on the operational side of things, and greater clarity from the Office of Local Government."

Cr Ellem said fixing the $15million "black hole" which the new council has inherited from a "clunky forced amalgamation" needed addressing.

"My personal preference would be for the SRV component of this suite of measures to be lower than the 8% per year, but when we consult with ratepayers and residents in coming months it will become clear that a lower SRV will mean deeper cuts to local jobs and valued, if not cherished, services," he said.

Echoes of the unfortunate term of a contentious general manager linger

On 22 May 2014 North Coast Voices posted mention of Clarence Valley Council's refusal to follow the Information Commissioner's recommendation to allow a staff member access to information in a report on his conduct (which found no corrupt conduct), when in February 2014 at Item 14.005/14 they unanimously agreed to change the wording of the existing April 2013 Privacy Management Plan so that it appears to significantly depart from the Model Plan supplied by the NSW Division of Local Government.

This week the NSW Court List contained mention of this case before the NSW Industrial Relations Commission on 3 May 2017:

Francis Jon Hallam v Clarence Valley Council

  

Yes, the allegedly destabilizing element may have been removed from Clarence Valley Council but the ripple effect flows on.

Clarence Valley Council caught trying to minimise IPART's rejection of much of its special rate rise application

Readers of North Coast Voices may recall that this blog posted on this subject in April and May this year.

The rate rise saga  refuses to die………

The Independent, 8 June 2016:

Councillor Karen Toms will challenge public statements made by Clarence Valley’s mayor, Richie Williamson, regarding IPART’s decision to grant Clarence Valley Council (CVC) a one-year-only special rate (SRV) increase of 6.5 percent, instead of 6.5 per cent for each of the next five years.

Councillor Toms’ motion of notice (NOM), which was forwarded to “all senior staff and councillors” on Friday June 3, recommends that: “Council receive and adopt the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s (IPART) Local Government’s Determination of Clarence Valley Council’s application for a special rate variation for 2016-17”; …, and “declare that the other reasons attributed to the Mayor Cr Williamson are not claims adopted or endorsed by Clarence Valley Council”.

“Unfortunately,” Cr Toms said, she had “not given enough notice to the general manager” to table the NOM at the June 14 Works, Civil and Corporate Committee meeting.

The council’s code of meeting practice requires seven working days’ notice, however, the Queen’s Birthday holiday on Monday June 13 means that Cr Tom’s NOM only gave six working days’ notice.

“The general manager has accepted the NOM for the July works civil and corporate meeting on July 12,” she said.

The meeting code states that the full seven days is required, “except in circumstances of great urgency or in the case of rescission motions”.

Councillor Toms writes in her NOM: “Mayor Williamson is quoted as saying in the Daily Examiner: “… while the council had consulted widely when it was proposing an 8 per cent increase for five consecutive years, IPART had said it did not consult the community enough once the proposed increase was changed to 6.5 per cent.

“Additionally, the Mayor is interviewed on NBN TV and made the following claims: ‘…We consulted with our community on an 8 per cent increase. Council resolved to apply for a six and a half percent increase and IPART have said to us, well you haven’t consulted on the six and a half percent; which we accept.’

“These statements by the Mayor are considerably at odds with the determination IPART published, in particular at odds with 2 criteria provided by IPART as reasons for refusal.”

The criteria state that CVC “did not demonstrate the need for, and financial impact of, the proposed rate increase in its Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) documents; and, the council did not adequately make the community aware of the extent of the rate increase, as the cumulative impacts were not communicated effectively.”

Citing a letter written to Clarence Forum’s convenor John Hagger, by IPART’s principal analyst, Tony Camenzuli, Cr Toms writes that Mr Camenzuli “specifically” refutes the “reason for refusal stated by Mayor Williamson”.

“The statements by the Mayor have the effect of reducing the importance of the IPART determination and serve to mislead the public as to the clear intent of the IPART criteria,” she writes.

“Council has not ‘accepted’ or adopted in any way the reason given by Mayor Williamson as the IPART reason for refusal. In saying that ‘which we (Council) accept’, Mayor Williamson creates a false impression of the council response to the determination, noting that Council has adopted, nothing in response to the determination.”

Mr Camenzuli’s letter states: “IPART’s report does refer to the council’s decision to reduce the size of the special variation from 8% pa (47% cumulative) each year over five years, to 6.5% pa (37% cumulative) over five years (pages 5, 16).

“This decision by the council was noted as background information.

“The report does not make reference to that decision by the council as a reason for the council’s special variation application not being approved in full.”

The Clarence Valley Independent is the only newspaper left in the Clarence Valley which is not part-owned by News Corp - please show your support for media diversity and this little weekly newspaper (delivered to the door free of charge) by occasionally clicking on to read its top stories online at: http://cvindependent.com.au/.

IPART told Clarence Valley Council is dysfunctional, manipulative, dishonest, deceptive, wasteful, incompetent and other similarly 'complimentary' terms

In February 2016 Clarence Valley Council lodged an application with the Independent Pricing And Regulation Tribunal (IPART) for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) of 8% p.a. (including the rate peg limit) for five years, starting 2016-17, in accordance with Section 508A of the Local Government Act 1993. From 21 August 2015 through to 25 September 2015 Council undertook public consultation on the proposed 8% p.a. SRV by implementing the Community Engagement Strategy for its ‘Financial Sustainability – the Road Ahead’ process, which included applying for an 8% p.a. SRV for 5 years and reviewing Council’s discretionary services.

IPART received over 50 submissions, predominately from individuals.

Having sampled a fair number of these frequently uncomplimentary submissions here are just two examples from former local government councillors.

Read the remainder of the submission here.

Read the remainder of this submission here.

With NSW local government elections at the end of the year, I suspect that Mayor Richie Williamson will have to tap dance wildly to secure his re-election if the sentiments contained in most of the submissions are any indication.

The Lower Clarence is not happy

The Daily Examiner 21 and 26 June 2013:

See you at the next council meeting
In Australia we always hope that our elected representatives will actively participate in community consultation and ensure that there is confidence in their decision making processes... not so with the five Clarence Valley councillors who have used their weight of numbers to force their outrageous four year rating plan on this Valley.
Despite many invitations to share their wisdom via the local newspaper, Cr Margaret McKenna contributed one half-hearted letter to the editor and then refused to respond further to questions as to how council can propose a four year rating plan with no knowledge of future rate pegging limits or land revaluations... and she has been the only councillor who has tried to justify their actions via this media.
The CVC-convened public meetings in Iluka, Yamba and Maclean to discuss the council's 2013/14 operational plan were generally shunned by the majority of the five Grafton councillors. However Cr Challacombe did attend the Maclean meeting and he made what is possibly the most revealing comment since this rating issue surfaced. Cr Challacombe said that while we all pay our taxes, the majority of the money will always be spent in Sydney and while none of us believe that is fair it is a similar situation in the Clarence Valley with rate monies collected from all areas being spent in Grafton. What he effectively said is that since amalgamation Grafton has become our capitol city and therefore all rate monies spent in Grafton become beneficial to all ratepayers no matter how far they live from the capitol.
This also means that there is no point assessing where CVC spends money on services or projects because all expenditure in Grafton is for the common good and it is only expenditure in Glenreagh, Ulmarra, Maclean, Yamba etcetera that can be considered localised.
I trust that Cr Challacombe will never again criticise NSW State government decisions to cut spending in this region so long as they spend the money in Sydney.
I attended the CVC Operational Plan public meetings in Yamba and Maclean and council professional staff made it absolutely clear that they had recommended that council not change the 2012/13 rating structure and that they would not defend the "political" decision to replace that structure by the elected councillors.
Next Tuesday the council meets at the Maclean chambers to formally adopt the 2013/14 rating structure. I hope that many local people attend that meeting to witness the outcome.

Bill Day

Yamba

Rates go awry
Self interests, parochialism and cronyism have always been part of the mix in local government. But the reasons given for those "up river" five for shifting Grafton's rate burden to low income earners of the lower Clarence without additional services to pay for Grafton's prolific services it could not afford, certainly puts them in that mix.
The Mayor Cr Williamson asks, "tell me one thing council does in Grafton that they don't do in Maclean?" Cr Williamson knows that they don't enjoy a higher income that Grafton enjoys, but still came into forced amalgamation with a surplus, demonstrating it could pay for its services even with a lower median rate. What's more they don't enjoy two ratepayer funded aquatic centres in close proximity to each other. Nor two libraries, an art gallery, a second airstrip and many "sports specific" sports grounds.
Cr Howe has reportedly referred to the two $3m sports centres in Maclean and Yamba since forced amalgamation. But they pale into insignificance to the $4m upgrade to Fisher Park, Ellem oval, McKittrick Park, Hawthorne Park, See Park, Pioneer Park, Corcoran Park, $1.3m revitalisation south Grafton and an $8m second library in Grafton.
Cr McKenna who lives and works in south Grafton is the recipient of a $1.3m makeover, nevertheless believes her rates should be shifted to the lower Clarence which didn't receive a similar benefit.
Cr Challacombe reportedly admits to disparities in service provision but says "the facilities in Grafton are for all." He ignores that it is some two hours to and from Grafton by car let alone a bus and many cannot afford it.
Their self serving incoherent use of the truth was further advanced when they thwarted a council resolution having staff prepare expenditure by locality report at a workshop meeting on May 14, which would have been in the whole valley's interests.
Having encouraged a forced amalgamation to save its economic future and now using its numbers in the council to serve its own parochial interest, Grafton is playing a very dangerous divisive game. Over the years, Grafton has been a graveyard for business and commerce and is dependant upon new monies from outside its community.
The Regional Industry and Economic Plan (RIEP) believes that only 65% of jobs come from population driven sectors and about 10% of jobs from the construction sector. But the balance is in the exporting sectors particularly tourism. No matter what Grafton spends on waterfront precincts and recreational facilities, it cannot compete with Port Macquarie, Coffs Ballina or even the lower Clarence for that recreational tourist dollar. However that has not been the case with the lower Clarence which has continued its economic growth while Grafton has faltered.
The lower Clarence has available to it far more competitive services; airport, hospital and commerce just up the highway and the bottom line is Grafton needs the lower Clarence far more than the lower Clarence needs Grafton. It is now a question as to what extent the lower Clarence will spend that travelling time heading north instead of toward Grafton

Ray Hunt

Yamba

Rates shock

Hello Richie. I would like to guess the secret sound.

Is it the sound of a pensioner falling over at their letterbox when they open their rate notice.

Frank Bonfanti

Gulmarrad

The Daily Examiner Page One 26 June 2013:

In debate, Cr Howe said these changes would unite the Clarence Valley.
"This is not about Grafton, there is no gang of five," he said.
This comment was followed by such jeers from the gallery that Cr Williamson stopped the meeting and called for the public to show respect.

The Daily Examiner online 26 June 2013:

The council did not adopt a rating structure for the next four years as Cr Baker lead motion against defining the rating policy so far into the future.
"I put to this meeting that the motion while ever it attempts to set the rate beyond this year is unlawful," Cr Baker said.
And while the legality remained a point of division the councillors agreed with sentiment and limited the changes to this financial year.

 UPDATE

The Daily Examiner 27 June 2013:

Each property in the Clarence Valley is valued by the NSW Valuer General.

The value is then multiplied by a cents-in-the-dollar rate.

Added to the cents-in-the-dollar total is a base amount which everyone in a given area pays.

If a base rate is not in place the other system is to have a minimum rate.

Under this system if the cents-in-the-dollar rate total was less than the minimum then the minimum became the actual bill…..

In the case of Maclean residences a minimum rate was previously in place.

So a property with a land value of $60,000 would have returned a cents-in-the-dollar value of $420.

The minimum in Mac- lean used to be $474 so the bill would have been $474.

Under the new system the council has introduced a base, which everyone pays.

The cents-in-the-dollar value for the $60,000 Maclean property would be $304.94 under the new system but added to this is the new $260 base.

This means the bill for the property in question rises to $564.94, an increase of just less than 25%.

Interestingly, under the new structure, people who own a property worth more than about $140,000, in Maclean, will see a reduction in their bill.

For Farmland properties the opposite is true.

The increase in farmland rates was achieved by increasing the cents-in-the-dollar rate and the more valuable your property, the more your rates will increase.

The increase will be more than 3.4% for farms worth more than about $600,000.

In out-of-town areas the minimum and the cents-in-the-dollar rate has increased.

If your bill last year was $458 or less, it will be $474 next year and if your property is worth more than $107,000 your rates will increase by 6.9%.

In coastal villages bills will increase by 9.36% unless your land is worth less than about $110,000.

Lawrence and Wooloweyah can both expect decreases in their rates of about 30% as they have been moved out of urban categories.

Yamba residents can expect 10% increases across the board.

And finally residents in Grafton should expect a rise of no more than 3%.  

The Great Garbage Swindle

 

Clarence Valley Council is running the old pea and thimble scam, but are using garbage cans instead of thimbles.

Here is how it works.

If you are lucky enough to have the three wheely bins, green red and yellow, you are not in the firing line of this sting.

If you are one of the many in Valley rural areas who only receive the service of the red and yellow bins, read on….

It pays to think on the fortnightly cycle of the garbage service outside of the towns. 

Last year the red bin was collected every week, therefore in one fortnight 2 red bins were collected and one week in the same period the yellow bin was collected. This makes a grand total of 3 bins per fortnight. 

This current year the red bin is collected one week and the yellow bin the next week, the total number of bin per fortnight collected is 2.

When you look at this there is a 1/3 reduction in our garbage service, but the council assures me that the price we will pay for garbage services in our rates will remain the same. 

So my argument is: since the garbage service has reduced by 1/3 or 33.3% and the price we pay for this service is the same as last year we are in affect paying 33.3% more than we did last year.

To put this in dollar terms if the garbage charged on my rates last year was $300, this current year I am in effect paying $100 more this year.

All this without a visible increase in the rate notices.

If this isn’t the best little pea and thimble scam you have seen in a while let me know. 

In fact I hear that an unprecedented number of ‘Nigerian’ emailers have applied for Australian residency visas so that they can sit at the feet of a veritable scam meister.

Bins from Google Images 

 

The Clarence Valley north-south divide shows another side

It’s not only the matter of land rating in the hinterland and land rates on the coast that divide the Clarence Valley along an Antipodean version of the Mason-Dixon Line.
The Daily Examiner on 15th March 2011:
“WHEN it comes to putting the right things in recycling bins, people in lower Clarence communities are doing a far better job than their Grafton counterparts, according to Jamie Kenneally, manager of the Grafton Recycling Centre.”
Score Card - Grafton 0 Lower Clarence 1

Clarence Valley Council gets a serve over rates

With Clarence Valley Shire Council seemingly under the thumb of the Grafton business district, most councillors bracing for yet another stoush with the valley community over its rates structure and Mayor Richie Williamson apparently desperate to defer trouble until after the March 2011 NSW general election campaign at which he is standing as an independent, one Yamba resident demonstrates that none of these elected representatives are going to have an easy ride by deferring the coming storm to a committee which will not report to council until 2012:

Get priorities right

CVC's recent decision to place on public exhibition Grafton's estimated $6.6m waterfront precinct plan at a time when the GM Mr McPherson attempted to increase rates above the pegged rate increase on the basis of councils diminished capacity to fund capital works, suggest a council out of touch with mainstream community needs.

It can hardly be said Grafton is doing it tough, $19.2m hospital, $5m Super clinic, $2m south CBD, $8m library, $2m Fisher Park, $78k Hawthorne Park, $50k Pioneer Park, $32k McKittrick Park, $50k rowing club etc.

Many of these facilities have to be matched with council funds as well as requiring extensive maintenance costs. Yet the stupor to this folly is that Grafton's rates are being reduced while the rates of the rest of the shire are being increased to make up the shortfall.

While council keeps records of the amount of rates each community pays, it does not keep records of the amount of services each community receives and therein lies a problem.

It is not suggested each community receives services amounting to the amount of income it provides. What is suggested is that as a democracy, we the people of this shire are entitled to transparent factual information that assists us in determining how we are governed.

That information should include where and how our monies are spent and not compromised by inadequate council records.

There is no excuse for council not disclosing that information. Upon amalgamation, council was provided with the financial records of each of the former councils including Grafton showing it to be living way beyond its means. Had these records been maintained, councillors as well as rate payers would know the present financial status of each of those former council areas.

It can hardly be argued those records would be too expensive to maintain when council can publish a $6.6m plan for a Grafton waterfront precinct.

Ray Hunt

Yamba

Now who has been loose with the facts in the Clarence Valley rate debate??

Was poor Truth murdered by the Colonel in the conservatory, the Rector in the library or the Cook in the kitchen?
I leave those who know the local personalities involved to make up their own minds.

Excerpt from The Great Divide, Graham Orams, The Daily Examiner, 18 November 2010, Page 1:

Councillor Craig Howe strongly disagreed, stating the Valley already had parity in water, sewerage and waste collection rates.

He went on to say it was unfair that a Grafton business valued at $150,000 paid $2776 in rates, whereas a business in Maclean paid just $1138, and only $848 in the tourist mecca of Yamba.

"This issue is causing divide in the Clarence Valley community and needs to be addressed in a real way that achieves a fair outcome for all businesses," he said.

Excerpt from former Maclean Shire councillor Bill Day's letter to the editor, The Daily Examiner, 26 November 2010, Page 12:

In your November 18 front page story, "The Great Divide", you quote councillor Craig Howe as saying it was unfair that a Grafton business valued at $150,000 paid $2776 in rates, whereas a business in Maclean paid just $1138, and only $848 in the tourist mecca of Yamba.
This is a deliberate distortion of the real issues......

Excerpt from Clarence Valley Shire councillor Craig Howe's letter to the editor, The Daily Examiner, 29 November 2010, Page 10:

At no point did I ever refer to Yamba as "the tourist Mecca". I would not be so flippant or inflammatory with such a serious matter, don't take my word for it, ask the journalist for a copy of what I said.....

Cartoon figure from CrystalXP

Clarence Valley Council: when does a précis turn into an attempt to censor and distort?

In response to "So What": the face of not-so-good governance on the NSW North Coast.

The Clarence Valley community is entitled to be concerned in regard to the process adopted by the Clarence Valley Council to reduce public budget submissions to a précis form, then respond to the précis.

It is not unreasonable for our elected council representatives to be pressed for time, so one can understand the beneficial logic behind such process. Unfortunately it has not taken long for Council's unelected bureaucrats to exploit the foibles of this process.

It had been pointed out in previous budget submissions that Grafton came into amalgamation carrying a $1.2m deficit while Maclean came in with a surplus. But I could not find any evidence that Council had ever reconciled that deficit.

It is on public record that Council's rates and service expenditures are calculated on the percentage levels that existed at time of amalgamation. Consequently an unreconciled $1.2m deficit more than likely still exists, undetected and negatively influencing council finances.
Naturally I raised this query in my budget submission.

In its infinite wisdom, administration responded that the deficit had been offset by:-

a) Purchase of sections of Stage 2 Yamba Bypass (est. $1m)
b) Purchase of open space at Townsend (est $216k)

I pointed out in my subsequent budget submission that a) and b) are debts and when paid appreciate in value generating direct/indirect revenues for Council. Therefore a debt cannot reconcile/offset a deficit which is an imbalance in council ledgers and continues until reconciled.

Embarrassed by its faux pas, administration reduced my submission to précis form, to read:-

"Concern that the issue of the GCC bringing a $1.2m deficit into amalgamation while the MSC brought in a surplus has not been adequately answered."

Administration then boldly answered its (misinterpreted) précis:-

"Amalgamation occurred on 25-2-04. This response is written on 21 June 2010 and it is "so what".

These are public monies administration are mismanaging. To properly reconcile this deficit, Grafton rates should have been increased in line with its service expenditures or, its service expenditures should have been reduced in line with its income.
As neither was done, Grafton has continued to live beyond its means at the expense of the rest of the shire.

If these self-serving unelected bureaucrats can be indicted for their inept administration, then they must also stand indicted for their self-indulgent and less than totally frank integrity, ethics and moral values.

Their contemptuous disregard for the community consultation process undermines public confidence and erodes public trust as energetically as it mutilates democracy.

Ray Hunt
Yamba

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents.Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Is 'The Daily Examiner' the Voice of the Clarence Valley?

The less than totally frank account of Clarence Valley Council's 2009/10 rate structure by the Grafton-based news publication, The Daily Examiner, casts serious doubt on its claim that it is the voice of the Clarence Valley.

For the second year in succession Clarence Valley Council has reduced Grafton's rate levies, leaving ratepayers in the rest of the shire to make up the service cost difference.

But instead of recognising this burden, The Daily Examiner reported on a move to "ease the burden of Grafton and Junction Hill ratepayers..." claiming "Their rates remain the highest in the valley" [DE 8.5.09].

Were they?

Unfortunately this Grafton-based news publication omitted from its list Grafton's average rate, despite giving the average rates of all the other centres of population within the Clarence Valley for 2009/10:-
Farmland avg rate $1036.71
Coastal villages avg res rate $992.23
Yamba/Wooloweyah avg res rate $960.48
Iluka avg res rate $738.65
Maclean/Townsend avg res rate $681.59

Gulmarrad/Woombah etc avg res rate $671.14
Lawrence avg res rate $641.69

The truth is the average Grafton rate is $879.14 and that certainly does not "remain the highest in the valley".
In fact perusal of Clarence Valley Council's past rate structures show that they have never had the highest average rates in the valley.

A news publication with any integrity would have included the average residential rate in Grafton along with the rest of the list provided by Clarence Valley Council.

Therefore any claim by The Daily Examiner that it is the voice of the Clarence Valley must be greeted with scepticism.

The subject of Grafton's rates is not new to The Daily Examiner.

Prior to forced local government amalgamation, The Daily Examiner's 30th November 2001 headline read "COUNCIL CRISIS" reporting Grafton City Council's spending commitment blowout had reduced its working capital from $500,000 to $32,000.

On the 18th June 2003 The Daily Examiner 's headline "Hip pocket nerve" reported Grafton City Council as signing off on a rate hike of 3.25% above the pegged rate 3.60 per cent to fund its lavish abundance of services.
By that time Grafton City Council already had the second highest average rate ($662.00) of local government areas in the region and this further increase above the pegged rate propelled it to the top.
Maclean Shire Council's average rate at that time was lower at $552.00.

Grafton City Council had no-one to blame for its high level of rates but itself.
It had the opportunity to reduce its level of services in line with its income, but chose instead to increase its rates.

However despite its increase in rates, its auditors reported that Grafton City Council was still unable to meet its massive service costs and after raiding its internal reserves of some $900,000 it came into forced amalgamation $412,000 in deficit leaving the Maclean Shire Council surpluses to subsidise it.

But not a word of this situation from the supposed voice of the Clarence Valley, the Grafton-based Daily Examiner's sabres were silent.

The amalgamated Clarence Valley Council's subsequent budgets reveal a rates increase for all population centres except Grafton with no additional services included.
While Grafton received a less proportionate increase with no decrease in services.

The Daily Examiner's omission of Grafton's average rate from its article of the 8th May 2009 and its incorrect claim that Grafton rates "remain the highest in the valley" was not just a failure to be totally frank with its Clarence Valley readers, it left an obvious impression that it is parochially biased and is pushing its own agenda.

As the only daily news publication in the Clarence Valley, The Daily Examiner must surely have an obligation to act responsibly, report facts accurately, be impartial and display the utmost integrity.
Otherwise it has no right to refer to itself as The Voice of the Clarence Valley.

RAY HUNT
Yamba

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.