Wednesday 14 July 2010
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.
Sunday 19 August 2012
Clarence Valley Local Government Election 2012: Meet the real Andrew Baker
Mr. Baker also implied that he does not belong to any interest group - yet last year the Maclean Chamber of Commerce successfully nominated him as its preferred delegate on Clarence Valley Council's Business Rate Review Advisory Committee.
Andrew Baker: My consideration of any issue that requires a decision from me will commence with an open mind and NO pre-commitment to applicant or interested person/group.
Q3: If you undertake to oppose such water diversion/extraction or mining will you publicly oppose any political party policy which supports it, even to the point of repudiating the policies of a party of which you are a member?
Andrew Baker: Not really applicable as I have no undertaking to give in advance of proper consideration. I have no party membership. I have no interest group to answer to so my considerations will always be open-minded to the best of my ability.
Q4: Do you accept that human-induced global warming and subsequent climate change is real?
Andrew Baker: I accept that a great fear of these issues is real. I’m still waiting for my great fear of the similarly frightening Y2K Bug to subside before I adopt any new fears.
Q5: Are you willing to adopt realistic, long-term mitigation or adaptation measures to support Clarence Valley communities in the face of increased severe weather events, continuous coastal/estuary erosion and possible loss of agricultural productivity?
Andrew Baker: The political temptation is to answer with some nice-sounding motherhood statement testifying to my overwhelming love of all motherhood questions. However, my answer is; I will consider, to the best of my ability, any specific proposal for mitigation or adaption measures on the merits of the proposal. My consideration will include at least receiving advice of the likely cost, likely benefit, ability of the residents and ratepayers (or others) to pay, and the risks of doing or not doing the proposal.
Q6: Will you give an undertaking to resist any move by the NSW Government to subject the Clarence Valley to yet another forced amalgamation in order to form an even larger local government area not centred within the valley?
Andrew Baker: I am unimpressed with the benefits of the most recent amalgamation. While I am aware of some benefits from that amalgamation, the Clarence Valley has yet to have Council leadership capable of ensuring the financial efficiencies and Increased levels of management professionalism so willingly held up as great benefits prior to the amalgamated Council. For now, I am opposed to further amalgamation but not to the extent of denying an future possibility it the right circumstances.
Q7: Can you assure Clarence Valley residents and ratepayers that as a councillor you will never meet privately with any representative or agent of a land/property developer, mining corporation or energy company or give a general/specific undertaking that you will look favourably on their proposals or will further their consultation or negotiations with any tier of government, other businesses or communities in Northern NSW?
Thursday 27 June 2013
The Lower Clarence is not happy
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.
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
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.
Thursday 9 June 2016
Australian Federal Election 2016: are Baird's forced council amalgamations hurting Team Turnbull's chances in NSW?
Monday 12 March 2018
Employer groups put pressure on Turnbull Government to stifle union mergers
Tuesday 29 March 2016
And you thought local government amalgamation news couldn't get any worse......
General managers and mayors are also required to apply for the jobs in the new larger councils.
To date a search of the NSW Boundaries Commission website does not list Tweed Shire Council, Ballina Shire Council, Byron Shire Council, Clarence Valley Council, Lismore City Council, Richmond Valley Council and Kyogle Council (which comprise the NSW Northern Rivers region) as being affected by this round of local government amalgamations.
Monday 10 November 2014
The Clarence Valley has been down this track before with dissembling state governments and naive mayors
Monday 10 June 2013
Clarence Valley North-South Divide throws up yet another letter
Tuesday 17 May 2011
Shots exchanged across the Clarence Valley Divide
Over the time since European explorers first set foot in the region the Clarence Valley on the NSW North Coast developed a natural social divide, based on both geographic features and community of interest.
Despite forced local government amalgamation in 2004 this divide continues and shots are frequently heard coming from both sides of the barricades. Never more so than when someone mentions land rates or council finances, as this exchange in The Daily Examiner letters to the editor page demonstrates.
Clarence Valley Council (both as Council in the Chamber and as Management) has frequently entrenched this divide by its own behaviour and decisions.
Service costs
BILL DAY has been conservative in stating: "The CVC has a blowout of nearly $1m in its maintenance budget" (DEX, April 20).
Council has been reducing its maintenance costs for some years.
But at whose expense?
Unlike Grafton's plush Memorial Park and river frontage, Yamba's river frontage adjacent to its CBD is compromised by an unpretentious caravan park that responsibly generates some $1.5m revenue, in addition to its rates, to pay for services and facilities and their maintenance.
Iluka's caravan park generates $lm. Brooms Head $lm. Minnie Water $3000, Wooli $2000 to pay for their primitive services.
However, included in Grafton's proposed waterfront precinct, is the upgrading of its streetscape, night lighting and building infrastructure, including the upgrading of Memorial Park.
Further, an abundance of services and facilities, such as sandy beaches, pergola climbers, garden furniture, paveways, boardwalks, boat ramps, staircases, sculptured earth terraces,etc totalling some $6m.
All this is prone to regular flooding, incurring extensive annual maintenance costs, including insurance (if able to be insured).
There are merits for a waterfront precinct, but with such opulence?
Recently the general manager, Stuart McPherson, applied to increase our rates above the pegged rate increase, on the basis of council's diminished capacity to finance capital works.
He stated: "We have about 50 community halls, community centres and library buildings. In the recent past we have been able to finance only modest maintenance and renewal programs and yet these places are seen as emblematic of village life and central to the cohesion of the communities. From the councillors' tours held in these halls, the age of the fittings and fixtures and the good condition relatively of the buildings is a testament to the community groups who maintain them. These groups are worthy of more support from council." (Council meeting March 23,2010, Att. c, p3).
The Clarence Valley has one of the lowest incomes per capita in NSW and we have simply got to come to terms with that fact and Iive within our means.
There was a time the Lower Clarence enjoyed free use of its sports fields, as its rates were sufficient to cover their costs.
Since forced amalgamation our kids cannot afford the fees now implemented for no other reason than Grafton charged fees to use its sports fields.
So, we should do the same.
The reason Grafton charged fees was because its rates were insufficient to cover the costs of its prolific services.
If council can afford a Grafton waterfront precinct, it can afford an adequate transparent financial records system that shows the costs of services provided to communities.
RAY HUNT
Yamba
[The Daily Examiner 30 April 2011]
Misleading claim on parks income
It would appear from previous letters to the editor that correspondent Ray Hunt is a keen observer of the business of the Clarence Valley Council and its affairs,
It seems he pores over every minute financial detail of the council.
This is not a bad thing, in fact it is healthy in a democracy. But given his apparent deep understanding of council finances, I was surprised to read his letter (DEX, April S0) citing the amount of money the Clarence Valley Council makes from coastal caravan parks.
For Mr Hunt's benefit, the Clarence Valley Council makes absolutely zero dollars out of caravan parks on coastal reserves.
These parks are not owned by the Clarence Valley Council. They are reserves and are owned by the taxpayers of NSW.
All money raised from these parks must be reinvested in reserves. If any of this money goes into council finances, it is getting it by dubious means.
When councillors consider matters relating to the reserves, they have to take off their council hats, they lose their council titles (ie councillor) and sit as Mr, Mrs, Miss or Ms and operate under the Crown Lands Act.
I hope this was a simple misunderstanding by Mr Hunt and not an attempt to have people believe the coastal communities were propping up the Clarence Valley Council's coffers to support his cheaper rates for a Yamba campaign.
G. GRAYNDLER
South Grafton
[The Daily Examiner 5 May 2011]
CVC does not own coastal caravan parks
The letter of G. Grayndler, South Grafton (DEX, May 5) completely misses the point.
With his smug vituperative falsely accusing me of “citing the amounts of money the CVC makes from (owning) coastal caravan parks.
Sorry to disappoint G. Grayndler.
I am aware, as is everyone else, including the local galah at the Grafton pet shop, that the CVC does not own coastal caravan parks, but simply manages them pursuant to Section 95 Crown Lands Act.
Like other caravan parks, the $1.5m revenue from Yamba’s caravan park pays for facilities and services on coastal reserves within the Clarence Reserve trust, relieving the burdensome obligations otherwise placed on council’s rates revenue.
G. Grayndler expresses concern that these trust revenues must be kept separate and says “if any of this money goes into council finances, it is getting it by dubious means”.
That being the case, perhaps G. Grayndler might like to explain why I was the only one to complain to ICAC that council staff were using financial codes in their recommendations to have councillors approve CCRT expenditures on council facilities (Item 14.191/09 Meeting 9-2-10). And why Councillor Toms failed to get a seconder in her motion to investigate council’s past records (Item 14.191/09 Meeting 9-2-10).
But the point I made in my letter (DEX, April 30) and overlooked by G. Grayndler was the difference in fiscal responsibility between the use of Yamba’s river frontage adjacent to its CBD being compromised by an unpretentious caravan park that relieve the burden otherwise placed on rate revenues.
Compare Grafton’s waterfront precinct on its river frontage adjacent to its CBD, with its abundance of opulent facilities amounting to $6m, prone to regular flooding, and irresponsibly incurring massive maintenance strain on an already stretched maintenance budget.
G. Grayndler might like to explain why those village ratepayers bereft of basic services should pay for such opulence, or why those fiscally responsible communities like Yamba should pay for such opulence.
Grafton has no one to blame for its high rates but itself.
It put its rates up to pay for its prolific services.
The Lower Clarence on the other hand recognised its low income per capita and adopted a low rate structure and responsibly lived within its means.
It is not a matter of increasing rates; it’s a matter of reducing Grafton’s services and then reducing its rates.
RAY HUNT
Yamba
[The Daily Examiner 13 May 2011]
Monday 11 May 2009
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
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.
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