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]