The Daily Examiner 21 and 26 June 2013:
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
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
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.
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.
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%.
