28.8.2008 Invermay Connector Road
21.6.2008 Letter to the Editor - Compulsory voting
11/6/2008 Follow up letter to the Editor
The Editor,
Examiner.
5/6/2008
Launceston City Council proposed 5 year plan together with with links to the State Government's website on Climate Change http://www.climatechange.tas.gov.au/and the UK's Energy Poverty website http://www.energy-retail.org.uk/fuelpoverty.html
LAUNCESTON RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
PO BOX 2039, NEWNHAM 7248
email: info@launcestonratepayers.intas.net.au
Tel: 6328 1200
The Editor,
Examiner,
Dear Sir,
So, candidate Dean has, apparently, had a road to Damascus moment - his fiscal epiphany (Examiner, 19th October). The proverbial penny has dropped - at last! Better late than never. A flat rates system, even a cap on rates, so vigorously rejected in the past, suddenly becomes worth a look. That's one way of catching a slipping voter base and one which, of course, Launceston's ratepayers would welcome. But, a report is just that, a report, and could end up in the WPB, like so many other let's-go-through-the-motions initiatives. Don't be fooled. Vote for what's real, not for reports.
John Henshaw
President
LAUNCESTON RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
PO BOX 2039, NEWNHAM 7248
email: info@launcestonratepayers.intas.net.au
Tel: 6328 1200
MEDIA RELEASE 16th October, 2007 A well-attended October meeting of the Association last night heard five-minute addresses from ten candidates for the Launceston City Council elections followed by a lively Question-and-Answer session.
All candidates standing or re-standing for election were invited. Members were appreciative that 8 of the 13 candidates standing for election were in attendance plus Ald. Sands who is standing for Mayor and Ald. Armitage who is standing for Deputy Mayor. Regrettably, five candidates (only one of whom sent an apology), did not participate.
The candidates, and the balloted order in which they spoke, were:
- Martin Cole
- Ian Norton
- Ray Shipp
- Reg Blackman
- David Jones
- Jeremy Ball
- Ted Sands
- Danny Gibson
- Rosemary Armitage
- Ivan Dean (Arrived late & left early)
While a wide range of ratepayer-related issues were raised, it was clear that the major thrust of member interest centred upon the candidates' attitude to the Council's policy with regard to the Pulp Mill and the Regional Aquatic Centre. Both of these issues provoked a number of questions and vigorous debate.
There was general dis-satisfaction with the present Council's lack of consultation of the ratepayers and due regard for their views, concerning major Regional developments, and a lack of budget restraint against ever-increasing rates.
John Henshaw, elected President of the re-named Launceston Ratepayers' Association at the Annual General Meeting which preceded the monthly meeting, and who chaired the forum, said:
"This is the first time, we believe, that such a forum has been held for candidates to present their manifestos and for voters to hear them at first-hand and ask questions of the candidates. Anyone who is genuinely interested in local government matters and who didn't attend missed an excellent opportunity to assess candidates".
"It would be unfair to summarise the candidates' policies, but, it is fair to say, that only three of the ten supported the pulp mill and only two were supportive of the Regional Aquatic Centre project".
"Time restraints did not permit more debate on rating methods and policies as this is a hip-pocket-nerve matter which continues to affect a large proportion of ratepayers, particularly those who are asset-rich, by reason of the increased value of their properties, but cash-poor - more-so if they are pensioners".
Mr. Henshaw concluded by saying: "I urge all eligible voters to carefully assess the candidates and make sure they fill in the ballot form properly and post it by the cut-off date. Candidates have been elected in past elections by less than 50% voter participation. So, don't complain to the Association after the event if you didn't get the Council you wanted if you didn't cast your vote!"
John Henshaw
President,Launceston Ratepayers Association Inc.
LAUNCESTON MUNICIPAL RATEPAYERS AND
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
PO BOX 2039, NEWNHAM 7248
email: info@launcestonratepayers.intas.net.au
Tel: 6328 1200
MEDIA RELEASE
4th October, 2007
All candidates standing for the forthcoming Launceston City Council elections have been invited to attend the October meeting of the Launceston Municipal Ratepayers' & Residents' Association Inc to give a short address as to their policies and to answer questions from the floor.
Senior Vice-President, John Henshaw said today: "This will provide the only opportunity to allow Launceston voters to hear all of the candidates under the one roof in a moderated environment, to ask them questions and make value judgements. We urge all voters to attend this important forum".
All candidates who have been invited have been sent a questionnaire of the twenty most-asked questions (see CANDIDATES page) of the Association's members.
"Unfortunately, there's a couple of candidates who we haven't been able to contact because we have no addresses or 'phone numbers for them. If that changes, we'll certainly extend an invitation".
"We don't expect candidates to necessarily present their manifestos addressing these questions and would prefer to have all of the candidate responses to these questions recorded in a tabulated format which we can distribute and possibly project on to a screen at the meeting," John Henshaw went on to say.
MEETING DETAILS: MONDAY, 15TH OCTOBER AT 7.30PM AT HEATHER HALL, PENQUITE ROAD, NEWSTEAD
LAUNCESTON MUNICIPAL RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
PO BOX 2039, NEWNHAM 7248
email: info@launcestonratepayers.intas.com.au
Tel: 6328 1200
MEDIA
RELEASE
28th August, 2007
Regional Aquatic Centre
Operating Costs
"The strategy worked well. On December 20, The Examiner Newspaper ran an article stating that the RAC would make a loss in the region of $350,000, highlighting the base case, instead of the conservative case, being a loss of $575,100 per year. It further stated that adult entry fee would be $4.85 and compared this favourably with the Hobart aquatic centre adult entry fee of $5.15. What the Examiner neglected to mention was that the proposed entry fee of $4.85 does not include GST. With GST the RAC entry fee will be $5.30, a higher entry fee than Hobart".
"Launceston City Council, in its press release of 19 December 2006 neglected to mention any of the other costs that will be borne by ratepayers". "The real total annual cost to ratepayers will be in the order of $2.40 million each year for the estimated life of the facility – 40 to 50 years. This annual figure comprises: cash operating loss of $450,000 (page 19) plus outdoor pool $170,000 (page 21) plus major maintenance and refurbishment of $100,000 (page 11) plus a conservative estimate of interest at 8.0% on $12.0M of $960,000 plus loan repayments of $240,000 plus a sinking fund of $500,000 to replace the facility at the end of its useful life". "As a Regional Aquatic Centre, the complex is designed to serve the 120,000 people resident in the region. However, Launceston ratepayers have never been properly told about the costs of the project and that they will be subsidising and paying off this Regional facility forever at the rate of some $86 per ratepayer per annum. Isn't it about time all of the 28,0000 Launceston ratepayers were democratically and directly polled on this project? Or, do we need a 1,000 signature petition to hold a plebiscite to vote on the matter? " "It is true that $9.3 million will come from State and Federal governments and that now LCC will be asking the Federal government for an additional $2 million, however that is taxpayers’ money still being in part derived from the same Launceston residents, so the majority of the capital funding burden and all of the operational and financing cost burden will be borne by Launceston ratepayers. Frank Dixon has announced that he hopes to attract a naming sponsor who will fund what he concedes to be an annual operational deficit of $350,000 (being incorrectly stated to be the average amount by his calculation, but in any event, a figure disputed by the attached calculations prepared by the Association)".
Should you wish to verify the basis of any of the figures contained within this letter for yourself and receive a copy of the Windmill Hill Aquatic Leisure Facility Financial Plan, then please contact us, and we can provide you with either a hard copy or electronic copy.
Acknowledged cash operating loss per year. The conservative estimate is $575,100, average best case is $350,700, for the sake of argument make this a round figure below the average of the two figures - $450,000 per year. (Table 2.2, page 19) |
$450,000 |
Outdoor Pool. The base case estimate is for the outdoor pool operating only for the summer season. However, assume that the outdoor pool will be kept open all year to maintain the level of existing service to swimmers that prefer the current open air arrangement - $170,000 per year (page 21) |
$170,000 |
Major maintenance and refurbishment. This is acknowledged as $500,000 every 5 years, to bring it back to an annual cost, assume an average of $100,000 per year (point iv, page 11) |
$100,000 |
Financial Costs - Interest
only. Assume that Council’s estimate
of project cost of $22 million does not blow out. Council
has secured $10 million from taxpayers. This
leaves a $12 million deficit which Council will need to borrow. Assume a conservative rate of interest of 8% per
year, without principal repayments. This
equates to an interest only cost of $960,000
per year. (point vi,
page 11). |
$960,000 |
Financial
Costs - Interest and principal Loan repayments. Assume
a 20 year loan, 8% interest rate, a yearly repayment of $1,200,000 |
1,200,000 |
Lowest estimate of annual cost to ratepayers-not including
principal loan repayments |
$1,680,000 |
Realistic estimate of annual cost to ratepayers, including principal loan repayments |
$1,920,000 |
Building and Plant Depreciation. Depreciation is a noncash expense that reflects the decrease in value of an asset as a result of wear and tear and age. Assume the pool has a 45 year life and at the end of that period it has no value and has to be demolished, a reasonable assumption given that this what is proposed for the Windmill Hill pool and was how the Mowbray pool was effectively treated. Accountants could argue about this, but to ratepayers, this is effectively an amount by which they are being impoverished each year. Assume straight-line depreciation method - $500,000 per year |
$500,000 |
LAUNCESTON MUNICIPAL RATEPAYERS AND
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
PO BOX 2039, NEWNHAM 7248
email: projex.pty.ltd@bigpond.com
Tel: 6328 1200
PRESS RELEASE
19th July, 2007
Angry Launceston ratepayers condemned
the Launceston City Council for recent rates increases, particularly the volumetric charge
for water, at Monday's monthly meeting at the West Launceston Bowls Club. 
The Association's Senior Vice-President, John Henshaw said:
"Our members are disappointed, to say the least, that the Association's submissions to Council have fallen on deaf ears. There seems to be no appreciation by Council executives and Aldermen that ratepayers are being taxed beyond their capacity to pay. Launceston is a high-taxing, high-spending council. The average residential rate is 4.16% of average household income and this is well above the Tasmanian average. It is almost three-and-a-half times that of Hobart which has an average income almost 18.0% more than Launceston's average income. But, of course, Hobart is not burdened with the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, York Park and, soon, the Regional Aquatic Centre".
"These facts, and other pertinent information, are embodied in a comprehensive submission the Association has made to the Australian Government's Productivity Commission investigating the capacity of local councils to raise revenue and the impacts of various taxes. We look forward to a round-table conference with the Commission to enlarge upon our submission," John Henshaw said.
"Hopefully,
somewhere, some time, Launceston will take a reality check and budget its expenditure on
what the community can afford for basic services rather than expand an ever-growing
wish-list of non-core activities that ratepayers can not, and should not, have to pay for.
Forthcoming elections will give ratepayers an opportunity to express their discontent in a
meaningful way," he concluded.
The submission, number 10 of 36, can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.pc.gov.au/study/localgovernment/subs/sublist.html