|
|
|
|
19.11.2008 - Launceston Roads Plan 17.11.2008 - President's report to 2008 AGM 16.10.2008 - Levee and RAC and Boardwalk system 8.10.2008 - Boardwalk and Levee 25.9.2008 - Examiner. The burden of rising taxes and local rates. 21.6.2008 - Letter to LCC Compulsary voting, Climate change, Rating system 6.2008 -LRA Letter and Submission - Tasmanian Climate Change (State Action) Bill 2008 15.6.2008 - Submission - Review of the Tasmanian Planning System 3.6.2008 - Representation - Proposed Strategic Plan 2008 to 2013 29.5.2008 - Representation - Albert Hall 28.5.2008 - Letter to Launceston City Council re Regional Aquatic Centre
Launceston Ratepayers Association Inc.* The Mayor & Aldermen, Dear Aldermen, NORTHERN TASMANIAN DEVELOPMENT The Launceston Ratepayers’
Association made a submission to the Australian Government Productivity Commission
‘Assessing Local Government Revenue Raising Capacity’ in June 2007 (see www.launcestonratepayers.intas.net.au
) In this submission, the Association
expressed the following view concerning Northern Tasmanian Development. LCC’s
contribution to this regional promotional body does nothing for residential ratepayers and
probably very little for businesses and is to be condemned as a waste of ratepayers’
funds. The basis of our concerns is that
the Launceston City Council is a high-taxing and high-spending council that is spending
beyond the capacity of the community to pay, and that we can find no evidence that you
even consider the community’s capacity to pay prior to making decisions that have
far-reaching consequences for ratepayers. We believe that in order to pursue the short- to
medium-term savings so as to improve your sustainability in your long-term finances, (see
LGAT ‘Review of Financial Sustainability of Local Government in We note in the LGAT submission to
the Productivity Commission (sub. 42, p.8) that councils:
…..do not have access to income information [of ratepayers]. General rates are,
therefore, based on a notion of fairness. In the Commission’s Draft
Research Report [Nov. 07], it recognizes that Local Government operates rating methods on
the ability to pay principle, and that the contributions and benefits to individuals must
be known. It is our Association’s firm
view that the NTD is of principle benefit only to businesses in the municipality, and
accordingly, it is only these businesses that can redeem the cost of this service from
income derived within the municipality that is assisted by this service. The activities of
NTD does not directly benefit the householder/ratepayer at all, but presently, all
ratepayers contribute to the annual costs of NTD, and because of LCC’s uneven
approach to levying residential rates on an AAV basis to residential ratepayers, this is
funded from the General Rate, and funded unevenly between residential ratepayers as well. Accordingly, if Council agrees to
continue to contribute to the costs of NTD, then the Launceston Ratepayers’
Association calls upon Council to not fund its contribution from the General Rate,
but to specifically fund it from a business rate levy, in the same way as LCC funds
Cityprom. We also understand that NTD does not
provide a representative to Council’s Economic Development Committee, even though
other outside representatives are members. This demonstrates to us that Council
doesn’t even accord NTD to be valuable in economic development terms, hence the
contribution by LCC to the establishment of NTB is firmly shown to be wasted. The performance of NTD on behalf of
the contributing ratepayers (even if restricted to business ratepayers as we contend),
must have applied the ‘benefit principle’. Widespread criticism of the
performance and operation of the NTD in recent years clearly shows that there has been no
way established, and certainly not regulated, to ensure that performance criteria have
existed or will be adjudicated upon, in the future. It is therefore paramount, that should
the operation of NTD continue, there must be a way found for it to be accountable and its
performance and benefits to be publicly scrutinised. We look forward to receiving a
reasoned response to this matter in due course, and ask that council not make any decision
to contribute to NTD from the General Rate raised from residential ratepayers, without
council having properly consulted with all residential ratepayers on a cost-benefit basis
beforehand. Yours faithfully, Kelvin Jowett For and on behalf of
the Launceston Ratepayers' Association Inc. Senior Vice-President LAUNCESTON
MUNICIPAL RATEPAYERS' AND RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED Mr. Frank Thank you for your letter
of 1st October, which we received on Friday, 5th October. It is a disappointment to our
members that such a reply took so long to be forthcoming and, in the end, does not provide
more than a Council-sponsored document that could have been available much earlier to us
had we known about it. Your letter has been
circulated within our membership and we are disturbed at your statement at the end of your
second paragraph: I continue to see
information I have provided to your Association being misrepresented. This is a serious
allegation and one which we strongly deny. By alleging misrepresentation you are saying
that statements of facts you have given us, or facts that are on the public record,
have been altered, deliberately and maliciously so. Such is not the case. The Association would ask,
therefore:
If any of these matters we
raised with Council, in the press, on our website (www.launcestonratepayers.intas.net.au)
or in media releases have contained assumptions which are incorrect or alleged
misrepresentations, then you have had ample opportunity to actively repudiate them when
and where such false assumptions or alleged misrepresentations occurred - not now, well
after the alleged event, as a blanket statement without specific and supporting evidence.
If the allegation of
misrepresentation concerns our view as to the operating costs of the regional Aquatic
Centre, then I would remind you that this is our opinion, and the opinion of our advisers,
as to the likely costs. We do not, and will not, accept your opinion and that of your
advisers in this regard. That is our prerogative. To disagree and present alternative
costings is not misrepresentation. The Association looks
forward to your prompt reply. Yours sincerely, Downlaod this article in .pdf 7/10/2007 Ratepayers' response to allegations by council (.pdf) Launceston Municipal Ratepayers'
and Residents' Association Inc.
LAUNCESTON MUNICIPAL RATEPAYERS' AND
RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION
|