On this page you will find copies of my letters to the editor and any media/press release documentation or interesting articles relevant to my campaign:
MEDIA
Fraser Coast Chronicle - 6th February, 2016 &
Hervey Bay Independent - 11th February, 2016.
SPORTS PRECINCT - MAKE COST KNOWN
As a Division 8 candidate I will give my views on the proposed $54m sports precinct. This project is important, not just because of its proposed cost but also because it is indicative of many of the problems that exist within the current Council.
I was an observer at the Council meeting on January 20. Cr Rolf Light tried to move a motion to have any expenditure on the precinct delayed until after the election. Given that this project has a 30 year timeframe why wouldn't the Mayor and his supporters agree to this with the election less than two months away?
Councillor Light also revealed that the Council had engaged the services of a Melbourne-based public relations company to sell the concept to residents at a cost of $28,000. Better still, what does that say about the ability of Fraser Coast Oportunities? This is the body funded to the tune of more than $4m a year. This raises a whole new level of concern.
The Mayor and CEO refused to answer questions about this expenditure at the meeting and if recent newspaper reports are correct, have continued with this stance. Worse still, I see that they have lodged a complaint against Cr Light with the government which allows them to avoid further questioning on this matter while under investigation.
If this was not in the budget approved by Council then under the provisions of Section 110 of the Local Government Act, the Mayor should be held personally liable for this unauthorised expenditure and repay the expended amount as stated (plus accrued interest at the rate which interest accrues on overdue rates of 11%) back to the Council.
Can the Mayor or CEO inform ratepayers of all costs spent to date on this project as we previously had plans drawn up near the River Heads turnoff?
DENIS CHAPMAN, Division 8 Candidate.
Submitted to the Fraser Coast Chronicle (but not published)
THE TRUTH ABOUT FCRC RATES IN FOUR YEARS
The one thing that will affect all residents of the Fraser Coast in the upcoming local government election is rates. The mayor recently reported in the local press that Fraser Coast’s rates are the “envy of other regions”, conveniently quoting the increase of 2.5% for the minimum general rate from the last budget. A more balanced view is to look at the increase in rates over the full term of Council and for that matter the whole term of the FCRC.
The majority of ratepayers probably fall within “Category 2 Residential” under the current system. At the start of the four year period of the current council (11/12 last year of previous Council) the rates payable in this category were .6684 cents in the dollar with a minimum of $1,061. At the end, (rates handed down for 15/16) it was .8522 cents in the $ with a minimum of 1,240. That equates to a 16.9% increase in minimum or a 27.5% increase if you aren’t on the minimum rate. CPI Increases over the same period amounted to 8.5%. So if you take the 4 years that the current Council got to decide on rates increases, that equals an average increase of 6.87% per annum for those not on the minimum general (more than 3 times CPI Increases).
If that doesn’t sound bad enough, the story actually gets worse. In 2011/12 there was no “Infrastructure Levy”. This new $75 per annum charge was first introduced in 2014/15 and is just a General Rate by another name. It serves no other purpose than to allow Council to try and dupe ratepayers about the real increase in rates by quoting increases based on the minimum general rate alone.
The wording behind the levy “for the purpose of funding key infrastructure works across the FC Region” is a load of tripe. For one, nowhere will you see “key infrastructure” defined. Secondly, if it’s meant to be for capital project funding, it falls well short of the $55m that Council claims it will spend this financial year given that budget documents shows it raising only about $7m per annum.
The rest of the Capital program is funded by General rates with some loans and government grants. General rates form the majority of the funding source so whether you call them General rates or an Infrastructure levy they are exactly the same thing.
If you consider the newly introduced Infrastructure levy when determining rate increases, the real increase over four years is much higher than 27.5%.
Consider this scenario – in 2011/12 Residential House with a valuation of$158,737 (i.e. Min. rate). General rates calculated as $158,737 x .6684 c/$ = $1,061. In 2015/16 the same house with valuation of $172,230 (assuming valuations keep pace with normal inflation over the same period) General rates calculated as $172,230 x .8522 c/$ = $1,467.74 plus $75 Infrastructure levy giving a total rate of $1,542.74 This equates to a 45.4% increase over 4 years.
Now the Mayor’s quoted 2.5% increase doesn’t look so good. Rates have been increasing at rates far greater than CPI under this council and since the inception of FCRC. This is not sustainable over the long term especially in an area with such a low socio-economic rate base and high unemployment. Amalgamation was meant to bring us savings and economies of scale, yet all we have seen to date is skyrocketing rates resulting from poor management decisions, wastage and out of control spending on projects with little benefit to the majority of ratepayers.
Having a lower increase in the last year of a four year term is an old political trick, designed to fool those gullible enough not to remember the pain they have suffered over the previous term. On election day be prepared to vote for someone who will look for genuine savings and scrutinise all expenditure incurred by Council. The mayor says if he is re-elected you can expect more of the same from him. If I’m elected I will promise that won’t happen on my watch without a fight.
DENIS CHAPMAN, Division 8 Candidate.
Submitted to the Fraser Coast Chronicle (but not published).
FLAWED INFRASTRUCTURE POLICIES MEANS LONG TERM PAIN FOR RATEPAYERS
Let me start this letter by quoting directly from Council’s budget document from the 2012/13 financial year- Trunk Infrastructure Funding – “To support the Wide Bay Burnett Regional Plans predicted growth in population to 2031, an estimated $381 million in trunk infrastructure (i.e. an average of $19million per annum) is required. The long term financial plan conservatively includes $4.2 million funded equally by Developer Contributions and loan borrowings. This represents a shortfall in the required level of Council funding of $7.8million per annum which will require further loan borrowings and an estimated additional 0.83% per annum in rate increases to service the debt”.
If you ignore the usual bad maths ($19m -$4.2m /2 = $7.4m not $7.8m) Council recognises that it had a shortfall in funding this infrastructure of $7.4m/$7.8m per year. Trunk Infrastructure includes things like major arterial roads, water & sewerage treatment plants, parks & community facilities. These are the things that needed to be added to existing infrastructure as the population grows. To get a better understanding, if this region never grew in size, Council needs to raise enough money to pay off existing infrastructure (possibly funded by loans in the past) and to maintain it and put money aside for when it needs replacing in order to remain sustainable.
However, as the region grows eventually more trunk infrastructure (roads, treatment plants etc.) are needed in order to cater for the increasing population. This new infrastructure needs to be paid for so if you use the logic that the existing residents are paying for the assets already in place, it is only reasonable that the additional population contribute their fair share to the new assets required as population increases. One of the ways that new residents contribute is built into the price of the land that they purchase when they come here.
Developers are normally required to contribute towards the cost of providing new assets through Infrastructure Charges that are levied by Councils in order to recover some of the cost of providing these new assets (Trunk Infrastructure). Therefore the infrastructure charges that developers pay become part of the cost of developing land and eventually are passed on to the purchaser when they buy the property.
If new residents contribute the appropriate amount towards funding new infrastructure, then they will also have to contribute towards the maintaining of that infrastructure through annual rates. In theory it sounds simple, however ratepayers need to understand the flawed logic currently used by this council in trying to stimulate the local economy.
If you go back to the opening statement where Council recognised an annual shortfall in trunk infrastructure funding of $7.8m per year you really need to question the logic of Council’s current policy of allowing massive discounts for developers contributing towards future trunk infrastructure.
I refer to the recent Mayoral Report (Ord No. 16, 2nd Dec 2015) where the Mayor sees it as an achievement that his Council has given away $23.125million in developer’s infrastructure charges discounts since 2011, a figure which doesn’t even include the delayed payments allowed. So, on that basis the $7.8m shortfall in funding has just risen to a $13.5m shortfall per annum that at some point needs to be paid for. This is the critical point that every ratepayer needs to understand. The trunk infrastructure needs to be paid for at some point in the future, so if the developer doesn’t pay which subsequently means the new landowner doesn’t directly pay, the bottom line is that we will all pay extra in our rates for many years to come to make up the shortfall.
The mayor would have us believe that offering developer’s discounts stimulates growth and this growth is something that will eventually solve all of our problems by promoting employment and economic development. Certainly as economies grow there is short term benefit for some, that point can’t be argued but the emphasis is on “short-term”.
If I want to buy a new luxury car, hands up all those who want to contribute towards the cost for me. I don’t see too many hands, so why is it that this council thinks we should contribute towards the price of someone buying a cheap block of land where the real cost has been artificially held down by not charging for the real cost of development. Those new roads and treatment plants will still need to be built so I’m sorry to inform you that you are the one who is still going to have to pay the price.
Developers are important because they fulfil a need for the supply of developed land. But what this council needs to understand is that they are no more important than the butcher down the road who sells you your meat or the builder who builds your house or the car salesman who sells you your next car. My rates don’t subsidise the butcher or the car salesman (I’m still waiting for someone to offer to pay for my Mercedes) so why should my rates pay for someone to come here any buy a cheap block of land? The other down side for those who purchased land in the region in past years is that artificially holding down the price of new development by discounting infrastructure charges has devalued the land that you paid for at true market price.
Recently published REIQ statistics show that the value of property in the region has been flat-lined for more than five years, so longer term residents are losing out on two fronts, having their own assets devalued while at the same time subsidising the purchase of new comers to the area.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against development, I’m just against Council interfering with the true cost and getting me to subsidise it for years to come through over inflated rates.
DENIS CHAPMAN, Division 8 Candidate.