PROPOSAL-Every Rate Notice issued for the 2020-2021 year to receive a $800 refund subject to the following conditions.
a. Rate Notices with less than $800 due are to receive a maximum of the Rates Notice amount less the FSL charges.
b. Rates Notices will receive the full $800 refund when the Rates component paid to Council is at least $800.
This proposal was put to Council in the s233 Budget submission process this year and was knocked back. Read the Council responses.
PROPOSAL-Every Rate Notice issued for the 2020-2021 year to receive a $800 refund subject to the following conditions.
a. Rate Notices with less than $800 due are to receive a maximum of the Rates Notice amount less the FSL charges.
b. Rates Notices will receive the full $800 refund when the Rates component paid to Council is at least $800.
Rationale. Corona Virus has made significant and devastating affects on this Country and this Shire is not immune to that disaster. People are doing it tough with many unemployed, underemployed and on fixed pensions. The Federal Govt and State Govt have been making enormous refunds of money to the community in recognition of this extraordinary disaster. This Shire owes it to the ratepayers to consider this proposal and to make this proposition come into effect for this year.
The cost to this year’s budget is a one off charge of between $10 million and $16 million. Since the normal rate levels are not changed by this one off refund there is no flow on effect to future years. The 2019-2020 budget approved by Administrators 12 months ago approved the additional expenditure of $48 million for no defined projects. Therefore, $16 million can be returned with no loss of services or cuts to existing services.
No borrowings are needed to fund this proposal. Money is on hand already to pay for this proposal.
Reductions in Expenditure without service delivery cuts could be made by removing some of the $30 million allocated last year for unallocated and unspecified future capital expenditure. This proposal is simple, easy to implement and is not regressive in nature as it assists the less well off proportionally better than those with higher incomes.
The Officer proposal of a return of $2 million as a targeted amount is an insult to the community paying rates already some of the highest in the state.
Ratepayers could be encouraged to spend this amount with local businesses.
Council’s Response was as follows:
The basis of the rates refund proposal that there is no loss or cut to services and no borrowings are needed is incorrect and does not recognise the longterm impact of such a recommendation. Modelling of the impact to our 15-year Long Term Financial Plan shows that this proposal has a very significant effect on the future financial health of Council.
This proposal would cause a reduction in investment in the community, is not targeted towards those most in need as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and removes the short and long-term financial resilience of Council.
Editorial Comment: This must be rebutted since it is our opinion that the Council response is less than accurate or honest.
1. The basis of the rates refund proposal that there is no loss or cut to services and no borrowings are needed is incorrect
The refund amount could come from an identified line item of $30 Million which was included in last year’s budget by the Administrators/Officers after they removed the Councillors. It was not there the year before, and was first included as unallocated future funds. Removing this that did not previously exist WILL THEREFORE HAVE NO EFFECT on existing services so NO CUTS REQUIRED.
2. does not recognise the longterm impact of such a recommendation.
It has no long term effect since it is a one off reduction and if modelled would not impact future spending or works.
3. Modelling of the impact to our 15-year Long Term Financial Plan shows that this proposal has a very significant effect on the future financial health of Council.
They did not produce any modelling to prove this statement. Unbelievable.
4. This proposal would cause a reduction in investment in the community
This is of course true. The fact that it was ADDED into last year’s Budget unnecessarily is skipped over. The Council DID ADMIT in the Feb 2020 Council meeting that they ADDED $48 Million expenditure which by the way, they failed to inform the ratepayers of at the time.
5. removes the short and long-term financial resilience of Council.
This is just plain untrue. An absolute untruthful statement.
You must be logged in to post a comment.