It’s back to the drawing board for Clarence Valley Council, after its application for a five year special rate variation was knocked back by the independent regulator.
It’s been granted a 6-point-5 per cent rise for just one year instead.
text will be replaced
Mayor needs to read the IPART document more closely.
This is reassuring news for a community desperate to be listened to by its abusive council!! However there is still much more work to be done!
Our social media group, The Clarence Forum, were so concerned about the inaccurate claims being made by the Mayor that we asked the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal for their view.
To IPART on Friday the 20th of May:
To IPART,
Thank You for your recent Determination with regard to Clarence Valley Council’s application for a 37% Rates Rise.
The following two quotes (attached below) from a local newspaper and social media seem at odds with IPART’s Determination.
Would you please check the Determination and clarify if there is Anything in IPART’s Determination that suggests the Main Reason for IPART’s rejection of Council’s application was Council’s change from a 47% to a 37% application and the associated consultation?
Failing the identification of the claims as primary reasons, is there anything in IPART’s Determination that shows direct support for either of the following claims as being in any ways responsible for IPART’s rejection of Council’s application?
Thanks again for your Determination with regard to Council’s application.
John Hagger
The Clarence Forum
Mayor Richard Williamson: “… said while the council had consulted widely when it was proposing an 8% increase for five consecutive years, IPART had said it did not consult the community enough once the proposed increase was changed to 6.5%. ”
http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/news/clarence-valley-council-will-have-to-go-back-to-th/3028183/
and Deputy Mayor Craig Howe on a Public Social Media Site:
“ Craig Howe No mergers for us. That’s for certain. I believe the reason for not getting the full tilt was we didn’t consult on 6.5 only on 8.
But then they give us 6.5 for 1year that we didn’t ask for nor consult on. Anyway that’s the refs decision.
Like · Reply · 1 · May 18 at 7:50am ”
This is IPART’s reply on Monday the 23rd of May.
Note the last 3 sentences in the last paragraph:
Dear Mr Hagger
The reasons Clarence Valley Council’s 2016-17 special variation application was not approved in full are explained in our May determination report.
These reasons are listed in table 3.1, on page 8 of the report, and are relate to the first and second criterion of the Office of Local Government’s Guidelines. Taking these in turn:
• Clarence Valley Council did not demonstrate the need for, and financial impact of, the proposed rate increase in its Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) documents, and
• The council did not adequately make the community aware of the extent of the rate increase, as the cumulative impacts were not communicated effectively.
The Base Case in council’s 2015-16 long term financial plan (LTFP), adopted 9 February 2016, did not include additional revenue of $21.6 million from user charges and fees over the five years to 2020 21 (adopted by council in June 2015), or efficiency cost savings (adopted in November 2015) increasing to $7.5 million pa by 2020-21.
The council did not explain the mitigating effects of the (above) additional revenue and cost savings on its need for the proposed rate increase. These issues are also discussed within sections 3.1 and 3.2 on pages 11 and 14 to 17 of the report.
IPART’s report does refer to the council’s decision to reduce the size of the special variation from 8% pa (47% cumulative) each year over five years, to 6.5% pa (37% cumulative) over five years (pages 5, 16).
This decision by the council was noted as background information.
The report does not make reference to that decision by the council as a reason for the council’s special variation application not being approved in full.
Yours sincerely
Tony Camenzuli
Principal Analyst, Local Government
T (02) 9113 7706 F (02) 9290 2061
PO Box K35, Haymarket Post Shop, NSW 1240
Level 15, 2-24 Rawson Place, Sydney NSW 2000
http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au
I’m wondering why CVC doesn’t speak straight and dig themselves out of the secrecy that goes on. At what point will they realize that people in the valley are genuinely concerned.
Transparency eases concerns … hopefully the Mayor can take responsibility for how he treats others. This includes people for whom services are (supposedly) are being provided to.
Why not consult? I don’t ‘get it’!
Sincerely
CVC Concerned Citizen
Dear NBN. IPART wrote nothing that resembles Mayor Richards claims on your NEWS program. I have always watched your channel for the news but now knowing the facts of this issue Im appalled , that your channel hasn”t even bothered to check on this matter before reporting on it. Please look into it as it deserves the respect of at least honesty. The council has stated that they needed to raise the rates because of infrastructure and service issues is beyond the joke, when you consider the facts that they are planning on spending 13 million dollars and rising on a new council depot, an unnecessary expense Im sure.Many thanks
I am ratepayer from iluka on a pension, when the great amalgamation was forced upon us the claim was everything was going to be rosy. The now reigning council seems to have delusions of grandeur, with plans to build a super depot , at South Grafton at any cost,. there are a lot of retirees living in the Clarence, on pensions.who struggle to meet their monetary commitments let alone the proposed rate rise which was incidentally knocked back by IPART.I have seen so many unanswered questions by this council with Champagne tastes on a beer budget.When i peruse the report that Tony Camenzuli Principle Analyst submitted and listen to the Mayor’s spiel on the report i come to the conclusion that the lunatics are running the asylum
Dear NBN
I suggest that you obtain a full copy of the Ipart determination for Clarence Valley Council FIt For purpose. It does not resemble in any way what you have reported. Please do so sooner rather than later as this council is not telling the complete story and I am appalled that the complete facts have not been reported
this council has a record for saying they consult when they don’t, denying claims by concerned residents about asbestos and being unable or unwilling to be financially responsible. This latest misunderstanding of the IPART decision by Council is yet another furphy and needs someone, perhaps an updated and corrected report on NBN, to clarify what IPART actually said. Your reporter could peruse the Ipart report and some of the information posted here to assist them with that clarification so that residents/ratepayers are not further misled.