jamestownevents.com
22 May, 2012, 09:11:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: We are finally back on-line!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Council Information Night  (Read 372 times)
Ray
Proof that Homer Simpson Lives!
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 26
Posts: 1692


"I'm Bored"


« on: 07 July, 2011, 02:16:45 PM »

A few moments ago I  was made aware of a notice in the latest  Jamestown Journal advising ratepayers of the upcoming Information Night that is going to be Held at the sir Hubert Wilkins Centre (Aero Club Rooms) on 13th July, at 7:30pm.

Further information ios available from the NAC Ph. 8664 1139.
Logged

"Those who curry favour will always tell you what you wish to hear,
Whereas one's true friends will tell you what you need to know"
tricky
Sr. Member
****

Karma: 14
Posts: 224



« Reply #1 on: 09 July, 2011, 02:37:54 PM »

A few moments ago I  was made aware of a notice in the latest  Jamestown Journal advising ratepayers of the upcoming Information Night that is going to be Held at the sir Hubert Wilkins Centre (Aero Club Rooms) on 13th July, at 7:30pm.

Further information ios available from the NAC Ph. 8664 1139.

So Ray ...... will we see you at the meeting?
Logged
Ray
Proof that Homer Simpson Lives!
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 26
Posts: 1692


"I'm Bored"


« Reply #2 on: 09 July, 2011, 03:08:08 PM »

I will be in Adelaide picking up TLW who is flying in from Perth on the last flight, 9:35pm and I can just about guarantee that it will be late.

Talk about poor timing. TLW wasn't really impressed to my suggestion that maybe she could hitch hike. This disappointed me greatly especially after she had also refused to fly with Tiger Airways too, damn picky women.

Qantas are no better, I initially asked them if they could divert to Jamestown to drop TLW off here, so i could kill two birds with the one stone, but no, they had some weak excuse about the runway not being up to standard or something. Excuses, excuses,...

« Last Edit: 09 July, 2011, 03:26:53 PM by Ray » Logged

"Those who curry favour will always tell you what you wish to hear,
Whereas one's true friends will tell you what you need to know"
tricky
Sr. Member
****

Karma: 14
Posts: 224



« Reply #3 on: 14 July, 2011, 05:01:58 PM »

A few moments ago I  was made aware of a notice in the latest  Jamestown Journal advising ratepayers of the upcoming Information Night that is going to be Held at the sir Hubert Wilkins Centre (Aero Club Rooms) on 13th July, at 7:30pm.

Further information ios available from the NAC Ph. 8664 1139.

I attended the Northern Areas Council meeting at the Sir Hubert Wilkins Centre last night.
The Council chairperson, Ben Brown, led the meeting along with Roger Crowley (acting CEO), David Rattley (Manager of Finance) and Alan Thomson (Manager of Environmental Services) who all answered questions from those attending.
All local ward councillors and around 60 members of the public were also in attendance.
The new aluminium footbridge was discussed at length and it appears that the Council have innocently been “ambushed” by the original tenderer becoming insolvent.
The cost blowouts associated with the bridge were discussed and even though the Council is not happy with the extra costs encountered with this project, they were left with the unenviable option of having already paid out over $100,000 to the builder, leaving the incomplete bridge at the manufacturer’s premises, allowing the firm to declare bankruptcy and then attempt to buy it from the receivers at an unknown price.
So Council chose to collect the incomplete bridge and pay to have it completed locally.
The siting of the Eastern approach ramp for the new foot bridge is a requirement from DTEI to improve the safety of the pedestrians crossing the road at a safer distance away from the complex intersection and the length is as a result of the specification required for inclines deemed safe and suitable for gopher and wheelchair traffic.
The new foot bridge is a replacement for the old condemned steel bridge and is considered necessary because the existing road bridge footpath is deemed too dangerous by DTEI for pedestrians, due to semi- trailers sometimes accidentally mounting the footpath when executing turns.
Rates were discussed and some ratepayers hold the view that our rates are too high for people on limited incomes and we will potentially see ratepayers leave the town.
It was pointed out that latest higher NAC rates are  still lower than the rates being charged by either the neighbouring Clare or the Goyder Councils and that the Council is effectively playing catch up due to our rates be historically low when compared to other areas nearby.
About $3million of the current debt is attributed to a waste water recovery scheme and STEDS that were implemented at the time of prolonged and anticipated further severe water restrictions.
The NAC plant is aging and in order to maintain local infrastructure and particularly roads appropriately, the plant requires continual upgrading that needs to be funded from rate revenue.
The new public toilets in the main street were discussed, with a key point being that only two tenders were received.
The local tender was for about $114,000 and a tender from outside our region was about $900,000.
The JDA sought feedback from the public at the meeting with 21 people in favour of Council postponing a budget commitment until next year, for brand new toilets to be constructed at a cost of about $160,000 in the current location.
The vacant Foodland site was discussed with several people questioning the decision to promote the construction at the new location.
It was explained that extensive research by Foodland failed to locate any available space in our main street to accommodate the required floor space and safe shopping trolley access to the car park.
Other towns have been totally shunned by large project builders with similar problems regarding their main streets, and the NAC were concerned that Jamestown may have lost the Foodland investment if suitable land was not made available.
All in all I thought that the evening was well worthwhile and hope that some matters have now been clarified for those that were not fully aware of some of the complex issues.
« Last Edit: 14 July, 2011, 05:14:45 PM by tricky » Logged
Ray
Proof that Homer Simpson Lives!
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 26
Posts: 1692


"I'm Bored"


« Reply #4 on: 14 July, 2011, 06:15:27 PM »

Thanks for the insight into last night's meeting Tricky. Unfortunately I could not attend due to a previous commitment.

I find the argument about our rates being low somewhat incredible. That is the council's job to keep the rates affordable, after all, if I wanted to pay exorbitant rates, I would move to Toorak.  The business of comparing us with other towns is no more than a well known con trick, being a known as "the circular argument" whereby each council uses another to justify a rise in their rates and it just goes around and around until we reach the stage where we find ourselves now, when the ratepayers start to "back up".  We are not paying our council to get into a competition to see who can squeeze the most money out of the ratepayers, we pay then to responsibly manage what money we have, and there is absolutely no reason why the rate rises should ever exceed the CPI.
  
I'll give you a small "F'rinstance". There is hearsay evidence that several brand new vehicles were purchased for the council some time ago and then fitted with new mobile phones, the perfectly good phones in the vehicles that were being replaced, were removed and thrown in the rubbish bin. My informant was shown part of the evidence, and I have no reason to doubt that he was telling the truth.

I think that a lot of projects should go on the back burner until we get rid of our current debt, just the same as we mere mortals have to do. It would appear that our council in the past viewed the ratepayers as no more than a bottomless pit of money.

As for the present council, I must say they do give me some cause for hope, with those I have spoken to being open and forthright with their answers, all that remains now is to see if they heed what the ratepayers are saying.
« Last Edit: 14 July, 2011, 08:10:39 PM by Ray » Logged

"Those who curry favour will always tell you what you wish to hear,
Whereas one's true friends will tell you what you need to know"
tricky
Sr. Member
****

Karma: 14
Posts: 224



« Reply #5 on: 15 July, 2011, 02:46:14 PM »

I have located some interesting information about the residential rates in 45 South Australian Council areas.
For the 2009/2010 residential rates, the Northern Areas Council ranked at the low end, in position 15, with an average household rate  of $777 (excluding CWMS).
This placed the NAC below 30 other councils in the survey.
The average residential rate for the total 45 Councils in South Australia was $1058.
My curiosity about the concept of rate indexation against CPI has revealed that all Council's input costs are at a distinct disadvantage, due to their heavy reliance on fuel suppliers, transport companies & contractors who do not align their pricing remotely near to the CPI.
« Last Edit: 15 July, 2011, 03:15:25 PM by tricky » Logged
Ray
Proof that Homer Simpson Lives!
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 26
Posts: 1692


"I'm Bored"


« Reply #6 on: 15 July, 2011, 06:42:52 PM »

I have located some interesting information about the residential rates in 45 South Australian Council areas.
For the 2009/2010 residential rates, the Northern Areas Council ranked at the low end, in position 15, with an average household rate  of $777 (excluding CWMS).
This placed the NAC below 30 other councils in the survey.
The average residential rate for the total 45 Councils in South Australia was $1058.
My curiosity about the concept of rate indexation against CPI has revealed that all Council's input costs are at a distinct disadvantage, due to their heavy reliance on fuel suppliers, transport companies & contractors who do not align their pricing remotely near to the CPI.
Comparing average Rates is a bit like comparing average wages, it's really of no consequence and can't be used as an argument when trying to negotiate your wages, also it falls foul of the circular argument.

My own argument is based upon the fact that in the last two financial years my total Rates have increased by 81% and this year we are told the General rate will be going up another 12% not including Land valuations etc. Whereas in the same period my income has dropped by approximately 20% (something that I can't just put my hand in the public purse to rectify). It seems that it's OK for the Council to expect those who are least able, to tighten their belts in hard economic times, while they just gouge more money from the ratepayers as if we were enjoying boom times. As far as i know, there s no legal business anywhere that would get away with an increase of this magnitude or even anything approaching it, the department of consumer affairs fair trading act just wouldn't allow it.

I can't see Council's high input costs being right either, as they get all manner of advantages that the general public do not, like Fleet rates for their vehicles and bulk pricing of virtually every other item they purchase.
« Last Edit: 15 July, 2011, 09:53:38 PM by Ray » Logged

"Those who curry favour will always tell you what you wish to hear,
Whereas one's true friends will tell you what you need to know"
tricky
Sr. Member
****

Karma: 14
Posts: 224



« Reply #7 on: 17 July, 2011, 03:02:15 PM »

Comparing average Rates is a bit like comparing average wages, it's really of no consequence and can't be used as an argument when trying to negotiate your wages, also it falls foul of the circular argument.

Ray, you initially had me convinced about average wages and average rates having the same impact on our hip pockets, so have a look at my research on the subject.

These examples demonstrate that averaging of values can have the opposite relationship to an argument about the use of average values.

AVERAGE WAGES.
10 people have the following weekly wage incomes.
Person1.   $400 per week.
Person2.   $500 per week.
Person3.   $500 per week.
Person4.   $600 per week.
Person5.   $600 per week.
Person6.   $700 per week.
Person7.   $800 per week.
Person8.   $900 per week.
Person9.   $2000 per week.
Person10.$2500 per week.
TOTAL WAGES = $9500.      Therefore average wage is $950 per week.
This “average wage” is not indicative of the fact that 50% of these people are earning $600 or less (36.8% less than the average) per week, this demonstrates the negative point of view that a fair portion of the community earn below the “average wage”.

AVERAGE RATES.
10 ratepayers have the following weekly rate expenses.
Person1.   $10 per week.
Person2.   $12 per week.
Person3.   $13 per week.
Person4.   $14 per week.
Person5.   $15 per week.
Person6.   $17 per week.
Person7.   $19 per week.
Person8.   $20 per week.
Person9.   $25 per week.
Person10.$35 per week.
TOTAL RATES = $171.      Therefore the average rate expense is $17.10 per week.
This “average rate” is not indicative of the fact that 50% of these ratepayers are paying $15 or less (12.3% less than the average) per week. This demonstrates the opposing positive point of view that a fair portion of the community pays below the “average rate”.
Logged
Ray
Proof that Homer Simpson Lives!
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 26
Posts: 1692


"I'm Bored"


« Reply #8 on: 17 July, 2011, 05:16:59 PM »

I think that you've missed my point completely Tricky.

My point was that if you try to use the average wage to negotiate your own wage, you will be told that it has no bearing, believe me I've seen it happen before Mr Polites at the Industrial Tribunal in Adelaide. Similarly we can't use Rates paid somewhere else, as a basis for what we should pay.

If for example you sell a new vehicle to someone with a large disposable income and he willingly pays the RRP,  it would have no bearing upon my dealings should I wish to purchase a similar vehicle.  

As ratepayers it is our job to keep the Council in check, after all, as elected councillors they only there as our representatives and as such, we are essentially, their "employers".  The recent meetings and Council election turnovers are a direct result of huge ratepayer dissatisfaction with certain decisions and the general running of our Council, in my opinion much of this was allowed to happen as a result of ratepayer apathy. Now we are suddenly waking up what has been allowed to happen, and people are starting to "buck".

I dunno what others think, but my view is that we have got way above our station, for a small country town in the mid north of the State.

My biggest worry in relation to this whole matter is that we have a CEO whose Salary is predicated upon the rate revenue. Which in my view constitutes a gross conflict of interest,...  "Why should he fight to keep rates down"?  Other than that, we seem to have had a succession of salaried staff who live not only out of the town, but completely out of the council area, and they use a ratepayer funded vehicle (and fuel) to drive to and fro.  

We no longer appear to have a "council", it would seem that have an almost "self sustaining bureaucracy" which like so many bodies of it's ilk, seems to spend more time managing it's own empire building and advancement, than the affairs of the ratepayers. This of course is my own personal opinion.
« Last Edit: 17 July, 2011, 06:12:02 PM by Ray » Logged

"Those who curry favour will always tell you what you wish to hear,
Whereas one's true friends will tell you what you need to know"
hatchbackgirl75
Full Member
***

Karma: 12
Posts: 126


« Reply #9 on: 29 July, 2011, 07:11:14 PM »

I have located some interesting information about the residential rates in 45 South Australian Council areas.
For the 2009/2010 residential rates, the Northern Areas Council ranked at the low end, in position 15, with an average household rate  of $777 (excluding CWMS).
This placed the NAC below 30 other councils in the survey.
The average residential rate for the total 45 Councils in South Australia was $1058.
Well that's nice, but considering we pay the SUM of those two averages in rates, I'm feeling like we're right up the high end.

I reckon we're getting charged double on something. We had a subdivision come through but with no second rates notice there has to be *some* reason our rates are alarmingly close to $2000.

Edit: yup, we're being charged two lots of CWMS and garbage collection, which adds up to $1000 on its own. Just as well we're building a house at the START of the financial year not the end or I'd be royally peeved that we're paying for something we aren't using. This is going to make life interesting for the conveyancer if we sell the house ...
« Last Edit: 29 July, 2011, 07:14:16 PM by hatchbackgirl75 » Logged

Classified ads in Regional Australia - http://regionalads.com.au
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!