Rate hike for Unley waste
Outcome of the
Unley Council meeting held on 26 March:
Item
1117
Pocket
Parks
I successfully moved a motion that Council
prepare designs for 2 pocket parks.
It was well
received by Council.
Pocket
parks are a great concept and well received by the community. I have received
considerable feedback from across Unley to restore the program. They may be
built along the edge of a street (by narrowing the road width) or at an
existing road closure (dead-end). In Parkside there is an excellent example
where a road was ‘rolled back’ and an adjoining small park extended. That was a
great outcome; probably the best example of what can be done.
Item 1118
Rates
Incentive Policy
This motion was successful.
I totally opposed it.
I did not
support the concept of encouraging high-rise development by providing big rate
rebates for developers and owners of apartments bought off the plan. I believe
that any such development must be economically viable (on its own merit)
without any subsidy by Council. It is not fair that the ratepayers subsidise
the owners of new high-rise apartments.
It is not
fair on the residents and I couldn’t support it.
I was
staggered that no other Councillor opposed it.
Item
1124
China’s
ban on recycle waste
I raised
this matter at Council by a series of questions, primarily about the financial
impact on Council (and the residents).
Answers to
the questions were deferred for a month to allow the Administration time to
research the matter.
Importantly,
my questions put the matter on Council’s radar.
It’s an
issue that will likely cost Council (and residents) about $250k pa and take
12-18 months to resolve (by my estimate). It really is a crisis that has arisen
across Australia by total inaction by all Federal and State Governments (and the
opposition parties). No-one seriously took the threat made by China in
mid-2017. Now, residents will be burdened by extra cost to dispose of their
recycle waste.
I’m just so
annoyed. It didn’t have to happen.
Our recycle
paper, cans, bottles and hard plastic will now probably go to landfill and a
community’s embrace of the culture of recycle will be shattered. So sad!
Outcome of the
Unley Council meeting held on 23 April:
Item
1140
There was a
motion on notice by Councillor Michael Hewitson.
It dealt
with exploring opportunities to increase the tree canopy across Unley on public
and private land.
Whilst I
have a passion for increasing the tree canopy, I could not support the motion
due to the wording and the mention of:
Rate rebates for residents with high tree canopy,
Zero rates for commercial property owners who commit to
planting trees, and
Giving free trees to property owners.
Further,
some of the ideas raised in an earlier workshop were outrageous, like:
Flying drones across Unley to ‘count’ the canopy cover on
private property, and
Using satellite imagery to assess entitlement
to free/subsidised rates.
I applied
common sense and moved an amendment that was simpler and more general. It will
enable the Administration to report on viable and practical options.
My amendment was passed unanimously.
I look
forward to a report coming back to Council in a few months.
Item
1135
Councillor
Michael Hewitson moved a motion to accept the draft annual business plan and
budget for consultation. He also increased the proposed rate increase, up from
2.5% to 2.8%. He said that this to cater for the increase cost for dumping
recycle waste at landfill.
I argued
against this and could not accept the increase in rates.
It is just
unacceptable.
By my
estimate, the increased costs for dumping at landfill will be of the order of
$200K to $250k pa.
Yes, it
will be tough times ahead, but we don’t need to rate gauge the residents.
I pushed
for cancellation of the Tour Down Under Unley Gala and Race Start which costs
Council $275k. The saving would have covered the actual cost of the increased
dumping fees.
I argued
that the extra rate increase of 0.3% would not adequately fund the extra cost
for waste dumping.
The motion
by Councillor Michael Hewitson was successful.
Councillor
Mike Hudson and I opposed the motion.
Item
1141
I moved the following Motion on Notice:
That following the election of the Liberal Government at the
recent State Government elections, the Local Government Association of SA be
requested to:
1. Cease associating the City of Unley with the campaign
expressing opposition to a proposed rate capping scheme; and
2. Give serious consideration to ceasing the anti rate
capping campaign.
Given
the current political environment, I was staggered that the motion was
unsuccessful.
So now, Unley Council and the Local Government Associate
will continue its opposition to the Liberal’s rate capping.
The best strategic approach would have been to comply with
the Liberals by keeping rate increases low.
The
background information that I provided was:
In 2017 the majority of South Australian Councils (including
the City of Unley) indicated support for an active campaign by the Local
Government Association (LGA) of SA expressing an objection to the Liberal
Party’s proposal to introduce a rate capping scheme if elected to Government.
The Liberal Party won the election conducted in March 2018 and has indicated
that it remains committed to the introduction of a rate capping scheme in South
Australia.
Media reports and communications from the LGA continue to
express an opposition to rate capping as proposed by the Liberal Government.
Given the Government has remained committed to its election proposal and has
communicated it wants to work with the Local Government sector in relation to
the introduction of an effective rate capping scheme, it could be detrimental
to State-Local Government relations for the City of Unley (and the LG sector
more broadly) to continue to openly oppose rate capping.
A request to the LGA to cease associating the City of Unley
with the anti-rate capping campaign, and to consider ceasing the campaign
entirely, would demonstrate the City’s commitment to developing effective
working relationships with the new Government, and allow the focus to be placed
on contributing to the development of a scheme that provides best value to the
community.
Here are links to the Council minutes:
Comments
Post a Comment
I would appreciate your feedback.