Council Wasting Money On Conservation Land

People are starting to question this Council's spending! Budgets are tight everywhere! We hear it constantly! Mayor Melva in her ratepayer funded full page advertisement today (Bayside Bulletin 6/7/10) told us that “we've significantly tightened our belt as an organisation” in the 2010/11 Redland City Council Budget.

From where I stand, it is difficult to see the buckle mark move in the right direction for this City. Where are these savings reflected in our total rate bills and Council's fees and charges? We are about to suffer an increase in collection of rates and levies for 2010/11 by just under 14%. Time to ask some serious questions!

• Environment Levy: Melva and her “new team of Councillors” have continued to increase the Environment Levy from $72.80 in 2007/08 to $109.80 in 2010/11 (a 51% increase). This money is spent in a number of areas – the purchase of land, the maintenance of acquired land and towards environmental policies and strategies such as the Koala Strategy. For now, I would like to focus on the capital spending, in particular, why this Council continues to buy land to “protect” it when it is already protected by the Planning Scheme?

• Buying Conservation Land: Melva and her “new team of Councillors” continue to pay top dollar for the purchase of this land under the guise of increasing the environmental credentials of our City and to protect it from development and growth. The truth is, much of this land is already protected by the Conservation Zone, but Council continues to pay millions of $$ to potentially save only a few trees. No one argues that we need to invest in protecting our environment but when business and families are struggling to make ends meet, Council needs to consider the ratepayers ability to continue absorbing these increases. We should expect a more balanced approach to the expenditure of our rates. Delivering value for money in uncertain times is far more critical than Council increasing its land portfolio and creating a huge maintenance bill for our children to fund. This is not effective spending!

• Private Ownership: Does Melva and her “new team of Councillors” believe that we are all environmental vandals that cannot be trusted to maintain our conservation zoned blocks? Is it not more effective to assist our conservation land owners to maintain their own land? Are they trying to appease developers by purchasing their land and offering them huge profits to avoid having 4 house blocks on 800+ hectares? Or is it to avoid further record legal costs and embarrassment in the Planning and Environment Court when trying to take away a land owners rights and entitlements to such land?

• Back To Basics: When budgets are tight, most concentrate on maintaining what they already own rather than spending more money increasing their assets. In my opinion, this is not reflected in Council's approach to spending public funds on purchasing land.

I encourage all residents and ratepayers to read the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of 25^th June 2010 to understand which Councillors are failing to make decisions in the broader interest of the Redlands community and future generations.

http://web01.redland.qld.gov.au/robo/Minutes_Agendas/April_June10/MinutesAndAgendasApril-June2010.htm

Council Budget Will Impact Living Costs

Time to start publishing the facts! Yesterday marked the third budget for Redland City Council delivered under Melva and her team of Councillors. I would have liked to separate the items in the Budget worth supporting but feel too strongly about the issues that concerned me. As has become tradition for Melva and her team of Councillors, they moved the majority of the Budget and did not allow me to support many items individually. Hence, why I did not support Redland City Council's budget 2010/11.

My concerns are:

• Unserviceable Levels of Debt? - The level of debt adopted in the 10 year Financial Strategy. Debt is not always bad, however, there is significant risk when increasing debt from $43 million to $151 million dollars (350% increase) in 5 years based on the assumptions of increased revenue to service the debt ( such as dividends from the new water business Allconnex as at July 1 which has no proven record). Any bank manager would ask for more evidence and request that we do not rely on assumptions to service debt.

• A Slug to Business - The increased rates on commercial properties. Business in Redland City is in dire need of support. Centres such as Cleveland are dying slowly and we are now being referred to as "Deadlands". Their 18.5% hike in rates could impact negatively on local business as landowners will ultimately pass this on to their tenants in uncertain financial times. There are no direct benefits to business, as the budget spending on Economic Development remains around the same $1.5M, compared to spending on Environment of around $20M. I do not believe this approach is sustainable and leads me to my next point.

• Wasteful and Inefficient Environmental Spending - Environment levy increases by another 11% - now $109.80 per household. Why? We are now buying land that is already protected by conservation zonings with the ongoing maintenance cost for future generations. The cost benefit of these purchases to the environment is not justified. Also, these funds are now being spent on ancillary items, e.g. $193000 for a Koala Communications Officer to facilitate Facebook, MySpace pages and the like. Surely, one of the great values of social media tools is that they normally come for free!

• Tip Management Strategies that Encourage Illegal Dumping - Increase in gate fees at the tip going from $4 in 09/10 to $8 10/11 for a car. That is a 100% increase in one year! Cars with trailers will now pay $12 for the experience. Since the introduction of this by Melva and her team of Councillors in 2008, people will tell you that illegal dumping increased in our bushland areas. But Melva and her team of Councillors proceeded to adopt a strategy that supported that fee and in fact supports continuing elevation of that fee over a period of time.

• Weinam Creek Issues Unresolved - Weinam Creek Masterplan parking at Redland Bay is an unresolved hot debate in the community. Residents of Redland Bay don't want it, and residents of Southern Moreton Bay Islands don't support it. Regardless, Council is pushing on and has allocated $2.6M to this project in 10/11.

• Wasteful Purchase of Developers' Land - $5.2M has been allocated to purchase premium residential South East Thornlands land from a developer for a park. This land was not recommended by the State or the planning officers of Council for District Park, however, upon election, Melva and her team of Councillors took to the plan and changed the zone with colouring pencils hoping they could acquire the land at a reduced open space value. Regardless of professional advice, they have committed $5.2M of ratepayers hard earned dollars to purchase it.

• Pet Owners Slugged - Cat owners (not desexed/microchipped) will be slugged $65 - a 133% increase for registration. Dog owners will see another 4% increase to $94 and almost $50 for a desexed dog.

The lack of balanced spending continues and we should question what the extra return is to you the ratepayer for these extra dollars. There will be a total increase in rate revenue by Redland City Council of 13.79% in 2010/11. Some residents will see their total rates rise by up to 17% and I believe there will be many who will discover the increasing cost of living, particularly in Redland City, will be crippling.

I encourage all Redlands Ratepayers to continue to closely question this Council, not just on this Budget but on decisions that will impact your future. We must strive to ensure responsible, accountable governance that reflects the needs and expectations of a Redlands working together.