The Redland Water 'Rip Off'

The Great SEQ Water Debate has been reignited and, in my opinion, will continue to be a topic of public debate for years to come as the hikes in water rates take an upward spiral.

Unfortunately for Redland City, we were needlessly thrown into this bureaucratic bungle called 'Water Reform'. It was completely unnecessary as the Redlands had positioned itself over the last couple of decades to be self sustaining in supplying water to our community.

LET’S SHARE?

At the time of the reform, I was informed by a State Government Member of Parliament, trying to justify the SEQ Water Grid, that water should be shared and not limited to one municipality. Unfortunately, that MP had not been around in Redlands as long as myself and others to realise that Redlands was actually forced to become self sufficient when it suffered a water shortage and Brisbane City refused to “share” with Redland Shire by extending its water network. Incredible irony really!.

REPORT - 'ASSESSMENT OF DRIVERS OF RECENT WATER PRICE INCREASES IN SEQ'

This recent report commissioned by the Local Government Association of Qld (LGAQ) highlights the damage yet to be caused by the Water Reform decisions forced upon Redland City residents.

See the full report here

THE ARGUMENTS

1. WHO ASKED FOR WATER REFORM?

The arguments being fuelled never truly expose the fact that the South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Act 2007 was the brain wave of the State Government; Redland Shire Council certainly never asked for it. I opposed the reform from its inception and argued strenuously on numerous occasions both in this and the past term of Council, that we (Council) were not fighting the issue hard enough on behalf of our community.

This is what the purpose of water reform is supposed to deliver: Another irony!

South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Act 2007

s.3 - Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to facilitate a restructure of the water industry in south east Queensland to deliver significant benefits to the community, including—

(a) improved regional coordination and management of water supply; and

(b) more efficient delivery of water services; and

(c) enhanced customer service for water consumers; and

(d) a clearer accountability framework for water supply security.

Click on the link to the Act here

My frustrations drove me to collecting community sentiment through my own petition both electronically and in hard copy. Interestingly, a response to this petition was NEVER received by me or tabled in Parliament by the State Government.

The petition stated;

“The petition of electors of the Divisions of Capalaba, Redlands, Cleveland draws to the attention of the House - Redland Shire residents and ratepayers believe we are uniquely different to other local authorities and in current proposals by the Qld Water Commission and the Qld State Government this has not been adequately recognised. We should not be required to pay for water security we have already paid for. 

Your petitioners therefore request the House to consider that the proposed concessions of delayed connection to Redlands water supply does not fairly compensate Redlands community for their initial $27 million (in historic value terms) of water security already paid for at the expense of other services and infrastructure.”

See the electronic petition in full here

2. COUNCIL’S GOT WHAT THEY ASKED FOR!

The State Government stated that Councils have got what they asked for. The only factor the Council of Mayors asked for was three distribution/retail entities rather that the State's proposal of one distribution entity. This does not mean they asked for the water reform.

I never felt comfortable with this move and questioned the fact that this represented tripling the cost of administrative systems and bureaucracy.

Not surprisingly, the State Government did a back flip, gave the Council’s what they negotiated and an opportunity forever more to say “ They got what they wanted.”

3. REDLAND CITY HAS BEEN COMPENSATED?

There is an argument that Redland City Council was adequately compensated with $83million for its water assets. Considering that State Government clearly understood the cost of building brand new infrastructure such as desalination plants and pipe networks – it seems obvious that water infrastructure owned by Redland City in 2007, and costing $27million 40 years ago, would be worth considerably more than this in today's dollars. My estimate is that brand new infrastructure and land to duplicate these water assets (if built in 2007) would have cost in excess of $600million.

4. SHOW US YOUR PRICE PATH AND WE WILL SHOW YOU OURS

The latest rhetoric from the State Treasurer Andrew Fraser is that the Council owned retail entities should be transparent and show their price path for water through to 2017. The problem is that for any commercial entity to forecast their prices they need to have guaranteed cost of their product. So when the State “guarantees” their price path for water through to 2017, perhaps the Council owned retail entities can do the same.

Unfortunately, the State has legislated these entities to have Boards of Directors who ultimately make these decisions not Council. As the smallest stakeholder, Redlands participation agreement and equity in the retail entity Allconnex will deliver little weight to these decisions.

Another point NEVER mentioned is that legislation allows for the Qld Competition Authority to determine water prices after 2013, which seems to undermine Andrew Fraser's insistence that Council declare their water pricing to 2017.

5. COUNCILS ARE THE ONLY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT PROFITING FROM WATER

It is true that Council's profit from water. No surprise really – they always have to offset the rates. The fact remains that Redland City Council would have offset rates by an extra $10million this year if they still controlled water. So “profits” are down, council rates are up and water bills have increased even more.

IN SUMMARY

It is not rocket science, extra levels of bureaucracy are going to inflate the cost of water to our community. Previously, Council collected, treated and distributed water to our community through one entity - Redlands Water.

Due to the State Government's legislation on water reform, the community is now forced to fund five extra entities of bureaucracy - Qld Water Commission, WaterSecure, Linkwater, the Water Grid Manager and Allconnex.

Against the communities wishes demonstrated in the aforementioned petition, community equity has been diminished, water revenue has decreased (increasing the pressure on Council's General Rate) and decision making on the future of Redland's water has been unscrupulously stolen from the our community.

Redland City Council should not be sitting back and accepting this incredulous spin promulgated by the State Government and start to defend our community in relation to this additional increase on our cost of living.

Deputy Mayor Devalues Local Community Events

Last Friday, Councillors received a copy of a media release about Council's Corporate Sponsorship program. It read, “Several annual iconic Redland events continue to benefit from Council sponsorship in 2010, including RedFest, which received $20,000 and $13,000 for the Redlands Easter Family Festival”.

Deputy Mayor Councillor Murray Elliott responded by highlighting a word in the media release that he found “offensive” and demanded it be removed! He wrote, “ The RedFest festival is not iconic and I find the tag offensive and poorly used on an event of this level. It needs to be removed.”

To be fair and upfront, let me declare my involvement in these festivals as a volunteer in some capacity for the past decade. During that time, Cr Elliott has NEVER accepted an invitation to attend RedFest (formerly Redland Strawberry Festival and Redland Spring Festival) or to volunteer his time.

RedFest has morphed out of the Redland Strawberry Festival and has occurred on the same weekend each year at the Cleveland Showgrounds for the last 52 years. If nothing else, its significance lies in its survival over time, unlike most other events in our City.

It began in Capalaba in 1933 by selling off a glut of strawberries to raise money for a community hall. Over time, it changed its format to meet the changing cultural needs of our community to survive. It has a cultural significance to this region whether it be a reflection of our agricultural history or a demonstration of our sense of community that comes together to make this happen each year. In the last 5 years, numerous community groups have had endless opportunities to be involved in a number of ways, including fundraising. In excess of $40 000 has been raised for their individual cause for groups such as Scouts, Lions, Rotary, Matthew Stanley Foundation, sporting clubs, Girl Guides, Redlands Arts Council, Folk Redlands and P & C groups.

Maybe the word "iconic" is an overused hyperbole? Or is it the word "offensive" that is hyperbolic in Cr Elliott's response? Maybe RedFest and the Easter Festival are not the "Running of the Bulls" in Spain or the "Carnivale" of Brazil?  No-one is pretending they are internationally or nationally significant but locally they have relevance.

I challenge Cr Elliott to tell us what event or other feature in the Redlands is iconic and if he cannot name any - what is he and Council doing to ensure that we have something of cultural significance to put us on the map as a community.

I expect community leaders to endorse and promote any contribution from their volunteer community. Build them up - not cut them down with uninformed judgements. Build pride instead of snubbing the hard work and good intentions of those in our community.

I believe Redlands deserves much, much more! We need to encourage our Council to create partnerships and if that means getting out there and volunteering one's time to such community events - iconic or not - it would be time better spent than arguing the descriptive value of one word in a media release.

Is this the level of support that you expect from your Councillors as a community?

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.