Council Refuses To Publicly Review Koala Strategy Spending

At the previous Planning & Policy Committee Meeting, I publicly requested a review of all expenditure allocated to Council's Koala Strategy in the General Business section of the meeting agenda.

This formal request to review all expenditure was voted down by the majority of Councillors.

http://web01.redland.qld.gov.au/robo/Minutes_Agendas/July_Sept10/MinutesAndAgendasJuly-September_2010.htm

This was driven by significant concern from members of our community on recent spending including LED koala signs, questionable acquisition of land for environmental reasons, the cost of funding koala social media and the new “www.koala central.com.au” website which should be funded from multiple agencies across the nation, not just Redland City ratepayers. 

Most people, like me, want to see an effort made in protecting the koala. The debate should not be whether we save the koala and whose fault it is that the numbers are declining. Rather, the discussion should be how we can sustainably and realistically protect the koala. Roads, houses, dogs, and disease are not going to mysteriously disappear unless we are ALL happy to pack up, leave our cars and houses behind and move to Logan or the Gold Coast. Is the very promotion of the “urban koala” an oxymoron that will further add to its demise?  This is the type of question that we need to ask and debate.

The debate should not centre around saving the koala at the expense of all other community priorities. For instance, the recent $12000 Koala Hedonic Property Study tells us our properties are worth more if we have sighted a koala nearby. How does this protect the species? How does this rate higher than an Hedonic study for Redland properties that don't have access to reasonable infrastructure? Instead, we need a common sense and balanced approach on how we protect the koala in line with the other community priorities.

We should not be spending money just for the sake of spending money. It is time to assess the situation, look at all the options and stop the blame game that further divides our community and apply some common sense. We should not continue to allow the plight of the koala to further divide Council and the community.

Definition of "HEDONICS" - noun - the branch of psychology that deals with pleasurable and unpleasurable states of consciousness.

Who Is Really Running Council?

On Wednesday 22nd September Cr Helen Murray moved a motion in reference to the Cleveland CBD Master Plan:

PROPOSED MOTION

Moved by: Cr Murray
Seconded by: Cr Reimers

1. That Council resolves not to adopt the Cleveland Centre Master Plan and Implementation Plan 2010.

2. That Council resolves to engage the following persons or their representatives to give their considered opinion on the future viability of urban koalas in the Cleveland area as a result of Council adopting the plan as proposed:

Dr Frank Carrick UQ

Ms Diedre de Villiers UQ

Mrs Deborah Tabart AKF

Mrs Debbie Pointing KAG

Mr Simon Baltais WPS

3. That the future of the Cleveland Master Plan be based on the best outcome and viability of the urban koalas in the Redlands

Was Cr Murray's motion really intended to further defer the Cleveland CBD Masterplan? Was she trying to prove another point in putting this motion as she threatened Councillors never to wear a green T Shirt again if they supported it?

Interestingly, I am told that two of the local names put forward in her motion have no scientific qualifications to offer. They are clearly committed to the “Save The Koala” and the “Green” cause – that is no secret!  Was it a test for them or their councillor colleagues? Maybe Cr Murray was putting on trial their loyalties to the “koala” cause? Was she challenging their claim to power suckled by the success of placing the current Hobson/Elliott Council in office? CARP, Wildlife Preservation Society Bayside Branch, Qld Conservation Council, Koala Action Group – all of these groups both openly and discreetly supported Hobson and her green team of Councillors in the 2008 Council Elections.

 Page from Koala Action Group Website pre-election March 2008 

Cr Murray actually raised some very important questions and points that we should all consider. Who is really running Redland City Council? Are there faceless people driving the decisions (or lack thereof) of Council? Do they have more influence than other residents? If so, why?

Cleveland CBD Masterplan

At the September General Meeting, Cr Helen Murray moved a motion not to adopt the Cleveland CBD Masterplan and to engage what she termed as experts to investigate the effect of this plan on the urban koala.  There have been numerous opportunities for councillors to request the input of the “experts” over the previous two and half years and I argued that point strongly in the debate. This motion was supported by Cr Murray, Cr Reimers and Cr Toni Bowler.  

PROPOSED MOTION

Moved by: Cr Murray
Seconded by: Cr Reimers

1.  That Council resolves not to adopt the Cleveland Centre Master Plan & Implementation Plan 2010.

2. That Council resolves to engage the following persons or their representatives to give their considered opinion on the future viability of urban koalas in the Cleveland area as a result of Council adopting the plan as proposed:

Dr Frank Carrick UQ

Ms Diedre de Villiers UQ

Mrs Deborah Tabart AKF

Mrs Debbie Pointing KAG

Mr Simon Baltais WPS

3. That the future of the Cleveland Master Plan be based on the best outcome and viability of the urban koalas in the Redlands

This motion was lost and following further debate the masterplan was finally adopted.

MASTERPLAN AMENDMENTS

This plan was due to be adopted in early 2008 but was rejected by Melva and many of her “new team of councillors”. I did not support further delays to this process. However. it was sent back to the drawing board for further consultation, workshops and consideration at the request of a majority of Councillors.   Councillors asked for a number of issues to be addressed including the ability for koalas to transverse the CBD area. 

IMPACTS IN BUSINESS

The community and business people of Cleveland need certainty to move forward and survive. The Cleveland CBD in particular has visible signs of struggle and needs an injection of strong vision which only Council can provide with input from the community. In the debate, I encouraged people to have a walk around the Cleveland CBD and maybe count the number of For Lease/For Sale signs that now exist. It was argued back at me, clearly these businesses are also responsible for their own fate. However, in the cycle of business turnover, astute investors are not filling these vacancies. Why? The cost of doing business in Redlands is no longer attractive, perhaps the risks currently outweigh potential return and Commercial premises copped an 18% increase in rates this year with no further investment in Economic Development for the City. These are considerations that business owners weigh up in making decisions to relocate or to start up/expand.

The efficiency and timeliness of Council's decision making impacts all residents. In this instance, Melva and a majority of councillors did not like the outcome of community engagement in 2007. After further consultation the amended plan has now been delivered which some Councillors are still not happy with. Nearly four years to deliver a high level visionary document is simply not good enough. Council must understand that time means money for private enterprise and the cost of not doing so is often passed on to the general public.  

Green Waste and Illegal Dumping

Currently green waste collected at Redland City Council's Transfer Station is transferred to Rocky Point (near Beenleigh) to generate green electricity. Redland Council does not receive any revenue from this except the fee at the gate paid by residents.

In the most recent Budget adopted by “Melva and her new team of councillors”, dump fees were increased dramatically, and a trial Waste Reduction Incentive Scheme was implemented to offer something in return for these increases and to assist with reducing the community's waste. The budget for this trial is $918,940 this financial year.

This issue was raised in a committee meeting debate yesterday and it became blatantly clear to me that even some Councillor's did not understand how this Waste Reduction Incentive Scheme operates. There are currently two incentives :

1. 
   
   Downsizing a 240l bin to a 140l bin OR;
2. 
   
   Getting a $16 refund for two trips to the transfer station (both receipts must be attached before a refund is given).

The debate predominantly centred around Incentive No.2; with questioning about the requirement to wait until a resident has two receipts before they can be cashed in.

The reason offered by the General Manager was that it costs Council $32 every time this refund is processed! That's right, it costs ratepayers $32 every time this $16 refund is processed???

I argued that if green waste is such a benefit to the environment by taking pressure off the traditional coal powered electricity – the best incentive Council could offer is in fact not to charge at the gate at all. Makes good sense to me!

The debate continued with arguments about illegal dumping with insinuations that I was stirring up “local hysteria” because I did not support introducing or doubling the gate fees at our dumps. Figures of illegal dumping over this term of Council were presented. Unfortunately, the recording of incidents of illegal dumping only began at my request after the introduction of gate fees in December 08, and of course, Councillors who supported this extra gate fee are now saying that the incidents of illegal dumping have always been this high. I will let the public be the judge of this as I continue to receive numerous complaints about illegal dumping in our bushland areas, our parks, charity bins and on private property, including building sites. In fact, the only incidents of illegal dumping that are recorded by Council are those that occur on Council property. I can report for the month of July it cost $8181.63 for council officers to collect and dispose 61.47 tonnes of illegally dumped waste on Council property alone. See the below link:

http://web01.redland.qld.gov.au/robo/Minutes_Agendas/July_Sept10/MinutesAndAgendasJuly-September_2010.htm

I have requested figures to be presented to Council on the % increase of contamination of yellow recycle bins for the last five years, to measure if the introduction and subsequent doubling of dump fees has had any impact on this also.

We should be encouraged to contact Council on every occasion that you find illegal dumping to ensure that these future statistics can be used to influence better decisions in the future.


ADDITIONAL NOTE:
I have added the chart distributed to Councillors do provide clarity. This chart reflects ONLY the REPORTED incidents of illegal dumping to Council.
It seems that my concerns are misunderstood by some Councillors (see post below).  The illegal dumping of green waste is the least detrimental to the environment.  My references to illegal dumping include all types. Particularly, general waste and building materials and especially asbestos.  I hope this assists in seeing the WHOLE picture.

Beware of Social Media Impersonators

Last night, I was informed that there was a new Twitter Account, "Karenwcouncil", that had begun to tweet information about Redland City Council which could make others believe that it is me.  This illustrates some of the dangers of social media and I would like to caution any of my genuine "followers" or "friends" to always be careful and cautious of the potential risk of identity fraud on social media.  For anyone interested in following the Real ME on Twitter, my username is CrKarenWilliams.

This "fraudster" is already following a number of my "followers" and I recommend that you block their tweets unless they are willing to disclose their true identity.   I have already sought advice from the administrators of Twitter and the police in relation to any offences that may have been committed.

I assure you that whenever I write, post, or tweet, I have the integrity to ALWAYS use my real name, and include a photograph where possible. Why? - because I believe in transparency and I write what I believe is factual and worthy of an identity.

Clearly this impersonator is closely related to someone within Council and people should question why someone in this position would need to lower themselves to such a level in an attempt to discredit me or others who may use these networks.

This debate about the use of pseudonyms or nom de plume in social media has been recently debated on the Bayside Bulletin blog where, in some instances, defamatory remarks about me and others crossed the line of acceptable standards.  To the Bayside Bulletin's credit, those remarks were removed. See link @ Bayside Bulletin.

I will continue to use these networks to ensure that people have genuine access to my values and beliefs as a representative, and to information that will assist us to make better decisions for the future of Redland City.

Council Fails To Acquire Strategic Foreshore Land for Public Use

Redland City shares approximately 48 km of its boundary with the beautiful Moreton Bay. Only about 8km is foreshore parkland and is publicly owned and accessible. Of this 8km, we share 1.5km with significant transport hubs such as Weinam Creek and Toondah Harbour, neither of which are are appealing for a day out with the family or visitors. Compared to other bayside areas like Redcliffe, we have failed to make greater use of our foreshore areas and its natural assets for both lifestyle and tourism opportunities.

Weinam Creek – Redland Bay Foreshore Masterplan

• The current vision for Weinam Creek is to spend $5million dollars ripping up the car park right on the waterfront and re-bitumening it in the same place for less “user pay”car parks. This is not something that I have supported as it neither meets the needs of the Bay Island and Mainland communities nor is it visionary enough to excite anyone to use it for anything other than a transport hub. There are solutions which are either being ignored or require more visionary leadership than currently exists to make it happen.  These solutions would require partnerships with private and public entities.  

Toondah Harbour

• Further north along Redland's foreshore, we have similar opportunities that have recently been lost. How the Mayor and Council managed to miss this opportunity is yet to be understood? This question needs to be answered. Why did the months of negotiations between CSIRO and Council to purchase this land end without warning? Who fell asleep at the wheel? Were we even driving? The negotiations allowing for a “priority sale” between one government body to another had been happening for a year!! No explanation from anyone on how this happened and where to from here.

It is beginning to feel like a clock going backwards at a Dutch auction on employment and lifestyle opportunities in “Deadlands”.  Not only has Redland City lost ANOTHER 100 jobs at this 30 year old facility, it has lost future strategic opportunities to improve the existing public space into something more than apartments next to a bitumen ferry and barge terminal.

The priority to purchase this CSIRO land far outweighs the recent examples of Council's land purchases but unfortunately it seems this has not been treated with the same amount of enthusiasm and vigour.

Aerial Photo of CSIRO land at Toondah Harbour                                                                                                                      Map c/- Google Earth

I encourage you seek an explanation from all levels of government on why Redlands and its future potential is being ignored and forgotten again!

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.