Council procedure experience
After three years of attending Council Meetings as an observer, and many years of arguing community concerns, I have a gained a relatively good appreciation of Local Government proceedings. At the same time I have gained a significant appreciation of the planning instruments, financial budgets and statements, and a general appreciation of all other aspects of the Council Programmes. This knowledge, originally motivated by matters of community concerns, has now developed into an interest in local government that goes beyond the need to know basis of just addressing community concern.
Roads, the blight of our vehicles lives. (and ours)
The every day items of roads, rubbish, drainage and slashing are all important and reflect concern, convenience, cost, and in some instances, safety concerns when maintenance falls behind. There are many instances where allocated revenue for Council programmes far exceeds expenditure. Some are designed to so do under the Code of Competitive Conduct however others such as road maintenance and road capital works are not subject to that code and the underspend of $1.5 million in roads in last year (2006/07) is unforgivable in the circumstances of road condition and resultant complaints. My vote would therefore be that all monies allocated for roads, be spent on roads. Apart from that road funding allocation must be reviewed with the objective of road improvement.
Rubbish, has Council signed a contract without community consultation?
The unconsulted decision of wheelie bin allocation in rural area should be made discretional. A fair representation of unwanted service of say 60% should be enough to eliminate service from that respective area and allow for continuation of the bulk bin service as presently or comparatively sited. The bulk service should be upgraded to accommodate the larger bin service for larger items and provision made for recycling. The argument against wheelie bins in the rural area is compelling and involves safety and road maintenance factors that should not be foisted upon the residents. I would work for elimination of same in total areas where the majority (say 60%) are against the service.
Big finance — the all encompassing budget
Whilst I do not cast any aspersions about the finance department, the revelation of the revenue and expenditure balance in simplified but accurate information to the public is conspicuous by its absence. Most people are not interested in the intricacies of accounting procedures etc however many are interested in where and how their hard earned rate/tax dollar is spent.
This Council employs an all encompassing budget. Some will be aware of the mayor’s statement to the media that Council has adopted an $84 million budget. The revenue for last year for instance stood at less than $60 million. (operational and capitalised programs) The Mayors statement sees the proposed revenue of $84 million exceed revenue by $25 million. This type of budgeting denies key performance comparisons and responsibility definition. It is a lazy man’s budget. (if it cannot be done this year there is always next year). I would move that this method of budgeting be (allowing for adequate contingencies) more accountable to a comprehensive yearly operational and capital work plan. The yearly Operational Plan is merely a prioritised extract from the Corporate Plan and displays little more than a broad brush effect lacking both detail and budgetary planning. It is hopelessly inadequate and a waste of council time and money. I would move for its compilation in meaningful and accurate detail to afford budget costing in compliance with at least a rational plan for each years operations.
Rates are only a portion of this Councils revenue, with government grants, sewerage, water and cleansing charges, developer contribution and the all unpopular levies more than tripling the general rate revenue. It is therefore a fact that the old reliance on ratepayers is now supplemented to a significant degree by the taxpayer. So taxpaying ratepayers are suffering a double dip and taxpaying renters thus contribute to revenue. All residents therefore deserve a balanced account in the program revenue and expenditure in a simplified pie chart format or similar configuration. Councillors can request this information for themselves and those whom they represent, by asking that such information in whatever format, be made available. I would move that such information be made available for public scrutiny.
Capital revenue and expenditure in particular requires a separate balance. To merely state that there are $20 odd million dollars of capital works in progress, does nothing to quantify revenue and expenditure of the major projects. Results to Council (program profit) disappear into retained surplus reserve and there enter into other reserves, where the final appropriations are not reported to councillors on a monthly basis, with the exception of a recent statement by the finance chair in response to queries. Additionally Cr Owen has been continually requesting pertinent information (not just the reporting of a new figure in the consolidated operating fund each month) only to be voted and howled down as attacking the finance staff. This figure appears without origins or destinations of the incoming or outgoing amounts on the Consolidated Operating Fund (now standing at $50 + million) This and the project capital balance is a factor of the finance statements that I consider is far from adequate in providing simplified, meaningful and balanced information to councillors and residents. I would move that it be remedied, as Councillors, in moving that such accounts be adopted, do so as representatives of the financial stakeholders, the residents.
Planning - responsibility, equity and fairness.
Planning instruments allow for an orderly and preferred allocation of development, community amenity and infrastructure. Due to a variety of circumstances they should offer some flexibility but only where such variation is to the benefit of the majority of the community. It should be used inflexibly where such variation sought is detrimental to the community. A conclusion that should be at the prerogative of the community.
Recent problems associated with height overruns in buildings, of already sensitive community concerns, have highlighted worrying aspects of the approvals allowed against compliance and respect and consideration of adjoining residents. One of the problems appears to emanate from private compliance certification. The developer may determine whether he wishes to have Council supervise the compliance or engage a private certifier.
In one particular case the private certifier has obviously, confronted with the height overrun, referred the builder back to Council for another material change of use to allow for the overrun. On one such project the building is currently on its third application for material change of use and the local community, has adopted off site methodology to accurately determine that the building is, once again, in non compliance. Because the compliance has been allocated to private certification the council staff contend that it would be improper for them to enter upon the premises to actually measure the height of the building. Talk about a dog chasing his tail! Private certifiers who consistently offend should be recommended for deregistration with Council. Importantly, the plan and codes regulating building compliance and subdivisions belong to the council and the community. If this compliance or code has been violated then Council surely has the power and the responsibility to protect the community interests, regardless of the status of the certifying authority.
Local government has a duty to the community to ensure that the pressures and lobbying from developers plays no part in inappropriate approvals. Scrutiny and accountability are only as effective as the agenda of the council majority moving such approval. Again local government enjoys probably more discretionary power than their state and federal counterparts and in general are subject to less scrutiny. Although discretionary power is desirable in some instances of compassion and exceptional circumstances, I would move to remove discretionary powers from Councillors when dealing with development applications, unless the discretion proposed first meets community approval.
