Keep those emails
and letters to your councilors going. Your
correspondence and some of the replies you are receiving from Councilors will
help to uncover misunderstandings. Once
exposed, a genuine cause of concern can usually be addressed as long as there
is good will and understanding on all sides.
A case in point is
the central question of how the pool might be paid for in the long term. We’ve explained elsewhere that DACCI Plan A
should cost the average ratepayer roughly $1.50 per week or $78 per year to
implement - which happens to correspond to 7% of last year’s average rate. For someone paying the average ($1,119) it
doesn’t matter whether the bill is linked to a predetermined percentage or a
pre-determined dollar amount.
But if you insist
on using percentages you very quickly get into trouble. For although about 80% of ratepayers pay the
average rate or less, the other 20% pay more.
Herein lies the problem. Because
the curve describing “who pays how much” is highly skewed, farmers and others
who already pay large rates may be lumbered with a pool contribution that’s
unfair. That is very definitely not part of DACCI’s plan.
We see the aquatic
facility as a service to the community.
It would provide primary health care through community participation in
fitness programs across all ages; safe swimming for our children; therapy for
the injured and infirm; and social cohesion through sport. It is a service that should cost the remote
farming family with large acreage no more than it costs a resident of quarter-acre
block in town.
Clearly,
contributions need to be capped in some way.
The simplest tool to use would be a levy that added a fixed amount to
each rates notice just like the Emergency Services Levy [ESL]. In fact, a swimming pool shares many of the
features of the ESL. Both are special in
the sense that funds collected are dedicated to a specific purpose: they can’t
be used for anything else. Moreover,
when rates need to increase for reasons beyond Council’s control (as they
probably will this year), both a pool levy and the ESL remain quarantined. Both provide services that are equally
important to the social fabric and well-being of the community. Tell me that you don't need firefighters, the
SES and volunteer sea rescue crews and
I’ll agree that you don't need a pool.
Could a levy or specific
service charge be the solution? Well
that depends on an interpretation of the Local Government Act 1995. Section 6.38 implies that this could be done - but we need a legal opinion on that or some
imaginative footwork from the financial whizzes at the Shire.
Don’t have a bar
of any fear campaigns. Stay clear-headed
and critical and come down to Council Meetings to show your representatives
that you want them to get on with the job with a solutions-focused agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment