A LETTER TO THE PREMIER

TWAS a long way from Elections, when through Parliament House, not a Liberal stirred, not even a mouse.

WE Write, WE Question, THEY Shred.

                                                           

The Hon Colin Barnett MLA                                                                                    Date July 21, 2015
Premier of Western Australia
1 Parliament Place
WEST PERTH, 6005

CC The Hon Tony Simpson
Minister for Local Government & Communities

CC Graeme Simpson
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Shire of York

Your Ref:   Barnett casts blame for rates/ The West Australian , Friday July 17, 2015, page 13.

Dear Premier,

I commend your comments in the above mentioned article and fully concur with your assessment
of blaming the huge rate increase impost on some city ratepayers- through their reluctance to allow the amalgamation of smaller, financially non-viable councils.

I quote the article in saying that it appears at least 7 of the 29 metropolitan councils intend to lift rates by twice the projected consumer price index rise this Financial Year, being at least 2.5 per cent above this rate. As you rightly say “above inflation increases are not acceptable”.

Therefore I would like to draw your attention to one of the 121 other councils in Rural, Regional and Remote WA that may have escaped your notice.

It is the Shire of York which has raised its rates for the, 2015-16 Financial Year, by a staggering, unconscionable 13.5 per cent, and 11 per cent above the projected rate of inflation from the WA Treasury. (A reasonable assumption of why this has occurred is that the Shire of York is on the cusp of self-inflicted insolvency. An assessment strongly denied by those expected to do so)
It includes a domestic land and property rating of around $1,800 on houses with less than half the market value of the median sale price of similar dwellings in Perth and where 1,000 square metre blocks, within the town boundary, are valued at less than $80,000.

Unlike in the Metropolitan Area, this monstrous rate increase cannot be blamed on the Shire of York refusing to amalgamate and/or co-operate with similar councils of Local Government Areas in close proximity.

York was an integral partner in the South East Avon Regional Transition Group (SEARTG), a precursor to a suggested unenforced amalgamation, which was involuntarily closed by your Minister for Local Government and Communities (DLGC), Tony Simpson.

The problem has, allegedly, been caused by the fiduciary compliance incompetence of two past Shire Presidents, two Chief Executive Officers, one Acting Chief Executive Officer, one Deputy Chief Executive Officer and several senior staff members of the Shire of York.

Add to this, the penultimate failure of the appointed Commissioner to provide even a modicum of appropriate, fiscal accountability and adequate future-direction ideatation, strategic facilitation and visioning guidance during his six-month tenure.

However, the ultimate failure of the Shire of York to be assured of future financial viability rests with Minister Simpson and the DLGC who have failed to provide and enforce proper probity guidelines within the Shire of York Council, and its administration, since 2008.

The DLGC Shire of York, Probity Compliance Audit Report, 2014, suggested that other than problems associated with the performance of Elected Members of Council, the Staff of the Shire of York had issues which required to be rectified.

These included the inability to take proper minutes of official council meetings, not knowing what financial year it was and not filling in financial returns correctly. (It was suggested by the DLGC that this problem could be rectified by filling in and signing these records post the date of submission. I am not quite sure if this could be considered falsification of documents?)

Worst of all is that these senior staff did not keep any proper records (thereby being in breach of the State Records Act 2000). One particular record they failed to keep in their custody and care was the Business Records of the Shire of York Council.

It should come as no surprise to anybody that the Shire of York may well soon be forced to pay a fairly large sum in compensatory damages to certain ratepayers. (It can probably ill-afford another self-inflicted financial faux-pas.)

This is because of allegedly negligent, reckless and malicious actions taken by persons within the Shire of York Council administration, over a period of time, who showed total disregard to their own Local Government Lawyers’ legal advice and proceeded to threaten and harass certain ratepayers without due cause.

Now it would appear that the current Shire of York Council administration staff, not its’ returning elected members, have chosen to re-employ one of these persons on a contractual basis.

Given that the current employer should legally, “be a person who should reasonably have known”, having prior knowledge of the potential litigation- and the alleged offences, this may well increase the adjudged legal culpability of the Shire of York, as an entity, in this matter.

It also raises the question does the current employer empathise with, support and or/agree with the illegal harassment of members of the York Community. If it does, it may have a serious problem.

Yours sincerely-   

David Taylor.

For those who suggest that I should use a nom de plume (I like Johnny.B.Good personally) please do not worry, there is nothing to fear in York than fear itself

*************

Excerpt from the Department of Local Government and Communities Governance Bulletin for August 2015.

Legislation update

The importance of understanding rates

Governance Bulletin – August 2015

With the preparation of budgets well underway for the 2015-16 financial year, now is an opportune time for elected members to remember their role in the process of determining proposed rates; particularly proposed differential general rates.

The Local Government Act 1995 requires that a local government prepares and adopts a budget before 31 August each year. In preparing a budget, it is important that consideration be given to the planned expenditure for the year and revenue and income received (independent of the rates). Once the estimated budget deficiency is identified, the proposed rates in the dollar can be determined. However, this can only occur if the budget is developed to the stage where a reasonable estimate of the budget deficiency is ascertained. It is not sufficient to just increase rates by a fixed amount (for instance, 5 per cent) without due consideration of the deficiency.

Proposed differential general rates should be adopted by council (and not decided by the CEO) before local public notice of these is given in accordance with the Act. Local public notice cannot occur until after 1 May each year. The local public notice must advise of the objects and reasons for each rate and minimum payment or advise of where they can be viewed. Separate objects and reasons are required for each differential general rate and minimum payment. These must be clear and provide reasons for the difference in the rates proposed. That is, they must provide the justification for a rate being imposed that is different from that imposed on other categories of ratepayers.

Elected members must ensure that they are making informed decisions when it comes to making a determination on the proposed rates. This includes having a full understanding of the budget deficiency, objects and reasons for the rates, and why rates have varied from the previous year.

Elected members must also give due consideration to every submission received and the council minutes should clearly demonstrate that this has been done. Following the end of the submission period, Ministerial approval will need to be obtained if any differential general rate is more than twice the lowest proposed or there are minimum payments on more than 50 per cent of vacant properties. The budget cannot be adopted until approval is received, and once a rate has been approved by the Minister, it cannot be altered.

While a rate that does not require approval may be altered following the submission period, in accordance with the Act a note must be made in the budget as to why it was changed. This also applies to rates subject to Ministerial approval that are different from those advertised.

DLGC has prepared policies, application forms and a training webinar to assist local governments in submitting the necessary applications for differential rates or minimum payments that require Ministerial approval.