News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 The great shire levy debate 

The great shire levy debate

01 Mar, 2010 06:09 PM
The state government's decision to cap all NSW councils rates at 2.6 per cent could add more fuel to a fire already raging around Sutherland Shire Council's proposal to add an extra 6 per cent special levy to rates.

Public submissions on the infrastructure levy closed last week, with an estimated 2500 submissions coming in.

The number of public submissions in support or against the extra rate increase was yet to be made public after council scrutiny.

But it's not too late to have your say here. Just click on the comment link below the story to share your opinion with other readers.

Effectively, now that the state government has set the 2.6 per cent cap on rates, the shire's ratepayers would pay 8.6 per cent extra should the extra levy be approved.

The plan has proven controversial, bringing a flood of letters and online comment from readers.

The Leader brought you the case for and against with Mayor Lorraine Kelly and Cr Kent Johns in a debate recorded at Sutherland Shire Council and moderated by former Caringbah High student Jackson Wright-Smith, 18, of Blakehurst.

Click here to vote on who you think won the levy debate.

LEVY CASE EXTENDED

Cr Lorraine Kelly said last week her head was on the political chopping block over plans to increase rates through a 6 per cent special levy.

Cr Kelly made the comment during heated debate at Monday night's council meeting.

After much discussion, some name-calling followed by apologies for the name-calling, a decision was made to give ratepayers an extra fortnight to comment on the proposed infrastructure levy.

The feedback period has now been extended until February 12.

Cr Kelly said 2000 people had already commented on the levy, which would effectively allow the council to raise rates above the amount approved by the State Government which is currently set at 3.5 percent.

Should the levy be approved, it would be applied from 2011 to 2016 and would form the basis of a plan to replace and upgrade the shire's ageing infrastructure.

The levy would net $30 million over five years, with some of the money going towards upgrading public toilets, Sutherland Entertainment Centre, playing fields and playgrounds.

The plan also involves the council borrowing $2.25 million in 2010/11 and $2.9 million in 2011/12.

The council faces a $21.3 million funding shortfall during the next five years.

Cr Kelly said services and facilities would be cut if the levy was not approved. She said $21.3 million of the expected $30.05 million raised from the levy was needed to cover funding shortfalls, with the remaining $9.2 million to be injected into major infrastructure upgrades and improvements.

The levy has been a hot topic since the matter was first raised last year. Some councillors and ratepayers objected to a brochure on the subject being sent out just before Christmas.

In a Leader story Sutherland Shire Levy: hit or myth?Cr Kent Johns posted a comment saying that ''I concur with Mr Kerr and as a Councillor on Sutherland Shire Council will not be supporting this rate rise of up to 9.5%.''

See related stories:

Sutherland Shire levy

Click on the comment link below to have your say on the proposed levy.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
kent johns where are you ??? i note you have had time to write a letter to the Leader about your hurt feelings and that you are going to put out a pamphlet, but how about answering my questions, first posted OVER A WEEK AGO !!! This should have given you time to think about them, and they really aren't that hard. here they are again Councillor Johns says "I would initially start with Land and Environment Court Costs and maintaining unviable and unfinancial operations and assets surplus to residents and councils needs." Dear Councillor Johns - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC 1. which present operations (PLEASE NAME THEM) are unviable and unfinancial 2. Which assets (BY NAME) are surplus 3. How many council employees will lose their jobs as a result. this email copied to mr johns, mayor & general manager. ian nicholson
Posted by ian nicholson, 7/02/2010 6:41:35 PM
Mr Nichlosin, as I had responded to you directly by email I didnt realie you were posting on other sites. The quick answer is that this 9.5% Tax Grab supported by the Labor Party and Mayor is to raise money for capital expenditure. No services are at risk and no Council staff jobs are at risk. Council resolved as early at last week in a committee chaired by the Labor Chairman to reclassify community land in Miranda so that it could be sold, so surplus land is often sold by this council if not needed. Land for parks and the like are also often bought. I hope this answers your questions.
Posted by Kent Johns, 10/02/2010 1:01:14 PM
It is disappointing to witness the unnecessary politicising of the debate over a proposal to apply a 6% levy.Councillors were briefed last year and discussed the viability of various options open to Council in respect of revenue. The Mayor's genuine effort to keep party politics out of local government is being undermined. Should I sense some other agenda? I do not know. What I am certain of is that the proposed levy is in the interests of all Shire residents, and they will benefit. That's what local government is about. However, it cannot deliver according to people's reasonable expectations without money. There are many needs and scarce resources. I am also disappointed that Clr Johns has chosen to somewhat distort the situation re land sale. The truth is to be preferred.
Posted by Clr Margaret Hargrave, 10/02/2010 11:42:50 PM
Michael Tynan made some solid and thought provoking comments in his Leader article regarding not increasing our rates. With increased energy and water bills to all residents this month I for one would recommend the council ask their own employees for their suggestions on how to cut back costs by 6 per cent. There is lots of expenditure areas in the shire where savings could be made with the $200 million budget. Elected councillors and council employees could easily make intelligent decisions to save funds. The St George Leader research has clearly given the council their vote for NOT increasing rates. Please listen to your rate payers or next time there is local election we will have all new council people who do listen to the electorate.
Posted by Ian Stevens, 11/02/2010 11:19:58 AM
I find Clr Margaret Hargrave's comments here interesting, considering she is adding to the politicising of this issue! As a ratepayer in Gymea I find it appalling that the Mayor can't manage the council and feels the need to tax me to pay for her mistakes. It's called a budget, I have one for my household, and when I overspend I can't just get more money from my employer, I simply have to work with what I have. This is not a "levy" this is simply an increase in RATES! I was very happy to meet my Councillor Kent Johns at Gymea Village on the weekend, and I was glad to see a Councillor out in public (not during a campaign) willing to speak with me. ShireWatch is just a Labor front and they are not acting in the best interests of those who voted for them. My message to this Council and this Mayor: "SPEND WITHIN YOUR MEANS!!!"
Posted by Louise from Gymea, 11/02/2010 11:35:28 AM
So - we have an incompetent council that wants to slug us with more rates - and a Mayor who can't debate. Kent Johns is totally right. We spend over $2,500 a year on rates for our place and now they want more? For us it's going to be close to $200 extra. Maybe I should tell my wife not to buy the shoes the kids need because Lorraine Kelly wants the money? Seriously, this Council is the size of a large business but is run by amateurs. Kent Johns obviously has some business experience and hopefully the Council will use some of it. There must be ways they can cut costs - it is a massive place with lots of inefficiencies. Well done to The Leader for organising the debate, and keep standing up for us Mr Johns.
Posted by bob_from_gymea, 11/02/2010 12:18:54 PM
So much for straight talk Cr Johns. Where is the money coming from?
Posted by Samantha Green, 11/02/2010 1:01:50 PM
Re Cr Hargraves comments, it would seem appropriate that a political decision (like increasing everyone's local government taxes!!?!) might receive some political attention. Leaving aside the issue of the rate increases for one moment, it is a little insulting to play the 'politicisation' card when you, the Mayor Lorraine Kelly and indeed Cr Kent Johns are all (semi) professional politicians. Now - back to the rates matter. Sutherland Shire Council - like many public authorities - is an inefficient, old fashioned body that has over many years squandered tens of millions in taxpayers money. There are many efficiencies that could be pursued while maintaining (or indeed improving) public service delivery. But reform is not on the radar of Mayor Kelly because she relies on the NSW Labor Party to continue as Mayor and is just another puppet. Poor Sutherland shire ratepayers - 9.5 per cent is going to cut into the budget. Yet another reason why local government in this State needs to be overhauled.
Posted by John, 11/02/2010 1:18:07 PM
I had a laugh watching Johns duck and weave without getting down to taws. This guy's a joke. And why doesn't he own up to being a disendorsed Liberal. I Googled him. What's he do for a living? Car salesman?
Posted by Thoughtful Bloke, 11/02/2010 1:41:21 PM
I have been sitting on the fence in regards to this levy for a while. But after watching the debate and seeing that all that Clr Johns can offer is a load of rhetoric and a lack of susbtance and solutions I for one will be supporting the Mayor.
Posted by Andrew Wood, 11/02/2010 1:54:51 PM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
18 February, 2010
23 February, 2010
POLL
Q: Should Sutherland Shire Council go ahead with its proposed rates levy?




Most popular articles

 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...