DE-AMALGAMATION OF THE FRASER COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL INTO THE HERVEY BAY COUNCIL & THE MARYBOROUGH COUNCIL

MAKING THE BEST DECISIONS

Usually Councillors have the closest connection with and knowledge of their own areas. Under the amalgamated FCRC, there will always be four Councillors from Maryborough making decisions about Hervey Bay and 6 Councillors from Hervey Bay making decisions about Maryborough, because that is how the boundaries of the divisions have been set up under amalgamation. (see attached map). So many of their evaluations, judgements and voting decisions are likely to be of poorer quality. The Mayor may come from Hervey Bay or Maryborough and depending on which area it is, the Mayor is more likely to make poorer decisions about the other area.

If the FCRC was de-amalgamated the boundary line on the present map between Hervey Bay and Maryborough would stay exactly the same. So only Councillors from their own areas will be making evaluations, judgements and voting decisions about their own areas.

There would be a separate vote for a Mayor for each Council. So there would be a Mayor and 6 Councillors for the Hervey Bay Council and a Mayor and 4 Councillors for the Maryborough Council.

OTHER DE-AMALGAMATED COUNCILS

1. Noosa Shire residents had no rate rises in the 2014 budget, despite warnings from Local Government Minister Mr Crisafulli and Sunshine Coast mayor Mark Jamieson that the de-amalgamation would cost more than $13 million and add about $260 to rates notices. Noosa CEO Brett de Chastel said it was simply a matter of cutting costs. It did have to pay for the cost of de-amalgamation in the budget, with $2.57 million plus some other costs approved by the transfer committee. David Crisafulli has admitted Queensland Treasury Corporation's estimate that de-amalgamation of the Coast's councils would cost $13 million and drive up rates had been proven wrong.

2.It is noted that four Councils Noosa, Douglas, Livingstone and Mareeba have all been given approval for de-amalgamation, and began operating at the start of 2014. The costs of de-amalgamation must have been managed by these councils.

3.It is realized that the Minister for Local Government said early in 2013 that the "window of opportunity for de-amalgamation had closed", but that didn’t allow for new and developing issues that are of major concern to the public of the Fraser Coast Regional Council area. These are detailed below.

RATES

1. Despite the Mayor giving assurances before the Local Government elections in early 2012, that he would "freeze rates", they have continued to soar in 2012, 2013 and 2014 with both businesses and residents being hit.

The projected collection of rates and expenditures on twelve service areas for 2014/2015 has been supplied by the CEO of the FCRC. The CEO wrote "Unfortunately Council does not keep operational expenditure at any other lower level than this." So ratepayers don't know how expenditure in the divisions compares with rates collected there.

I requested the break ups for expenditure on services for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. The CEO replied "The information is for 2014/15. Unfortunately I will be unable to provide the same break up for prior years. This was completed specifically for 2014/15 and took considerable resources to complete."

I further requested the expenditure for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 in each of the portfolios for which the Councilors are responsible. The CEO responded that "Thank you for the email, unfortunately as advised below the break up has been completed for 2014/15 year only and we will continue to produce the data in this format moving forward." Nothing was provided for the expenditures in the various portfolios for the 2014/2015 year or prior to that. One would think that Councillors should have a knowledge of their expenditure each financial year- apparently not.

"We have portfolio reports, but individual Councillors do not have the ability to direct the funding in the way you are referring to. During the last financial year each Councillor had $100,000 in discretionary funds to be spent on infrastructure as per the policy, I believe this will be reported on in the annual report." stated Councillor George Seymour.

While the distribution of expenditure for the Southern (Maryborough) and the Northern (Hervey Bay) in the document supplied by the CEO appears to be balanced against the rates collected from those two areas for the projected 2014/2015 year, the CEO can give us no idea what has happened in 2012/2013 and 2013/2014.

The CEO of FCRC responded to my request for information regarding rate rises for 2012, 2013 and 2014 in the various categories as well as the average rate rise per year, "In relation to rate rises this again will take resources to research and will not be completed before Sunday. I would recommend researching precious media or our web site which may have data available."

A simple calculation from the FCRC's rates and charges schedules shows all residential rates above the minimum general rate have risen from 0.6684 cents in $ to 0.8314 from 2011/2012 to 2014/2015, that is 24.4% during the first two years of this FCRC's term or over three rate periods, an average of 8.1% per year. Commercial/industrial and city centre risen from 1.2350 to 1.7855, that is 44.5 % in the same period or an average of 14.8% per year.

The CEO wrote ""I am happy to meet with you to explain how rating structures operate to ensure you are fully informed. To use the c in $ comparison is again erroneous without general regard to the minimum rate."

At the top of the rate notices it says “To calculate your General Rate charge, your land has been categorized by Council within one of the following differential categories. The land valuation (as issued by the Department of Environment & Resource Management) is then used and multiplied by the category's differential cents in the dollar as tabled below. Where the calculated amount is less than the minimum rate, the minimum rate is applied.”

That is, the only reference to the minimum rate is in those cases where the calculated rate is less than the minimum rate. This kicks in when the land valuation is less than $145,538. If the land valuation is less than this, the ratepayer still pays the minimum general rate of $1210. For all other ratepayers whose land valuations are greater than $145,538, the minimum rate has no significance whatsoever, as it is a straight calculation of 0.8314 cents for 2014/2015 multiplied by the land valuation, divided by 100 to convert it to dollars.

A chart which compares 15 major Councils from Cairns to the Gold Coast,produced by the Bundaberg Council is available on the Internet. It shows that the Fraser Coast Council is the highest for the general minimum rate with $1219, being $279 above the average. It is also the highest for the total rate with $2,922, being $593 above the average.

This hits the most vulnerable the greatest and every rate payer severely. The Wide Bay is one of, if not the lowest socioeconomic areas in Australia, with average fortnightly income being well below the national average.

Have pensioners or disabled people received 8 to 9% yearly increases in their allowances over the past three years? Have working people received 8 to 9% yearly increases in their wages over the past three years? What is the FCRC on about? - plundering the public to achieve what? Maybe it is to be able to say "Look what great things we are doing with infrastructure or some other service!"

"Council’s operating position reflects its ability to meet its day to day running costs from operating revenue. This includes the ability to fully fund the depreciation of assets. Council’s operating position is a surplus of $4.2 million. This difference in actual result and the budgeted performance was predominantly due to additional operating grant income received that has been put aside for specific purposes. Council’s consolidated operating position as at 30 June 2013 is a surplus of $605,107." stated Councillor George Seymour.

The FCRC has failed to consider the financial strains on families and people generally in its quest for greater rate collection and greater expenditure.

INFRASTRUCTURE & THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY?

1.Much road works and other infrastructure has been completed or is being completed, particularly in Hervey Bay.

2. Despite this, certain works are still urgently needed in some areas. Some residents who have requested works have been told by the FCRC they will be done “when the funds become available”. In several outlying areas of Maryborough, the Presidents of the local Progress Associations say there have been little or no road works or anything else since amalgamation of the FCRC in 2008.

3. Another example is the footpath along Walker Street towards the Maryborough Hospital, where many elderly people walk. I have personally walked this footpath, and it can only be described as dangerous. There are many severe uneven patches with concrete protrusions, which are potential trips. My 88 year old mother-in-law had a fall on this path where she walks her dog twice a day. It could easily have meant long term hospitalization or worse.

4. The system for flood proofing Maryborough CBD, which has been approved by the FCRC is nothing more than a repeat of a barrier in the same location which failed in 2013. That will not work. Also the storm drain at the bottom of March Street contrary to Council's statement, does not have simple back flow flapper valves to prevent flooding back up the storm drainage system.

5. The Hesco Barrier System prevented the Mississippi River from flooding towns. So it can most definitely prevent the Mary River from flooding the Maryborough CBD. It has been used widely in the United States and the UK, as well as by the United Nations.

A critical point is that the Hesco Barrier system will not cost $6 million like the FCRC's original proposal. Maryborough resident David Barrowcliffe presented his research to the FCRC at a special meeting. A leading UK company estimated that it can be done for $0.75 million, as a temporary measure in sufficiently quick time when it is known that the flood will occur significantly in Maryborough. This is usually a few days in advance. Such floods in the past have not occurred every year or even every few years. So it could take up to 50 years or more before $6 million needs to be spent.

In fact it would not cost the ratepayers a single cent as the State government has already agreed to giving the FCRC $4.8million. The ratepayers of not only Maryborough but also Hervey Bay will pick up the bill for the $1.2 million dollars difference with the FCRC's plan.

6. Is all the expenditure on road works and other infrastructure urgent and/or necessary, particularly in Hervey Bay? Could some have been delayed? Expenditure for Maryborough and Hervey Bay should be commensurate with rates collected in those areas respectively.

While the distribution of expenditure for the Southern (Maryborough) and the Northern (Hervey Bay) in the document supplied by the CEO appears to be balanced against the rates collected for those two areas for the projected 2014/2015 year, the CEO can give us no idea what has happened in 2012/2013 and 2013/2014.

7. Is the infrastructure levy justified or even legitimate when infrastructure has always been a primary responsibility of Councils, and rates are running at an average at 8%to 9% per annum for residential and 15% per annum for commercial/industrial and city centre.

THE MULTIMILLION SPORTS CENTRE FOR NIKENBAH, HERVEY BAY

1. The 30 year plan to build a massive Sports Centre was initially proposed for cheaper water board land at Urangan. There were major objections because the land had been inundated with effluent from the sewerage treatment plant and needed to be cleaned up first, costing millions of dollars. It has now been proposed for Nikenbah. The cost will be in the order of multimillions.

2. There are already at least four cricket grounds nearby, a massive sports complex at the back of Torquay with soccer fields, hockey fields, tennis courts etc. Then there is the huge PCYC at Pialba with indoor basket-ball courts and many other great options. The Hervey Bay High School will have a large new indoor sports centre which will open in 2015, as well as a newly turfed sports field and new tennis courts. The Urangan High School has a large covered sports facility and along with the Anglican College, Xavier College, St. James Lutheran College, the TAFE as well as all the primary schools have outdoor sporting fields.

3. The estimated cost of this 30 year vision is reportedly $100,000 million plus. The estimate for Stage is $53 million dollars, requiring submissions to State and Federal Governments of $13.5 million $4.5 million from private sector cash, $4million from FCRC for the 40 hectares of land, with $31 million dollars of further funding required. How will this benefit Maryborough ratepayers, tax payers and/or residents without incurring large travelling costs and imposing long travelling times when this time could be used more productively?

4. This is a monumental planning disaster for Sports Portfolio Councillor Darren Everard. He shows the same uncaring attitude by providing Maryborough parents and their children with very limited training times at the Maryborough Swimming Pool, as well as charging high costs including child entry cost, lane cost and parent entry cost. At the same time he charges no cost to Hervey Bay children for entry into the Water Park at Pialba.

FRASER COAST OPPORTUNITIES

1. There are questions about the effectiveness of this organization, funded by the Fraser Coast Regional Council to a tune of $2 million annually. One example is the virtual loss of back packers and four wheel drive enthusiasts who are now going through Rainbow Beach not Hervey Bay because of cheaper costs.

2. It is unfortunate that the ramp beside the Boat Club is not being used to transport tourists including four wheel drives to Fraser Island, and that it may be demolished for more units.

3. Is the cost of the huge salaries for the board members justified in terms of the outcomes being accomplished?

4. Two smaller organizations, one for Hervey Bay and one for Maryborough would be more focused and more effective?

THE HERVEY BAY FORESHORE

1. Possibly millions of dollars have been wasted since mid-2012 on the removal of excellent protective trees and other vegetation on the foreshore, including park areas. The expenditure on Parks needs to be taken in conjunction with that on Coastal Management, using the 2014/2015 projected expenditure as a guide.

These costs include the removal of cottonwoods at Pialba, Scarness, Torquay and Toogoom, as well as the repair of the consequent increased erosion of the foreshore, and the clean-up of branches, leaves, grit, salt and sand from strong winds spreading to the parks, grassed areas, footpaths, Esplanade road, and into shops.

This has also caused more expense to business and residential owners on the esplanades with extra cleaning costs such as sand and grit from carpets, salt and grit from windows etc.

This removal of trees and other vegetation not only increased erosion to the above foreshores, it increased damage to the second and third lines of vegetative defence, which were scientifically established by former Hervey Bay Councils over a 25 year period from 1974, and were not interfered with.

Excessive damage to the rock wall near the Scarness jetty, and the complete destruction of the ill-constructed ramp at the start of the jetty (now removed) occurred where cottonwoods were removed, during ex-tropical cyclone Oswald on 27th January, 2013. The ramp walk near Enzo's café at Scarness was also destroyed and has now been replaced.

Severe erosion also occurred during the eight king tides of December, 2013 and January-February, 2014, and the consequent tidal surges produced by strong Summer N-E to N-W winds which impact directly on beaches at Pialba, Scarness, Torquay and Toogoom.

2. Thousands of cubic metres of sand were taken from the mouth of Tooan Tooan Creek area in January, 2014 and used to buffer the eighth king tide of the season at Torquay beach front. Although some of the sand was used to fill bulk sandbags at Torquay beach to try to protect the Hervey Bay Surf Life Saving Club, Hervey Bay Sailing Club, Aquavue café and the Torquay Caravan Park (all seafronts where trees have been removed), the FCRC admitted in the Chronicle, January, 2014 that this was only a temporary measure.

Most of this sand was washed away in one king tide, and was replaced to cover the sandbags. If these sandbags get exposed in another weather event like ex-cyclone Oswald or king tide with strong tidal surge, they will get ripped apart and the FCRC will be spending more money to stop the tidal surges.

The vast majority of the sand should have been used to fill much stronger geotextile bags as used on other beaches on the NSW, Victorian and New Zealand coastlines or use the Hesco Barrier system referred to above, for a long term solution.

3. The removal of these excellent protective vegetative lines of defence against erosion and strong winds has made those areas even more vulnerable to nature’s forces, increasing the cost of repair and maintenance for the future.

4. The sandbagger purchased by the FCRC after all these major weather events came far too late, despite prior knowledge of these king tides, and repeated warnings by Rod Dudgeon, Organizer of the Hervey Bay Foreshore Protection Petition as well as several other residents at four public input sessions at FCRC ordinary meetings in November-December, 2012.

There were also several articles in the Chronicle and the Independent along with several emails to the Mayor, CEO and Councilors around that period.

The actions of the FCRC have been far too little far too late. Also its lack of effective action will cause extra expense to ratepayers in the long term.

5. Also there were over 500 online petition signers and 2,500 hand written including locals and tourists in a four month period from early October, 2012 to early February, 2013. The on-line petition has now been reactivated and can be read and signed simply by googling “HERVEY BAY FORESHORE PROTECTION PETITION". The petition also acted as a survey of tourists, whose signatures were actually collected on the foreshore. About 75% of these tourists who love the Hervey Bay Foreshore indicated and/or said they opposed what the FCRC were doing to it.

6. The Toogoom rock wall has to be paid for by the residents whose homes are threatened. The most threatened homes on Kingfisher Parade should have had a protective barrier built and paid by the FCRC, not the residents. There was, and is, a forty metre wide esplanade between property boundaries and the Fish Habitat Areas and Marine Park. This is owned by the State and managed by the FCRC.

These authorities had a responsibility to care for this land on behalf of all Queenslanders, Toogoom residents and particularly those owners whose homes were only threatened by erosion, because the responsible authorities had neglected to care for land for which they were so entrusted by the State.

The rock wall is not consistent with the claimed SEMP, was not the preferred option in the report, does not meet State Planning Regulations and was not constructed in accordance with the engineering design and therefore, cannot be guaranteed not to fail.

The failure of the FCRC to appropriately supervise the construction of the wall has resulted in a deficient structure that current rock degradation (spalling and fracturing) suggests will not be durable, and will require high maintenance and repair costs in the future. There are numerous rocks in the wall that prominently display veining that promotes such failure.

The FCRC forced the rock wall option on residents, when geotextile sandbagging or the Hesco Barrier System would have been a much better option.

7. The ecological damage is set to escalate in the coming years. Already there has been the destruction of much of the bird and wildlife that once inhabited the foreshore vegetation.

8. The economic damage is not only to the natural foreshore, and man-made structures including business and FCRC infrastructure, but also the number one industry for Hervey Bay, tourism for those who actually enjoy being on the foreshore including backpackers.

SIX AND EIGHT STOREY BUILDINGS APPROVED FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BUSINESS AREA FROM PIALBA TO URANGAN

1. Despite much public input to the contrary, the FCRC has approved 6 and 8 story buildings along the vast majority of the Hervey Bay business area from Pialba to Urangan. It is noted that the Noosa Council has restricted its high rise to 3 stories, being mindful of the increasing damage and destruction all around the world due to climate change.

2. It is also noted that most of Hervey Bay between Taylor Street, Pialba and the Urangan Pier is below sea level at king tide, with only the sand dunes and the vegetative line of defence on the foreshore preventing a major catastrophe. This was the case in March, 2009 when category 4 tropical cyclone Hamish east of Gladstone fortunately veered out to sea. A four metre tidal surge was predicted by the Weather Bureau had Hamish headed towards Hervey Bay. Evacuation plans involving the FCRC, SES and Police, and using trains and buses were in place to transport thousands of residents in the areas mentioned to the Brisbane Show Grounds.

RELATED PETITIONS

1. A petition with the same name has already been circulating in Maryborough, after a survey there showed that more than 80% of residents were in favour of de-amalgamation.

2. A petition in Hervey Bay & Maryborough in 2012 by a former resident, and now President of the Maryborough Ratepayers Association, Michael Grounds, calling on the FCRC "to cut expenditure" collected over 4,000 hand written signatures. A second petition in 2012 by Michael Grounds calling on the FCRC "to return to the land valuation based rate system" which has several bands of rates increasing with the land value, unlike the 2014/2015 single rate for all residentials irrespective of the land value, collected over 3,600 hand written signatures.

CONCLUSION

The proposed new Hervey Bay Council and Maryborough Council would be strongly urged to take on board all the above objections to the present FCRC attitudes and laws. The improvements referred to above would also be highly recommended, so that an open, knowledge-based, focused, waste cutting, caring, positive and all-inclusive approach to local government for the citizens of both Hervey Bay and Maryborough is embraced.