9.3. Notice of Motion – Cr S Ring – Bathurst Bullet
I successfully moved the following:
THAT the Council write to the Honourable Jo Haylen Minister for Transport that Lithgow Council does not support the proposed extension of the Bathurst Bullet to Orange and that development of Lithgow as the terminus for both the electrified city line and for an enhanced central west service be advocated.
The use of the Bathurst bullet as an intercity train between Orange and Lithgow makes sense particularly if Lithgow rather than Mt Victoria becomes the terminus for all Sydney Electric Trains. It would result in benefits for the entire Central West. Just adding Orange to the existing service would impact on Lithgow residents. I will continue to seek better rail services for our community.
FOR: Councillor M Statham, Councillor C Coleman, Councillor S McGhie, Councillor E Mahony
and Councillor S Ring
AGAINST: Councillor A Bryce, Councillor D Goodwin, Councillor S Lesslie and Councillor C O’Connor
10.1.1. – Request for Fee Reduction – Use of Tony Luchetti Sportsground – Lithgow Workies Wolves
This was a very long debate – all because I wanted to add the following words to the final point: and the Finance Committee. It was eventually resolved, and the wording was added to ensure consistency with a prior resolution referenced in the Administrations report.
At the meeting I stated that this reflect the failure of the administration to assess the capacity of our community to pay. Community groups should not have to come back annually seeking reductions form Council. We should know what both the cost are and the capacity to pay.
Supported Unanimously
10.2.3. Draft Lithgow Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan (Section 7.12) 2024
I didn’t support this the first time it came to Council due to the lack of support for first home buyers.
I still have concerns about the impact of this policy on first home buyers and I will continue to pursue opportunities for Council to provide relief to low-income earners and first home buyers moving forward.
I am also concerned about the Lithgow Centric nature of the works proposed but as the plan is only for 12 months, I supported it. The next Council can review this document and make any necessary modifications that are needed.
10.4.2. Delivery Program 2022-2026 and Operational Plan 2024-2025
The Sounds of Silence could have been the theme song for council when this item was read out. Cr Bryce moved it but didn’t really talk to it. I seconded the motion to ensure it weas place on public exhibition and I had a lot of comments to make. My commentary on the evening was as follows:
Tonight, we are being asked to approve the Draft operation Plan and Fees and Charges for the public to have their say.
Following the two information sessions I have reviewed all documents and submitted a series of questions some of which I am still waiting for a response.
I will provide the Administration additional time in responding to my concerns before determining if I will support the documentation before us at the June meeting or whether or not I will move amendments.
I will however make some preliminary commentary:
Fees and Charges
I am not concerned with what other Councils charge; I am concerned about what it actually cost Council to provide services and if the fees and charges are fair and equitable and that capacity to pay has been properly assessed.
The questions that I sent to the Administration were not all about increase but also decreased fees.
At the Information Sessions I was not satisfied with the responses concerning how “capacity to pay” is determined and the apparent lack of costings that could be tabled for review. If we do not know what the cost for providing service/goods such as water are to our consumers, but we still annually increase prices.
Increasing or decreasing fees and charges need to reflect the cost of providing the services and a better understanding of how we assess capacity to pay.
Proposed Changes to Rating Structures
It is still my contention that a Fair and equitable distribution of the rate burden was not achieved with implementation of the SRV. Nor was due consideration given where the application of the SRV led to extreme outcomes in the amount of rates paid.
When I raised the issue of a rate review in February there were several Councillors who supported various aspects of that NOM. What concerns me is that we push LEEP but our business rates are such that they are a disincentive to do business.
All Councillors are aware of the long-standing dispute between Council and Mr. Greg Johnston. We were given assurances that this would be dealt with by the GM in December last year. Mr Johnson has made numerous representations and offers to resolve this matter but still after 9 months we are receiving emails in relation to this matter.
The rates for Mr. Johnson Caravan Park increased from $8,000 to $16,000 and yes we can blame land values. But no report has been provided to Councillors showing that this business has the capacity to pay or the adverse impacts this will have on our tourism industry and the provision of low socio-economic housing at the park. At an increased cost of $154 per week it is a very expensive cup of coffee. This matter needs resolution
The Administration have accepted that Marrangaroo isn’t part of Lithgow and will lower their ad valoreum but that will result in increased rates for Lithgow residents.
That’s interesting given the approach to the Special Parking Rate Levy
This levy ceased being used for its approved purpose a long time ago but the manner with which Council has used these funds was for general revenue. When a special rate levy has served it purpose it is legally required to cease operation.
I’m glad we are getting rid of it but the Administration want to retain the revenue by passing it on to all rate payers why not just pass it on to the residents of Lithgow – it’s the Lithgow City that benefitted from this levy.
Better still why not spread the love for both the Special Parking levy and the reduction in Marrangaroo rates across all rate payers. I fail to see why this isn’t occurring.
11.5. LATE REPORT – Operations Committee Meeting Minutes 16 April 2024
Discussion on this item became heated in the meeting held on 16 April specifically in relation to the reflux valves where debate was stifled by the Chair. The video clip below from the Council Meeting highlights the lingering frustration from this meeting. The issue of reflux valves ahs not gone away.
Cr Ring, Lesslie and Mahoney left the meeting of the 16 April during the discussion about the previous Mayoral minute of replicating the prison signs for the entrance to our towns. The Mayor was not happy with dissenting views and the Chair would not uphold any points of order. As such the item was not resolved
12. Business of Great Urgency
You need not worry that the Operations Committee did not resolve the issue of signage because it was moved as an item of great urgency by the Deputy Mayor Cr Goodwin. I did not support this because the Administration have not allowed for the design work in the current draft budget, and something will have to be cut.
At the Operations Committee the Administration had obtained quotes for printed aluminium sleeves at a fraction of the cost (similar to what the sighs originally looked like) allowing more time to discuss and investigate the best options for new signage.