The Shire of Katanning have now presented their Draft Structural Reform Submission and are advocating boundary changes within the Shire of Kent. (Since writing my blog, I've had a comment from a reader who found it interesting that no community consultation was mentioned in the Shire of Katanning's submission. Interesting indeed!)
In their submission, the Shire of Katanning laments the lack of interest from its neighbours in progressing the issue of structural reform. The Shire states, "Despite undertaking substantial discussions with our neighbours there has been little if any progress towards an agreement on structural reform".
Their overall concept of their proposal is to
'form a new "Upper Great Southern Council", centred around the established regional centre of Katanning with a boundary radius of approximately 75km'.
The arguments behind this proposal include the belief that a Local Government's service area should match it's rating area. As a 'donut' council, Katanning is considered to provide services to a population that lives outside of their 'ratable' area.
A good sounding argument you would assume. However, if I look at the services that our family personally accesses, I would say that the cities in Perth provide most of the services we use that our immediate local area doesn't provide. Of course, I use banking and shopping facilities in Katanning, but these are not provided by the Shire. I would also say, that without the support of the surrounding shires, the shops and banks in Katanning wouldn't be doing so well...
The Shire of Katanning appears to believe that banks, shops and schools are a part of the service that they provide to the community.As for the services they do provide, I believe that there is a 'user pays' system. I have been told that people who are not in the Shire of Katanning pay more than locals to use the swimming pool, for example.
So, I'm not sure that this argument holds water. Perhaps a lot of people outside the Shire use the Katanning Library (I use their toilets!) and tramp through the Art Gallery?
The Shire of Katanning have presented a number of options for the Minister for Local Government to consider in their submission.
Option 1 is the "amalgamation of 8 shires around a 75km radius of Katanning and another amalgamation in an arc around Albany".
The Shire of Katanning is currently working with the City of Albany in planning groupings of "regional centres". In a proposal to our Local Government Minister, Katanning have the view that the current structure of local government in WA 'hinders effective governance in the region'. Their preferred option for the Minister is to "remove present local government boundaries and form new larger Local Governments based around established regional service centres of Albany, Katanning, Narrogin, Northam, Merredin etc."
Option 2 is to "reduce the number of Local Governments in the Great Southern Region".
The submission provides a suggestion that the region be divided into 'zones'. Southern, Western, Northern (2 options), Eastern.
Option 3 is the "algamation of all 11 Shires in the Great Southern Region".
This option has come from the City of Albany and many councils questioned the viability of effectively delivering services to such a diverse and unwieldy collection of regions.
Option 4 is to "do nothing - Katanning stands alone and requires that all grant funding recognise Katanning as providing services to the area and provides compensation accordingly".
This option then goes on to discuss the 'inequity of grant funding', in particular, the Financial Assistance Grants which are provided to the State Government by the Federal Government for distribution. A table is provided showing $ per head of population, but not per acre of land the Shire is servicing.
Another table shows the 'inequity' of the Rudd Economic Stimulus Package Allocations, again as a $ per head figure.
The comment is made, "Although the Shire of Katanning provides many of the regional services to the smaller Local Governments, the grant allocations serve to 'prop up' the smaller shires". (How to win friends and influence people)
The Shire of Katanning have indicated that their "preferred solution" is to "encourage the Minister to completely rethink the current Local Government boundaries". A radius of 75km around the town is discussed once again. This would take in all or parts of Kojonup, Wagin, Gnowangerup, Broomehill-Tambellup, Cranbrook, Dumbleyung, Kent and Woodanilling.
This is essentially splitting the Shire of Kent. The Shire of Katanning suggest that the eastern portion could be taken up by Lake Grace.
This resultant new "Upper Great Southern Shire" would have a combined population of around 12,000 with a rate base of about $11m and a staff of 232 in an area of 17,500km2 . The proposal is to have 12 councillors to begin with and eventually reduce to 8 elected members.
The issue of smaller towns is addressed under the following headings:
"Potential loss of employment and consequent eventual loss of population".
The Shire of Katanning has assured the "townships" of Woodanilling, Broomehill, Nyabing and Dumbleyung that "service levels...could and should be maintained, at least in the short to medium term , to ensure that the residents of these towns suffer no substantial loss of services".
This is interesting. Why do our towns only receive good service levels in the short to medium term? I guess it would be easier to have a town close down, then there's less grumbling about why the ovals are looking shabby and the pool needs maintenance. Or, am I just being cynical?
The submission also reports that our towns would not be able to justify an administration presence. The Shire of Katanning would maintain 'shopfront services' in these locations if the community supports and uses them.
"Loss of local Representation and Community Identity".
Mention is made in the Shire of Katanning's submission of an elected member ratio of 1:700. That would leave the western end of the Shire of Kent (the area the submission is considering) with about one third of a councillor!
"Loss of location specific services, ie, medical services"
Although the example given does not necessarily relate to our shire, the submission indicates that if the community wishes to keep such services, then Specified Area Rating would be used to pay for the service.
The submission also includes a "Transitional Timeline" which is as follows ("in an ideal world"):
- March 2010 - decision and announcement of new structure by State Government
- June 2010 - existing CEO's depart and Interim CEO and Commissioners appointed
- October 2011 - new councillor elections
- January 2012 - new CEO appointed
- October 2013 - reduction in Councillor numbers from 12 to 10
- October 2015 - reduction in Councillor numbers from 10 to 8
In a discussion under the heading, "Regional Grouping", further comments are made about the lack of interest in neighbouring shires in forming an alliance with Katanning. The City of Albany has apparently also experienced the same issue. The two have endorsed a Memorandum Of Understanding recently.
A list of all the meetings and forums where the Shire of Katanning has been present shows there dogged persistence in pursuing their idea of structural reform.
Although I have been present at only one of the meetings where Katanning was present and reform discussions were had, the overall impression many have perceived from representatives of the Shire of Katanning is of arrogance rather than alliance. At this particular meeting, held in Dumbleyung in March 2009, the president, Mr Phil Rae, kindly told me that I needn't worry, Katanning had no interest in amalgamating with the Shire of Kent. I'm pretty sure that the town of Dumbleyung is about as far east as any representatives from the Shire of Katanning have ventured.
The remaining submission deals with proposals/submissions previously put to the Minister and WALGA on amalgamation and reform.
I find it interesting that the Local Government Advisory Board chose to ignore the Shire of Katanning when considering the amalgamation of Broomehill and Tambellup Shires. What does this tell us?
0 comments:
Post a Comment