RATEPAYERS LETTERS

 

22 March 2022 Mr Michael Ferguson Minister for Local Government Parliament House Hobart 7000 .................... Dear Mr Ferguson,..... RE: Local Government Act 1993 – charging residents for waste management when no waste [landfill] is created. .................... I completed my new house build about a year ago. Since that time I have been communicating with the Launceston City Council in an attempt to get a ‘fair & just’ outcome over my ‘no landfill waste’ situation. .................... After getting a negative response from the LCC and after reading the LGA 1993, I have concluded that the Council seems to have the power to charge me a fee for service not wanted [added to annual rates] for waste management. [Clause 93 Service Rate [5] [b] ...the supplying, or making available, of waste management service to land]. .................... My situation: I have created a lifestyle that limits waste. Something we all should be addressing given the massive issue of landfill disposal. Each week I only have about a yoghurt tub of waste that is neither compostable nor recyclable [I do both]. Now, based on that quantity of landfill waste I generate, it would take me about 5.5 years to fill the standard 140 ltr bin [costing me about $910 for that bin]. Presently I do a small burn every month to deal with that miniscule amount of landfill waste [mainly plastic wrapping]. .................... The Council has argued that it ‘costs them’ for the service provided by the contractor [labour, trucks, fuel, distance]. This statement is, put it bluntly, bullshit. I owned the vacant land for several years while building and during that time NO waste management fee appeared on my rates notice [if it had I would have complained]. I challenged the Council to tell me ‘what has changed?’ The contractor’s truck drove past my vacant land for all those years, and continues to drive past my place, to collect adjacent neighbours waste. .................... IT DOES NOT COST THE CONTRACTOR ANY MORE NOW THAN THEN. ....................So the Clause 95 General Provisions [7] ... may recover ........ any costs incurred by it for any service .... really does not apply [in my situation]. ....................The Council seems not to be taking my issue seriously and being fair by adopting Clause 107 Variation in Rates [1] [e] any other prescribed factor. Here is a statement I made in reply to one of Council’s letters: I received a second correspondence [which included a copy of 33‐Pix‐005 11 July 2019] The policy does state, “Single residential rateable properties cannot opt out of the kerbside recycling or garbage service” .................... I am of the understanding that the ‘cannot op out’ segment of the policy was workshopped by Councillors in 2018 and adopted in 2019. .................... So, I would like someone to explain to me the fairness of ratifying such a policy statement and please don’t quote the statement, “Allowing property owners to opt out of the service undermines equitable access to the service”. Equitable means fairness, just & right; reasonable. It does not mean ‘equal’. What is equitable about forcing property owners who have a good reason for not wanting the service, to pay for such service? I did not receive a response to that question. .................... I have recently received correspondence from the CEO of LCC in which he just states the present ‘policy’ and my issue seems to have fallen on deaf ears in respect to my request for remission of the fee. [letter attached]. I was of the understanding that such remission request had to go to a Council vote [under the Act]. Minister, I write to you to explain the ramifications of some of the ‘wording’ of the LGA 1993 and ask how is it ‘fair & just’ that the Act allows Councils to charge a resident a fee for service not wanted/needed. Why is it that those of us who really want to be part of the solution, to the excess waste issue, are penalised. How is that fair and just? I believe the wording of the Act needs adjusting to allow for ‘fair & just’ outcomes and I implore you to take action to address this issue. .................... Now when you decide to reply to this letter, please do not be patronising and just state the status quo, as is regularly done by politicians. I request you either put forward an idea/solution or not reply at all. .................... Yours in ???? .................... East Tamar Hwy Dilston 7252 CC:.................... Ms Anita Dow [Shadow Minister] Ms Cassy O’Conner [The Greens] Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc .................... .................... …………………………… 12 October 2021 Launceston City Council Dear Mayor Van Zetten, RE: Waste Management fee for ‘service’ not required. .................... I recently finished building my home in Dilston. I received an adjusted Rates notice about 10 months after my house was signed off as complete. That notice included a Waste Management fee of $156.40 for a service not required nor requested during that time. I had to promptly pay the full amount of the adjusted notice [because of late receipt] but forwarded a letter questioning the fee. .................... I have had a couple of correspondences with the Council Dept. The first correspondence noted that I should look at the Residential Waste Charges Policy [33‐Pix‐005]. I went online at the time but could not find the policy so I tracked down the Local Government Act 1993. After wading through the clauses, I concluded that Councils ‘may’ charge a Service Rate and that, that rate can include a minimum amount payable. I received a second correspondence [which included a copy of 33‐Pix‐005 11 July 2019] The policy does state, “Single residential rateable properties cannot opt out of the kerbside recycling or garbage service” .................... I am of the understanding that the ‘cannot op out’ segment of the policy was workshopped by Councillors in 2018 and adopted in 2019. So, I would like someone to explain to me the fairness of ratifying such a policy statement and please don’t quote the statement, “Allowing property owners to opt out of the service undermines equitable access to the service”. Equitable means fairness, just & right; reasonable. It does not mean ‘equal’. What is equitable about forcing property owners who have a good reason for not wanting the service, to pay for such service? ................... To clarify my situation: I have designed my lifestyle to greatly minimise waste. I only create about a 500ml yogurt tub size of waste per week that is neither compostable, not recyclable. I deliver the recyclable material to the recycle transfer station about every 3‐4 months and burn off the small amount of unusable waste every month. Everything else goes to my compost. ...................  So based upon the waste management fee charged for a 140ltr bin, it would take me close to 5.5 years to fill that bin and it would cost me $910. .................... Here is how I see the UNFAIRNESS 

1. You can see why I angrily object to the cost inflicted upon a citizen doing the right thing. We continually hear of landfill issues and yet those who choose to be ‘a part of the solution’ are financially penalised. 

 2. From my reading, the Local Government Act does not give power to Councils to charge ‘mandatory fees’ for services not requested/needed. .

3. Nothing has changed, in respect to waste; between when my land was ‘vacant’ to now ‘a built residence’ other than someone [me] is living on the land. The waste collection trucks drove past the ‘vacant’ land and the Council Rates notice did not include a ‘waste management fee’ [if it did I would have protested]. Now I can understand that when a property is designated as ‘residential’ there is a ‘potential’ for waste collection to be required, but it is a service, and in my case ‘a service not required no asked for’. 

 4. How is it ‘a cost to the waste contractor’ if a truck drives past my now residential property while collecting neighbours waste? 

In regards to my depositing recyclable waste to the transfer station, I have no complaint in having to pay any nominal fee at drop off [as it IS a fee for service required – by me]. In regards to the landfill waste, I note that there is an ‘opt out’ register in existence. It could be adjusted to allow residential properties who can justify the reason for not needing the service to opt out. .................... I trust that councillors will fully consider this issue, make adjustments to the policy to make it really ‘equitable’ and see it as an opportunity to focus on limiting landfill and not just the consideration of recovering $s to be paid to collection contractors. It actually costs the contractors nothing to drive past properties when they are collecting from adjacent properties and it costs the Council nothing to dispose of no waste from that ‘drive past’ property. .................... Regards, ....................East Tamar Hwy, Dilston CC: [Deputy Mayor] Danny Gibson [Councillors] Andrea Dawkins, Nick Daking, Hugh McKenzie, Karina Stojansek, Rob Soward, Paul Spencer, Jim Cox, Alan Harris, Tim Walker, Krista Preece.