About the District Council of Coober Pedy Poll
The District Council of Coober Pedy has determined to hold polls regarding the continuation of the period of administration, the sale of Council’s electricity and water assets, and the setting of municipal rate levels.
Each proposal has a separate ballot paper insert which includes background information and a ballot paper to be completed, detached and returned.
You will receive this voting pack if your name appears on the voters roll of eligible electors.
Participating in the polls is voluntary and you may only vote once for each of the four proposals. If you receive more than one voting pack, please advise Electoral Commission SA (ECSA) on 08 7424 7400.
Frequently Asked Questions will be posted here for you to view.
If you have any questions regarding the Poll, you can either:
Call to ask questions or make an appointment to see:
Tim Jackson: 0417 016 161
Colin Pitman: 0418 848 279
Or
Pop In
to the Council between the hours of 2:00pm - 5:00pm Wednesday 9th or 16th October to see Tim.
A Questions and Answers session around the Poll will be held on the 8th October 7:00pm @ the Council Chambers
Contents of the pack:
The voting pack should contain:
four ballot papers which include a question, background and cases for and against;
- this how to vote guide;
- a ballot paper envelope bearing your name and address; and
- a reply paid envelope to return your ballot paper envelope.
If you are missing any voting pack item or if you lose or spoil your ballot paper(s), contact ECSA on 08 7424 7400 for a replacement.
How to vote
For your vote to count, you must place a tick in the square opposite the answer you wish to express on each ballot paper.
After voting:
- detach, fold and place your completed ballot papers into the ballot paper envelope;
- seal and sign your ballot paper envelope to verify your identity and voting entitlement; and
- place your completed ballot paper envelope into the reply paid envelope and post(no stamp is required).
The signed flap of the ballot paper envelope will be removed by electoral officers prior to opening the envelope to ensure the secrecy of your vote.
To be counted, your ballot paper envelope must reach the Returning Officer by no later than 12 noon, Monday 21 October 2019 using the reply paid envelope provided.
Four (4) Questions will be asked with the option to Vote YES or NO:
- Do you support the Council conducting a poll of electors on every occasion when it proposes to increase municipal rates by more than CPI?
- Do you support the Council selling its electricity assets and business to the State Government should it be financially sensible to do so?
- Do you support the Council selling its water assets and business to the State Government should it be financially sensible to do so?
- Do you support the term of administration of the Council being continued until the next
scheduled general election for the Council in November 2022?
QUESTION 1:
Do you support the Council conducting a poll of electors on every occasion when it proposes to increase municipal rates by more than CPI?
Background
The reason for asking this question is that voters should decide if they wish to retain the right to approve certain increases in municipal (Council) rates.
The Council is required to prepare an annual business plan which amongst other things sets out the proposed Council services and the associated Council rates to fund them. The Council is also required to consult with the community about the proposed annual business plan and to consider feedback. The Council is not required to act on the feedback.
Supporting this proposal would mean that in future there would be a clear expectation that the Council could only increase Council rates by more than the movement in the consumer price index (CPI) with the approval of voters.
Not supporting this proposal would mean the Council could increase Council rates by any amount after
consulting the community.
A poll of electors costs about $13,000 to conduct.
The Case for Voting Yes
It would allow the voters to have a much stronger role in the control of Council rates.
The Case for Voting No
It would allow the Council to increase Council rates by whatever amount it considers appropriate after consulting the community.
It would save the cost of conducting the poll.
QUESTION 2:
Do you support the Council selling its electricity assets and business to the State Government should it be financially sensible to do so?
Background
The reason for asking this question is that voters should decide whether to sell a significant community asset which provides an essential service.
The asset is valued at around $5 million by the Council. The assets and business would only be sold if it made financial sense to do so.
Currently the Council recovers all costs associated with providing electricity due to a significant subsidy
paid by the State Government. In addition to recovering costs the Council also receives an acceptable return on its investment.
The State Government funding is reviewed periodically. It is unlikely that the State Government would cease the funding although this cannot be
ruled out.
Electricity prices reflect prices payable elsewhere in the State.
From a financial perspective the Council does not need to sell the electricity assets and business.
However, the Auditor-General’s Examination of the Council found that the operational risk associated with a small Council operating an essential service was significant.
It is extremely unusual for a Council in South Australia to provide electricity. The only other Council in South Australia to do so is Roxby Downs.
The proceeds of any sale would be used to pay down the Council’s current gross debt of approximately $9 million.
The assets and business would only be sold if the cost to electricity consumers was guaranteed to be
the same as or near to Adelaide prices.
If the assets and business are not sold they could continue to be operated by either the Council itself, a Council contractor or they could be leased to another operator. This would require the agreement of the State Government if the funding was to continue.
The Case for Voting Yes
It would eliminate the risk of running an essential service.
It would reduce Council debt.
It would allow the Council to focus on usual Council services.
The Case for Voting No
It would allow the community to retain the control of an essential service.
QUESTION 3:
Do you support the Council selling its water assets and business to the State Government should it be financially sensible to do so?
Background
The reason for asking this question is that voters should decide whether to sell a significant community asset which provides an essential service.
The asset is valued at around $8 million by the Council. The proposed sale includes the Council’s sewerage assets. The assets and business would only be sold if it made financial sense to do so.
The Council does not currently recover all costs associated with providing water services and receives no net financial return on its investment. Water revenue would need to increase by $250,000 to recover costs and a further $450,000 to receive an acceptable return on its investment.
The system has not been well maintained by the Council and needs significant renewal at a cost of approximately $10 million. This would need to be financed from new debt.
The Auditor-General’s Examination of the Council found that the operational risk associated with a small Council operating an essential service was significant.
Very few Councils in South Australia own and operate their own water businesses. The majority of water and wastewater services are owned and operated by SA Water.
The proceeds of any sale would be used to pay down the Council’s current gross debt of approximately $9 million.
The assets and business would only be sold if the cost of water to consumers was guaranteed to be the same as or near to Adelaide prices.
If the assets and business are not sold they would continue to be operated by either the Council itself, a Council contractor or they could be leased to another operator.
If the community decides not to sell the water assets and business, a subsidy for water in line with electricity will continue to be sought from the State Government to ensure water can be delivered at Adelaide prices.
The Case for Voting Yes
It would eliminate the risk of running an essential service.
It would reduce Council debt.
It would allow the Council to focus on usual Council services.
It would avoid incurring further debt to replace the ageing water system.
The Case for Voting No
It would allow the community to retain control of an essential service.
QUESTION 4:
Do you support the term of administration of the Council being continued until the next scheduled general election for the Council in November 2022?
Background
The reason for asking the question is that the answer will help inform the Minister for Local Government
regarding whether the State Government should extend the period of administration should the Parliament give it the power to do so.
In January 2019 the Governor declared the Council a defaulting Council under the Local Government Act.The maximum period of administration under the current legislation is twelve months.
The decision was based on the findings of the Ombudsman that the Council had committed “one of the most serious examples of maladministration” he had seen. There was also an examination by the Auditor-General into the governance of the Council
which found there were multiple significant failings in how the Council was run.
One question that has arisen is whether a maximum period of twelve months is sufficient to fix problems of this magnitude.
The role of the Administrator is to take the place of the elected Council. The Administrator is not the CEO. It is good governance practice to separate the role of the Administrator and the CEO. The Administrator role is currently a full time one. The total cost - salary, superannuation, vehicle, accommodation and travel - for the first year is $255,000. This amount is paid by the Council.
It is envisaged that should the period of administration continue the role would reduce to a half time role at some time in the second year due to the reducing requirements of the role. The total annual cost would be approximately $135,000. If the elected Council is
reinstated the total allowances payable to the Mayor and Councillors would be $73,000 per year.
Roxby Downs Council is the other Council in South Australia to have an Administrator. As the Council is in good financial shape and it is operating effectively, it has a part time Administrator who works one week a month.
It is also understood that if the State Government amends the Local Government Act to allow for an extension of the period of administration an additional amendment to the Act would be sought to provide that suspended Councillors do not receive
their allowance while suspended.
The Case for Voting Yes
It would allow the Administrator time to complete the job, particularly in respect of the Council’s long term financial sustainability and improved governance.
It would allow the Administrator to make the necessary arrangements for the return of a properly functioning elected Council.
The Case for Voting No
It would provide a clear message to the Minister that the voters want the return of an elected Council.
It would be cheaper if an elected Council was reinstated.