Council Policy No. CPOL-87: Community Engagement · 2012. 3. 6. · value out of each process. It...

CPOL-87 of 5 “Please Note: This is an uncontrolled document once printed or

saved. Please ensure correct version is in use.”

DATE ADOPTED: 19 APR 2011 POLICY NO. CPOL-87 TITLE:

COUNCIL POLICY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

OBJECTIVES To define a consistent approach to be taken by Council when engaging with the community. POLICY STATEMENT 1. Improve the relationship between Council and the community;

2. Enable the community to be better informed about Council issues, processes and

decisions which might affect them;

3. Develop trust and credibility both internally and externally;

4. Help identify actual and potential problems/issues;

5. Reduce misinformation and misconception;

6. Increase meaningful participation;

7. Develop stronger communities;

8. Receive valuable feedback;

9. Value the input of the community;

10. Provide sustainable outcomes to the Council.

BACKGROUND As part of Council’s restructure the Community Engagement Department was established. The purpose of the Department is to review Council’s current community engagement practices, to research best practice models and other Council and government agency’s approaches to community engagement. This policy will link to the current practice and direction of Council. SCOPE This policy will apply to all Councillors and Council staff. It also applies to contract workers, consultants and tenderers who are undertaking community engagement on behalf of Council. DEFINITIONS Community – is broadly defined as those who have an interest in or are affected by the business of Council and the way it operates and may include: residents and landowners; service providers; users of Council services; business operators; visitors; associations and organisations based locally or in the wider region; people who work and recreate in the Kempsey LGA; and statutory and government agencies. Community Engagement – is any process that values community input to help Council make better informed decisions. It recognises that if the community is going to be affected



by a decision, it needs to be informed of and dependent on the nature of the issue, also engaged in the decision. Community engagement does not replace, but enhances the formal decision making functions and responsibilities of Council as an elected governing body. Council values the diversity of skills, views and expertise in the community and aims to use these to improve decision making. Effective community engagement contributes to:

Strengthening local democracy, both participatory and representative democracy;

Enhancing service excellence;

Ensuring good governance. CORE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Council recognises the following core principles that underpin any of its community engagement processes. They represent Council’s best practice approach in community engagement. They are not prescriptive but rather are used to guide the development, implementation and evaluation of the community engagement process.

1. Our Council affirms that community engagement is critical to effective, transparent and accountable governance in the public, community and private sectors.

2. Our Council believes that effective engagement generates better decisions,

delivering sustainable economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits.

3. Our Council also recognises that meaningful community engagement seeks to address barriers and build the capacity and confidence of all people to participate in and negotiate and partner with institutions that affect their lives, in particular those previously excluded or disenfranchised.

4. We endorse the core principles of integrity, inclusion, deliberation and influence in community engagement based on our Council’s values and behaviours of trust, co-operation, service, innovation and pride.

5. We believe that inclusion underpins our community engagement approach – when there is an opportunity for a diverse range of values and perspectives to be freely and fairly expressed and heard.

6. Affirm the value of education, ongoing monitoring and evaluation and knowledge sharing about active citizenship and community engagement processes and outcomes.

COUNCIL OBJECTIVES FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Council aims to:

Use the community’s input to make better, more sustainable decisions;

Make clear the nature of the decisions to be made that involve community

participation;

Make clear any matters that are non-negotiable and why;

Learn from and build on previous relevant community engagement carried out;



Use methods that are inclusive, flexible and appropriate to those participating;

Facilitate mutual understanding between groups and individuals with differing

perspectives and interests;

Build positive relations between Council and all sections of the community;

Provide an opportunity for Council to evaluate its community engagement procedures as a means of communication.

FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN KEMPSEY SHIRE COMMUNICATION When and how will community engagement occur? Various factors and the issue to be considered influence when and how Council may engage the community. There are also a range of resources that are utilized to determine the view of the community. They include consultation through surveys or focus groups etc, staff knowledge and research findings. Council also needs to consult when there is a lack of clarity on an issue or program. METHODS OF ENGAGEMENT Information gathering can occur through public exhibition of documents and plans etc. This occurs through the local media or via the Council website. Submissions to Council will also relate at times to an item on exhibition. Surveys, public meetings, citizen panels, community conversations, workshops and forums are also methods of engagement. The technique used varies depending upon who is being consulted and the nature and complexity of the issue. What are the steps to engagement? There are a number of steps to follow in the engagement process:

1. Understand your objective. What are you trying to achieve? Is there a decision to be made? For example, Council might be considering the adoption of an affordable housing policy. The method of communication and the audience might be different to the one that you would appeal to if you were to hold an alcohol free event in the CBD.

The Council needs to determine what the subject or issue is before identifying the level of engagement needed. If it is a complex and controversial issue the level of engagement requires higher level or more specific engagement tools. The simple practice of asking why, what, when, how and who is always useful.

2. Type of engagement i.e. information distribution, specific consultation with a particular stakeholder group or a range of groups. This is an important stage of the process as the type of engagement used is specific to the type of project you have. Broad community engagement is a fluid process so multiple methods could be used at different stages of the project depending on the project.

3. What is the degree of impact or potential impact on the community?

4. What engagement tools will be required?



5. Develop a specific communications strategy for the initiative or project that fits the requirements.

6. Provide feedback on outcomes where necessary.

What do the terms ‘inform’ and ‘consult’ and ‘involve’ mean in this context?

Inform – this is an essential element of the process. As well as improving access to and use of services Council needs to inform residents about the options in relation to services, policies and proposed initiatives or developments. This information should be provided in a form that encourages and enables meaningful community consultation.

Consult – this is a process whereby the Council can seek advice, information or opinions to inform the decision making process. This includes the use of activities such as surveys, public meetings and forums.

Involve – this is the action that Council takes to enable them to consult and respond to issues and questions. This is done through the building of relationships and having open dialogue. If community members and stakeholders are involved in the process of assisting to shape policy it can give them ownership of the end result.

LEVELS OF IMPACT The level of consultation may be determined by the level of impact a decision or proposed plan may have on stakeholders and community members. A matrix may include one of the following which alerts relevant Council officers to the importance of the issue or proposal. High (shire wide) S1 Medium (shire wide) S2 Low (shire wide) S3 High (local or community specific) L1 Medium (local, stakeholder or community specific) L2 Low (local, stakeholder or community specific) L3 Level of priority

a. Essential or urgent

b. Desirable or of moderate importance

c. Optional.

HOW WILL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES BE MANAGED? The engagement process will be managed by the Director Community Engagement. When planning consultation sufficient resources (including staffing) need to be allocated in advance to ensure the best possible outcome. It is important to ensure effective communication within the organisation in order to gain the best outcome from the process. Community Representation The community representatives in this context are those people who are likely to be affected by or interested in the particular issue or topic. They may include a range of individuals or groups. Reporting back



It is important to report back to stakeholders, councillors and other staff members to inform people of the progress and possible outcome of the matter. People need to feel they are listened to even if their suggestions or view is oppositional to the end decision. If people believe that staff or councillors have listed to them and at least taken onboard their comments they are more likely to return to future consultation sessions. If you keep coming back and asking the same questions even if you are from a different council department the community become disengaged. Evaluation Evaluation is an important part of the process. It allows an organisation to see what it has done well and what can be improved. Did the Council get the information it needed? Did the community feel that they were listened to? By evaluating a project it allows you to improve planning and implementation for future projects. It is also important to share the evaluation with other relevant council staff so all council participants can learn from the experience. The effect of community engagement on projects The intent is to reduce duplication and therefore increase the opportunity to gain maximum value out of each process. It should assist individual departments to better collaborate and to ensure that engagement is both timely and relevant. It should also improve internal communication. Budgets and timelines Budget allocations and timeframes may be required depending on the type of engagement required. These would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Asset Quantity Value

Roads – Sealed 748 km $341,126,108

Roads ‐

Unsealed 375 km $119,715,600

Buildings 147 $30,798,263

Stormwater 97 km $29,946,269

Flood Mitigation Structures $28,454,046

‐

Flood gates 85

‐

Levee Banks 37.6 km

‐

Drainage Crossing Bridges 43

Road Bridges 193(5.5 km)

$18,562,800

Other Structures $18,426,310

Kerb & Gutter 146 km $11,719,920

Over $600 million worth of assets to manage

88% more of the road surface rough, 26% rougher ride,

40% more road cracking, 44% more potholed

area,

32% more edge breaks

58km of reseal on roads costs $3,600,00015km of reconstruction costs $3,750,00031km of gravel re‐sheeting costs $620,000Total Cost ‐

$7,970,000, Funding ‐

$2,840,000

Our roads are not ideal, to break even will require $9,055,000

So we need to find $6,214,000

Maintenance:Should be $2.3 million. (SA Government, ARRB –

2004)

Council budget $1.3 million

Reduce costs where possible2010/11 budget $1,015,734 cut with minimal impacts on service levels. Equates

to 9.6% rate increase.While some more savings may be made, difficult to see where significant

additional funds to come from.Loan repayments currently take up $3million, this will become available over

the longer term. Equates to 28.5% rate increase.“Administration”

currently 13.4%, Percy Allen Report identified best practice is

10% to 16%

Increase Revenue75% rate rise would be required to balance up from start

Residential:

$9.21 per week, $18.41 per fortnight (Average)Farmland:

$17.96 per week, $77.81 per month

Business:


Require significant increases in user charges to make much impact.

Review what we provide and how much money we put into it

Do nothing and pass problem on to others to deal with.

Group AverageResidential: 21.1% increase ‐

$1.628 million

$2.59 per week, $5.18 per fortnightFarmland Average: 26.3% increase ‐

$465,000

$6.29 per week, $27.27 per monthBusiness Average: 97.6% increase ‐

$1.032 million

$52.66 per week, $228.17 per monthState Average

Residential: 25% increase ‐

$1.928 millionFarmland Average: 48.5% increase ‐

$856,000

Business Average: 206% increase ‐

$2.179 million

Raise more money:Rates (Currently 35.12% of income)User Charges (Currently 3.5% of income)What is affordable and reasonable

What lifestyle is wanted:Low budget services and infrastructureDifferent levels of services or change services

provided

Leave it for someone else.

Fill out the enclosed evaluation form and return to Council by 14 January 2011

Fill out the evaluation form online at www.kempsey.nsw.gov.au/community‐

evaluation‐form.html.Email comments to

[email protected] comments in writing to the General

Manager, Kempsey Shire Council, PO Box 3078, West Kempsey NSW 2440.

http://www.kempsey.nsw.gov.au/community-evaluation-form.html


mailto:[email protected]

Low CostSeek to provide the lowest cost to attract market

shareCustomers are very price sensitive

Traditional Product ProviderMinimal change plannedCore products have not changed over a long period

RevenueEntry Fees/Concessions

$10.5m

(35% /

47%)

Individual Rides

$6.6m (3.5%/

16%)

Government Subsidies $13.3m

(39%/

19%)

Interest

$1.5m (4.6%/

2%)

Net Operating Revenue

$34.4m

Operating ExpensesWages

$14m

Interest

$0.9mMaterials

$11.2m

Depreciation

$11.7m

Net Operating Costs $38.3m

Cash flows in from operations $43.7m

Cash flows out from operations $34.6m

Net cash flow from operations

$9.1m

Cash flow from sale of assets $1.4m

Purchase of assets

$12.7mNet cash flow from Investing

‐$11.3m

Proceeds from Borrowing

$4.9mRepayment of Borrowings

$2.2m

Net cash flow from Financing

$2.7m

Total cash held

$19mCommitted cash

$14.4m

Available for operations/developments $4.6m


Roller Coaster (Roads – Sealed) 748 km $341,126,108

Dodgem Cars (Roads – Unsealed)

375 km $119,715,600

Food Hall and Souvenirs (Buildings)

147 $30,798,263

Wave pool (Stormwater) 97 km $29,946,269

Water Park (Flood Mitigation) $28,454,046

‐

Flood gates 85

‐

Levee Banks 37.6 km

‐

Drainage Crossing Bridges 43

Rides (Road Bridges) 193(5.5 km)

$18,562,800

Arcade (Other Structures) $18,426,310

Mini Golf (Kerb & Gutter) 146 km $11,719,920


88% more of ride rough, 26% rougher ride,

40% more cracking, 44% more breaks area,

32% more

edge breaks on carriages

58km of reseal on roads costs $3,600,00015km of reconstruction costs $3,750,00031km of gravel re‐sheeting costs $620,000Total Cost ‐

$7,970,000, Funding ‐

$2,840,000

Our roads are not ideal, to break even will require $9,055,000

So we need to find $6,214,000

Maintenance:Should be $2.3 million. (SA Government, ARRB –

2004)

Council budget $1.3 million

Continue with low cost – Customer

Expectations

Remove services not adding value to sales

Run down business for disposal

Seek larger market share

Reduce costs where possible2010/11 budget $1,015,734 cut with minimal impacts on service levels. Equates to 9.6%

rate increase.While some more savings may be made, difficult to see where significant additional funds

to come from.Loan repayments currently take up $3million, this will become available over the longer

term. Equates to 28.5% rate increase.“Administration”

& sales/marketing currently 13.4%, Percy Allen Report identified best

practice is 10% to 16%

Move to 10% equates to saving a further $1.77million

Increase Revenue from existing customer base75% customer revenue increase would be required to balance up from start

Residential:

$9.21 per week, $18.41 per fortnight (Average)Farmland:

$17.96 per week, $77.81 per monthBusiness:



Increase market share

Review product provided – What is adding to business value

Do nothing and sell business when assets depleted.

Group AverageCustomer Entry Fees: 21.1% increase ‐

$1.628 million

$2.59 per week, $5.18 per fortnightFood Hall Rentals: 26.3% increase ‐

$465,000

$6.29 per week, $27.27 per monthRide Operators: 97.6% increase ‐

$1.032 million


State AverageCustomer : 25% increase ‐

$1.928 million

Food Hall Average: 48.5% increase ‐

$856,000Ride Average: 206% increase ‐

$2.179 million

If continue, how should it be funded:Rates (Currently 35.12% of income)User Charges (Currently 3.5% of income)What is affordable and reasonable

What market are we wanting to target:Low budget services and infrastructureDifferent levels of services or change services

provided

Allow business to decline and not invest.

What business model would you invest in?


Fill out the evaluation form online at www.kempsey.nsw.gov.au/community‐

evaluation‐form.html.Email comments to

[email protected] comments in writing to the General

Manager, Kempsey Shire Council, PO Box 3078, West Kempsey NSW 2440.



mailto:[email protected]

1

EVALUATION REPORT “Meet the Boss”

October / November 2010 Community Consultations

2

Contents

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

NUMBER OF ATTENDEES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

BUDGET AND COSTING .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

WHAT TIME SUITS YOU FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS? ................................................................................................................................................. 6

AT WHICH LOCATION WOULD YOU LIKE CONSULTATIONS TO TAKE PLACE? ........................................................................................................................... 7

HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT TODAY’S CONSULTATION? .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

WHICH INFORMATION WAS OF INTEREST TO YOU? ............................................................................................................................................................... 10

WHAT COULD WE IMPROVE ON IN THE FUTURE? .................................................................................................................................................................. 11

EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Appendix A – Consultation Power Point Presentation ........................................................................................................................................................ 13

Appendix B – Power Point supporting document ............................................................................................................................................................... 15

Appendix C – Community Survey: Service Delivery (template) .......................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix D – Consultation Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................................................ 25

3

INTRODUCTION

The ‘Meet the Boss’ series of consultations was the first since the commencement of the new Community Engagement Directorate at Kempsey Shire

Council. The Community Engagement Directorate plans to continue consulting the community on a regular basis regarding major issues and town master plans.

The purpose of the consultation was to provide the community with information regarding;

the tasks completed within their respective Local Community Plan

the current state of Council’s financial shortfall, the various reasons it has occurred and the options available to Kempsey Shire Council to meet a current infrastructure budget deficit of nearly one million dollars

A total of fifty three consultation surveys had been returned at the time of writing this report.

This consultation round was also crucial in terms of timing and preparation for consideration for an extra-ordinary rate rise application.

4

NUMBER OF ATTENDEES

Consultations were held at Crescent Head, Frederickton, Willawarrin, Bellbrook, Hat Head, Gladstone, Stuarts Point, South West Rocks, Kempsey and at

a Chamber of Commerce meeting. A total of 426 residents attended the series of consultations throughout the Shire over the period they were held.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Nu

mb

er

of

Att

en

de

es

Location of Consultations

5

BUDGET AND COSTING

A total of $4190.13 was spent on the “Meet the Boss” consultation. The majority of this amount was spent on advertising the consultation and

presenting the feedback of the consultations to the community at the conclusion of the consultation. The total amount of money spent on print media was $2405.13, the total electronic media was $1785.00 and the total spent on the hire of halls was $113.00.

Staff wages were not taken into account in this summary as the time spent at the consultations was accrued to be taken at a later date; therefore no monetary value is changed from employee usual wages. Printing of handouts was completed in house on Council printer and the handout folders were repurposed from the Economic Development department.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

$

6

WHAT TIME SUITS YOU FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS?

Residents were asked which time they would prefer for consultations from the following;

Morning (9am-12noon)

Lunch (11am-1pm)

Afternoon (1pm – 5pm)

Evening (5pm – 7pm) Although the statistics demonstrate that the majority of the community would prefer to be consulted on a weekday evening, it does need to be considered that the survey was distributed only to residents who had attended the “Meet the Boss” consult which occurred on weekday evenings in all nine cases. Therefore the preference may be skewed towards the time residents were already attending.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Morning9am - 12

noon

Lunch 11am- 1pm

Afternoon1pm - 5pm

Evening 5pm- 7pm

Weekday Weekend

Nu

mb

er

of

resp

on

ses

Preferred Consultation Times

7

AT WHICH LOCATION WOULD YOU LIKE CONSULTATIONS TO TAKE PLACE?

Residents were asked to choose their preferred location for consultations to take place. It should also be considered with these statistics as with the above data that only residents attending the consultation completed the form and therefore their preferred choice was already the location the consultation took place. In this case, the majority of the consultations for meet the boss took place at local halls and surf clubs. It was initially proposed that consultations be held at various Clubs around the Macleay such as the Crescent Head Country Club and South West Rocks Country Club in an attempt to distribute information at locations where residents are already congregating. Councillors recommended that this be changed so as Council were not seen to be supporting licensed premises. This recommendation was well received however Community Engagement will endeavour to reach more residents through regular meetings which are already taking place such as Rotary Clubs, Parents and Community (P&C) and sporting clubs.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Local hall / surfclub

Bowling / RSL Club Local businessPremise

Other:

Nu

mb

er

of

resi

de

nts

Preferred Location

8

HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT TODAY’S CONSULTATION?

Residents attending the consultation were given the opportunity to identify where they heard about the consultation. Residents had the opportunity to identify more than one channel of communication. Please see following page regarding the correlation between the cost and effectiveness of promotional channels.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Nu

mb

er

of

resi

de

nts

Communication Used

9

The cost of electronic advertising was $1785.00. When assessed with the 7% of participants attending as a result of electronic advertising, this method was not cost effective. Of all residents who responded they had attended from hearing the radio advertisement, only one had radio listed as the sole channel they heard about the consultation. The remainder of the respondents listed various other printed media as well as radio as the channel of advertising through which they were notified of the consultation.

In contrast to this information, 71% of residents listed some form of printed media as the channel in which they were notified of the consultation. At $2405.13 the cost of the printed media was higher than electronic media though had a broader coverage than electronic media and had much more longevity than electronic media.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

893.7

648 669.6

127.64 66.19

150 150

1485

2405.13

1785

Co

st in

$'s

Type of Advertising

Cost of Advertising

10

WHICH INFORMATION WAS OF INTEREST TO YOU?

Residents were asked to complete a two line answer to this question. See below for the results. Please note answers which were similar have been combined though the original surveys can be found on file.

All (10)

Rate increase (6)

The gap (5)

Figures / numbers (4)

Roads (3)

Caravan Parks (2)

Industry (2)

GM’s speech

Whole shire

Cost of road maintenance

Reviewing service levels

How to raise more revenue

The history of infrastructure neglect

land development / selling off caravan parks in the future

Town planning

Airport

11

WHAT COULD WE IMPROVE ON IN THE FUTURE?

Remember Hat Head is seasonal with the Christmas population tripling the burden on services

Value for our rates

More interactive part of the session

Reduce overheads at Council to improve the bottom line

Invite people to submit questions in writing prior to the meeting

Keep up the good work

Walkway along gap road

Well done – nice to meet you. Please come again.

Efficiency of Council

Beautifying the Shire

Lantana and Access to Mungay Road

Fill up our potholes

Cut unnecessary administration

More signage for tourists

Thank you

Have more speakers to expand on answers. For example a panel of directors

Well done look forward to more community consults in the future

Business creation better policies and more contact

Better policies

Roads

All was great

Displaying the breakup of income from business and farms

Put Frederickton on the map

Disability access

Roads / car parks

Method of consultation

Pare back services that are not essential

Microphones

More concise

Communication, posters in local shops and notices

Tell everyone the date and time of the consult

Allow opportunity at end for queries on other matters not during speech

Focus on key issues

Put rate money back into Frederickton

Participants were informed this survey was specifically related to the consultation process rather than the content of this particular consultation. Many participants voiced their concerns regarding the information given in the presentation on this survey rather than the community survey which was also distributed. The comments which relate directly to the consultation and which were sought from this survey are highlighted in bold.

12

EVALUATION

Consideration to be given to the expense of electronic advertising and its effectiveness. An option may be to have one continuous advertisement play at varying times throughout the day, without specific dates and times. This advertisement may firect community members to print media and the website to identify the location/s closest to them.

Starting times for consultations which take longer than thirty minutes to travel from Kempsey should start at 6pm to allow commuters to attend meetings.

Presenter to specify that certain questions in the survey are just in relation to the consultation not the content. Eg. What could we improve on in the future?

This use of a slogan ‘Meet the Boss’ and subsequent branding had the desired result with community member referring to the meetings as “Meet the Boss” when discussing the meetings.

In future participants should be given only one survey during the consultation. Further surveys may be posted out following the consultation.

Microphone to be used at each consultation for presentation and community questions

Disabled access is to be considered for all consultation locations.

State prior to the presentation that all questions will be addressed at the conclusion of presentation.

Request participants to submit questions to Council prior to the consultations via phone, email or mail.

13

Appendix A – Consultation Power Point Presentation


Roads – Sealed 748 km $341,126,108

Roads - Unsealed 375 km $119,715,600

Buildings 147 $30,798,263



- Flood gates 85

- Levee Banks 37.6 km

- Drainage Crossing Bridges 43

Road Bridges 193(5.5 km)

$18,562,800


Kerb & Gutter 146 km $11,719,920


$9,055,000

$1,829,616

$373,873

261,792

$234,398 $460,034

$154,762

$332,749

$108,668

$936,730

392,029

$224,676

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

Ideal Current

Co

st p

er

yea

r

Roads Bridges Kerb & Gutter Flood Mitigation

Stormwater Buildings Other Structures

Current, $2,747,000

Gap, $8,900,000

24,000

72,000

120,000

168,000

250,000

20,000

55,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Reseal (Excellent Rd)

Reseal (Good) Reseal (Fair) Reseal (Poor) Reconstruct Gravel Resheet (Good)

Gravel Resheet (Poor)

Co

st p

er

kilo

me

tre

Type of Works (Road Condition)

Cost/km

25

20

13

0

15

31

00 01.5

3.66

0

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Reseal (Excellent Rd)

Reseal (Good) Reseal (Fair) Reseal (Poor) Reconstruct Gravel Resheet (Good)

Gravel Resheet (Poor)

Kilo

me

tre

s o

f W

ork

Ideal

Current

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

oad

Net

wo

rk

2008

2020

88% more of the road surface rough, 26% rougher ride, 40% more road cracking, 44% more potholed

area, 32% more edge breaks

58km of reseal on roads costs $3,600,00015km of reconstruction costs $3,750,00031km of gravel re-sheeting costs $620,000Total Cost - $7,970,000, Funding - $2,840,000

Our roads are not ideal, to break even will require $9,055,000So we need to find $6,214,000

Maintenance:Should be $2.3 million. (SA Government, ARRB – 2004)Council budget $1.3 million

Remaining Gap

Loans

Savings

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

Reduce costs where possible2010/11 budget $1,015,734 cut with minimal impacts on service levels. Equates to 9.6% rate increase.While some more savings may be made, difficult to see where significant additional funds to come from.Loan repayments currently take up $3million, this will become available over the longer term. Equates to 28.5% rate increase.“Administration” currently 13.4%, Percy Allen Report identified best practice is 10% to 16%

Increase Revenue75% rate rise would be required to balance up from start

Residential: $9.21 per week, $18.41 per fortnight (Average)Farmland: $17.96 per week, $77.81 per monthBusiness: $19.17 per week, $83.07 per month


Review what we provide and how much money we put into it

Do nothing and pass problem on to others to deal with.

14

509.72549.26556.30596.79609.40626.76639.33643.25652.18659.46669.26697.49706.61709.78711.64712.42712.77721.64733.45738.08746.07762.47770.83774.77783.22796.93811.53819.25830.78835.91864.15893.70

956.55990.081,040.80

Lithgow Council, City ofRichmond Valley Council

Broken Hill City CouncilSingleton Shire CouncilKempsey Shire Council

Greater Taree City CouncilBallina Shire Council

Tamworth Regional CouncilEurobodalla Shire Council

Nambucca Shire CouncilMid-Western Regional Council

Deniliquin CouncilClarence Valley Council

Wagga Wagga City CouncilCoffs Harbour City Council

Griffith City CouncilBellingen Shire Council

Bega Valley Shire CouncilBathurst Regional Council

AverageMaitland City Council

Goulburn Mulwaree CouncilWingecarribee Shire Council

Port Macquarie-Hastings …Armidale Dumaresq Council

Great Lakes CouncilCessnock City Council

Dubbo City CouncilQueanbeyan City Council

Byron Shire CouncilShellharbour City Council

Lismore City CouncilAlbury City Council

Orange City CouncilKiama, The Council of the …

Avg Residential Rates 2008-09Source: DLG Comparative Data 08/09

179.6204.2207.9210.5213.2215.6215.7224.2232.2234.2234.5236.4236.7238.9243.2243.5245.4253.1257.6258.3267.3268.9271.4273.3275.7288.8300.0

326.2327.6343.3350.6364.9

393.5446.7

481.0

Broken Hill City CouncilDeniliquin Council

Clarence Valley CouncilLithgow Council, City of

Mid-Western Regional CouncilCessnock City Council

Dubbo City CouncilTamworth Regional Council

Bathurst Regional CouncilAlbury City Council

Goulburn Mulwaree CouncilMaitland City Council

Armidale Dumaresq CouncilOrange City Council

Lismore City CouncilRichmond Valley Council

Wagga Wagga City CouncilSingleton Shire CouncilKempsey Shire Council

Shellharbour City CouncilCoffs Harbour City Council

Nambucca Shire CouncilGriffith City Council

AverageGreater Taree City Council

Queanbeyan City CouncilBellingen Shire Council

Port Macquarie-Hastings CouncilBega Valley Shire CouncilEurobodalla Shire Council

Ballina Shire CouncilGreat Lakes CouncilByron Shire Council

Wingecarribee Shire CouncilKiama, The Council of the …

Net Value of Assets $’000

Household Wealth 2003-04Source: BITRE – Information Paper 63 (2009)

501.48800.00924.13943.30959.87998.131,014.901,028.571,079.141,083.261,185.321,195.641,197.161,292.881,319.151,353.921,354.551,376.281,384.311,442.311,483.701,509.951,534.931,566.821,624.36

1,802.991,898.541,953.131,997.132,068.422,074.442,096.51

2,406.962,494.37

3,901.64

Great Lakes CouncilBroken Hill City CouncilLithgow Council, City of

Richmond Valley CouncilSingleton Shire Council

Ballina Shire CouncilGreater Taree City Council

Goulburn Mulwaree CouncilEurobodalla Shire Council

Clarence Valley CouncilCoffs Harbour City Council

Kempsey Shire CouncilBathurst Regional Council

Byron Shire CouncilTamworth Regional Council

Port Macquarie-Hastings CouncilDeniliquin Council

Bega Valley Shire CouncilNambucca Shire Council

Queanbeyan City CouncilOrange City Council

AverageBellingen Shire Council

Kiama, The Council of the …Cessnock City Council

Lismore City CouncilWingecarribee Shire Council

Wagga Wagga City CouncilMaitland City Council

Albury City CouncilArmidale Dumaresq Council

Mid-Western Regional CouncilDubbo City CouncilGriffith City Council

Shellharbour City Council

Average Farmland Rates 2008-09

911.60

1,259.48

1,286.01

1,303.25

1,311.67

1,479.96

1,496.29

1,613.78

1,653.20

1,885.74

2,016.32

2,033.28

2,054.66

2,068.27

2,208.04

2,366.84

2,434.01

2,539.96

2,575.49

2,705.99

2,713.04

2,746.13

2,771.59

2,839.10

3,119.683,157.85

3,168.36

3,316.21

3,383.33

3,804.20

4,149.03

4,253.90

4,318.12

4,587.73

Bellingen Shire Council

Singleton Shire Council

Kiama, The Council of the …

Kempsey Shire Council

Nambucca Shire Council

Bega Valley Shire Council

Richmond Valley Council

Ballina Shire Council

Mid-Western Regional Council

Griffith City Council

Deniliquin Council

Tamworth Regional Council

Clarence Valley Council

Great Lakes Council

Wingecarribee Shire Council

Greater Taree City Council

Eurobodalla Shire Council

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

Average

Armidale Dumaresq Council

Cessnock City Council

Byron Shire Council

Lithgow Council, City of

Shellharbour City Council

Goulburn Mulwaree Council

Bathurst Regional Council

Coffs Harbour City Council

Broken Hill City Council

Lismore City Council

Queanbeyan City Council

Albury City Council

Wagga Wagga City Council

Maitland City Council

Dubbo City Council

Average Business Rates 2008-09

Group AverageResidential: 21.1% increase - $1.628 million

$2.59 per week, $5.18 per fortnight

Farmland Average: 26.3% increase - $465,000$6.29 per week, $27.27 per month

Business Average: 97.6% increase - $1.032 million$52.66 per week, $228.17 per month

State AverageResidential: 25% increase - $1.928 millionFarmland Average: 48.5% increase - $856,000Business Average: 206% increase - $2.179 million

Remaining Gap0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

20

09

-10

20

10

-11

20

11

-12

20

12

-13

20

13

-14

20

14

-15

20

15

-16

20

16

-17

20

17

-18

20

18

-19

20

19

-20

20

20

-21

20

21

-22

20

22

-23

20

23

-24

20

24

-25

20

25

-26

20

26

-27

20

27

-28

Move to Group Average

Savings

Loans

Remaining Gap

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

20

09

-10

20

10

-11

20

11

-12

20

12

-13

20

13

-14

20

14

-15

20

15

-16

20

16

-17

20

17

-18

20

18

-19

20

19

-20

20

20

-21

20

21

-22

20

22

-23

20

23

-24

20

24

-25

20

25

-26

20

26

-27

20

27

-28

Move to Group Average then $2 per week (Avg)

Savings

Loans

Remaining Gap

Libraries (4.22)Saleyards (3.79)Swimming Pools (3.76)Council Customer Service (3.43)Day Visitor Areas (3.38)Parks (3.37)Community Halls (3.34)Sporting Facilities (3.34)Tourism Management (3.33)Drainage/Flood Management (3.31)

Saleyards (3.40)Arts, Culture & Entertainment Facilities (3.61)Boat ramps, Jetties, Wharves (3.75)Cycleways & Bicycle Facilities (3.83)Kerb & Guttering (3.84)Youth Facilities (3.85)Community Halls (3.87)Sporting Facilities (3.87)Swimming Pools (3.94)Parks (3.99)`

Community Safety & Law and Order (4.58)Town Roads (4.52)Aged Services (4.41)Disability Services (4.36)Financial Management (4.35)Rural Roads (4.34)Parking (4.32)Drainage/Flood Mitigation (4.29)Public Toilets (4.26)Council’s Customer Service (4.23)

Youth Facilities (2.59)Community Safety/Law & Order (2.59)Youth Services (2.61)Rural Roads (2.62)Economic Development (2.71)Cycleways & Bicycle Facilities (2.70)Financial Management (2.71)Development & Building Controls (2.73)Public Toilets (2.77)Art, Culture & Entertainment Facilities (2.80)

Raise more money:Rates (Currently 35.12% of income)

User Charges (Currently 3.5% of income)

What is affordable and reasonable

What lifestyle is wanted:Low budget services and infrastructure

Different levels of services or change services provided

Leave it for someone else.


Fill out the evaluation form online at www.kempsey.nsw.gov.au/community-evaluation-form.html.

Email comments to [email protected].

Include comments in writing to the General Manager, Kempsey Shire Council, PO Box 3078, West Kempsey NSW 2440.

This document can also be found at Community Presentation October 2010 (2).pptx

Community%20Presentation%20October%202010%20(2).pptx

15

Appendix B – Power Point supporting document

Introduction…. Kempsey Shire Council is not dissimilar to many local government areas in New South Wales. It

has an ageing infrastructure and the historical level of investment into those assets has not matched what was needed to replace assets when they reached the end of their useful life.

Kempsey is facing a large backlog of works on its capital and in doing so facing high maintenance

and significant debts to repay. These factors limit the available funds to stop the deterioration of assets from getting any worse.

The problem…. Council has a large

amount of assets that it is responsible for on behalf of the community. This table shows the quantity and the value of the assets that the Council is maintaining and needing to replace over time.

While there are other assets, these are the ones that have a significant impact on the budget, as

they have large costs and limited life spans. This means that a certain portion should be either replaced or planned for replacement each year. All up there is over $600million worth of assets to manage and replace over time.

The Lifetime Cost of the Assets….. Each asset has a calculated life. This includes, buildings with 90 years, roads with a design life of

50 years and structures like playground equipment which only realistically lasts 10 to 15 years. Within this life time there are also times when replacement of part of the asset is required. Things like steel roofing have to be replaced more often than the bricks walls that hold them up. Similarly, roads need to be resealed every 8 – 10 years if they are not going to start to fall apart before their full life is up.

All of this has can be calculated. For each asset the amount that should be put aside each year

can be calculated. Council has done this for all of the assets listed in the table above. The result is

Asset Quantity Value Roads – Sealed 748 km $341,126,108

Roads - Unsealed 375 km $119,715,600

Buildings 147 $30,798,263



- Flood gates 85

- Levee Banks 37.6 km

- Bridges 43

Road Bridges 5.5 km $18,562,800


Kerb & Gutter 146 km $11,719,920

16

shown in the next chart. The first information shows what should be put aside or invested into replacing assets each year. This is then compared to the amounts that the Council is actually investing. There is a significant difference between the two, which in the past was being cover (in part) by using loan funds.

The “Problem” is the gap….

Ideal Current

Other Structures $224,676

Buildings $936,730 392,029

Stormwater $332,749 $108,668

Flood Mitigation $460,034 $154,762

Kerb & Gutter $234,398

Bridges $373,873 261,792

Roads $9,055,000 $1,829,616

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

Co

st p

er

year

17

The difference between what we are investing and what we should be investing is leading to the

roads, buildings, footpath and other assets falling apart. Slowly but surely this will continue while the gap exists. Unfortunately, the speed that this is happening will begin to pick up soon.

Roads as an example…. We know what roads are there. We know what we should be doing to get the best life out of

them. The following chart shows the ideal amounts of work we should be doing. It also shows when we should be doing it. The red bars show what we are doing now. In reality, we chase after the worse road sections (fair and poor) with reasonable amounts of traffic, as that is where the complaints mainly come from.

Most people will find it strange that Council is suggesting that it reseal roads that are in excellent

condition. You will not notice a road’s deterioration until it is around 80% of the way through its life, particularly as you drive along. If no work is done on a road until it starts to crack, significant extra cost is involved in bringing it back into a condition so that the seal will actually stay in place. Once potholes and lumps and bumps are visible, the damage is done.

This is shown in the following table, where the relative cost of works on different quality roads

are shown. You will see that the cost escalates quickly. This is because once the road starts to crack or bend, the whole section of pavement below the seal needs to be dug out, replaced and compacted before the new seal can go down.

Current, $2,747,000

Gap, $8,900,000

25 20

13

0

15

31

0 0 0 1.5 3.6

6

0

10

05

101520253035

Kilo

met

res

of

Wo

rk

Ideal

Current

18

In 2008, Council had all of its maintained road network assessed. This was done using a specially

set up vehicle that took over 6,700 individual measurements of;

Cracking

Ruts

Potholes and

Edge breaks. These were then assessed against the standards used in Australia to determine exactly what

state our roads were in. This allows Council to know what state its roads are in. The following graph shows the condition they were found to be in at the time. What we can also do is calculate what condition they will be in at any time in the future. We know what work we can currently do and we know how the roads will deteriorate. The dotted line shows the projected condition in ten years time.

The move in the condition from very good to fair, will mean worse roads. Specifically:

88% more of the road will be rough,

The ride will feel 26% rougher to you,

40% more of the road will be cracked,

Those cracks will mean 44% more of the road will pothole after it rains, and

32% more of the road edge will be breaking off, making the road seem narrower.

24,000 72,000

120,000 168,000

250,000

20,000 55,000

050,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000

Reseal(Excellent

Rd)

Reseal(Good)

Reseal (Fair) Reseal (Poor) Reconstruct GravelResheet(Good)

GravelResheet(Poor)

Co

st p

er k

ilom

etre

Type of Works (Road Condition)

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

Pe

rcen

tage

of

Ro

ad N

etw

ork

2008 2020

19

All of this will make it much less enjoyable to drive around the Council area. So what is Council doing about the gap…. Council has undertaken a review of where its money is going. As a result the Council has cut over

$1 million from its ongoing budget expenses. It has also brought the loan funding to a halt to make sure it does not worsen the situation. The loan funding will not provide benefits in the short term, with the benefits taking ten to fifteen years to be available.

Based on what Council has done the assets would still continue to go backwards, but the impacts

would be lessened in the short term by $1million more being available for capital replacement. This on its own will not significantly improve the deterioration of the assets of the community, but it does reduce the amount needed to be raised by the equivalent of a 9.6% rate increase.

Impact of increased Revenue…. The following chart shows the impact of the community agreeing to moving towards the average

rates paid (with similar grouped Councils).

Allowing for the extra income means that the infrastructure will still be going backwards for the

next twenty years, but with the rate slowing over time. Under the is version of events, and without any other change, the council is unlikely to ever be in the position of being able to provide more services and will not keep infrastructure at the level it is currently at.

If the community wants to be in a position where the council can keep the existing infrastructure

in a good quality state and have some choice in what new or improved services it can have, then there is a need for more. The chart below shows what would happen if the community went to the average rate and then agreed to increasing the rates by $2 per week on average above the rate peg amount.

Remaining Gap 0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000 Move toGroupAverageSavings

Loans

RemainingGap

20

509.72 549.26 556.30 596.79 609.40 626.76 639.33 643.25 652.18 659.46 669.26 697.49 706.61 709.78 711.64 712.42 712.77 721.64 733.45 738.08 746.07 762.47 770.83 774.77 783.22 796.93 811.53 819.25 830.78 835.91 864.15 893.70

956.55 990.08 1,040.80

Lithgow Council, City ofRichmond Valley Council

Broken Hill City CouncilSingleton Shire CouncilKempsey Shire Council

Greater Taree City CouncilBallina Shire Council

Tamworth Regional CouncilEurobodalla Shire Council

Nambucca Shire CouncilMid-Western Regional Council

Deniliquin CouncilClarence Valley Council

Wagga Wagga City CouncilCoffs Harbour City Council

Griffith City CouncilBellingen Shire Council

Bega Valley Shire CouncilBathurst Regional Council

AverageMaitland City Council

Goulburn Mulwaree CouncilWingecarribee Shire Council

Port Macquarie-Hastings…Armidale Dumaresq Council

Great Lakes CouncilCessnock City Council

Dubbo City CouncilQueanbeyan City Council

Byron Shire CouncilShellharbour City Council

Lismore City CouncilAlbury City Council

Orange City CouncilKiama, The Council of the…

Avg Residential Rates 2008-09

The point where the top line starts to rise is where the council reaches the point where the

funds are sufficient to stop the assets going backwards over the longer term. None of us like to pay more tax. But,

not unlike your household budget, council has to live within its means. So in reality the community has to work out what it wants and can afford to pay for. At the moment we pay relatively cheap general purpose rates. The chart to the right shows the average rates for residents in this local government area against others that are classed the same as us by the Division of Local Government, as well as near neighbours.

As can be seen, for general purpose

rates we are currently operating in the “bargain basement” area. We can decide to remain as a budget player.

Any service provided (roads, parks,

kerb & gutter, stormwater, etc) has to be fully funded. If not, we are just fooling ourselves and the service will go as soon as the building, road or drain fails and the council does not have the funds to replace it.

But we can accept a lower standard.

For example:

Less sealed roads,

More roads not maintained,

Less areas with stormwater drained away,

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

Move to Average then$2 per week (Avg)

Savings

Loans

Remaining Gap

21

Less parks and sporting fields or less facilities on them,

Less cleaning of footpaths. By changing the services or removing services the cost comes down and so the rates do not have

to be as high. This is an alternative that the community can choose. In this regard you should start to think

about what is around you and what you use. When you drive, are you willing to accept that the road may not be sealed? Do you go past parks? Are they valuable to the community and can they be less neat and tidy? When you go for a walk, do you want to have a footpath, and when it rains do you want the water drained away?

Some people do not have all of these services, but the intention is for you to look at what is

around you so you can consider whether there are things you would prefer to sacrifice. Historically, when faced with the closure of a facility, or lowering standards, people have been against this.

So if the gap has been dealt with….. We will still have a backlog of assets in various conditions. With the funds at the level that we

are a not going backwards, the community can start to decide whether it need to deal with the backlog and which parts. Council will develop a ten year plan of the projects and activities that it will be able to achieve with the level of funding that is available. This will give everyone some idea of where council is going into the future.

The Local Community Plans will allow the various communities to identify the issues and

problems at the scale they occur. We will knit those together into a list of priorities that the councillors will adopt as their plan. Recommendations will be made based on factors such as the impact on people (level of nuisance and risk) and the scale of the impact (how many of you does it impact) to try and ensure that the funding first goes to the areas it will provide the greatest benefit. The plan will be realistic, in that it will only include things that we can realistically afford.

Once we have the “big picture” we will report regularly on the projects and changes that are

occurring. So you will be able to follow where something that matters to you is sitting. In conclusion…. But it has to be clear that this is an either/or situation. You cannot choose not to pay to keep

things and not to reduce services. This path, which has been followed in the past will simply lead to the services and facilities disappearing when they reach the point where council cannot replace them.

I do not believe that this is in the best interests of the community to continue as we are, going

backwards. But it is up to the community to make this decision, not me. It has been put to me many times that we need to get employment, jobs and growth. I believe that to attract jobs, we have to have good lifestyle. And this will not be possible if we are going backwards with our public areas.

Local government has a huge impact on our lifestyle. The roads we drive on, the parks and

walkways, public toilets and the streetscape in the town centres all impact on our lifestyle. If we choose to allow things looking run down and cheap, we will not compete with the other

local government areas that business people can choose to set up in. The mid north coast is a

22

popular area to live, recording the second highest population growth in 2007-08. But, within our region, those councils who are in the bottom half of the average rating table are not getting the growth.

This does not mean it all has to come from increasing rates. But, it does mean that if we don’t

want to pay, we need to sacrifice something. The problem is already there and it will not simply go away if we ignore it. It is only the way that we solve it that the community can determine.

Your feedback is important in this. There are nearly thirty thousand people living in this area. We

will have forms (printed and on the web page) that can be returned. You can also simply write your own letter or ring up. We have set up special systems to allow us to track the letters and telephone calls we get. We will probably also have an independent survey undertaken to allow us to get to people who otherwise would not normally respond to council. All of this together will then drive the response from Council for what way to go into the future.

David Rawlings GENERAL MANAGER

23

Ap

pen

dix C

– Co

mm

un

ity Su

rvey: Service D

elivery (tem

plate)

25

Ap

pen

dix D

– Co

nsu

ltation

Evalu

ation

Your Council Our Community

Survey responses

7 received


Service V Rates

• All but one selected combination of service cuts and increases.

• One changed the wording of the three questions and ticked two options. Wanted a

review of services not a reduction, indicated wants lower management costs but still have services.


Acceptable Increase

6 responses received, 1 not provided


Acceptable Increase


Commentary Made

• Preferred Options:– Changed Wording to: Review in the level of service plus

management currently provided. – Changed wording to: A combination of review in services and an

increase in rates.• List of Services:

– Community Subsidies: Register as a tax deductable organisation– Customer Services: Cost Neutral– Visitor Information Centre: Higher standard. Lower cost– Art Gallery: Cost Neutral– Festivals/ Cultural Events: We don’t have any now!– Community safety: Could be lower if lobbying of state

government was more effective.


Commentary Made• List of Services (Cont)

– Street Lighting: Selected lower, with comment: Don’t know if there is way to do this.

– Cemetery Facilities: Utilise private facilities when available.– Saleyards: Move to cost neutral.– Beach Foreshores: Public Safety.– Parks: Less parks, higher standard.– Public Toilets: Less, of higher standard.– Sporting Grounds:

• User pays system (part/whole)• Less, of higher standard.

– Swimming Pools: Less, of higher standard.– Street Sweeping: Higher standard and community awareness.– Number of councillors: Wording of question is a disgrace. How can ask “what

are your thoughts”

when the answer is higher, same, lower?• Increase in rates

– Over period of time eg $3 x 3yrs, $2 x 3 yrs


Previously Raised Points

• Look at separate billing for water/sewer– While would increase the separation of the charges, involves more cost.– Current cost: $30,000, estimated cost: $56,000.

• Environmental Levy: Could this be used to fund officer?– Not yet put together full list of projects being funded.– $167,650 not allocated to repaying previous loan funded projects. Currently

used as seed funding for projects.– Loans start to drop off from 2014/15. Would allow funding of officer and still

retain same level of seed funding.• What is the cost of lighting on sporting fields

– Most lights not separately metered.– While complexes have had significant increases percentage wise, Each

complex bills less than $10,000 per annum for whole complex.– Crescent Head and SWR metered with swimming pools, so cannot clearly

identify lighting costs.• Review land for sale

– Review not undertaken, but seen as reasonable approach to list land.


Updated Acceptable Increase


Services that can be provided properly

Total

IncreaseTotal

ReduceInc or

RetainComm

Survey2008

Survey

Funding

Required

($'000)None

With

$2.44With

$3.50With

$4.00With

$4.50With

$5.00With

$5.50With

$6.00With

$6.50With

$7.00With

$7.50With

$8.00With

$8.50With

$9.00With

$9.500.0% 15.7% 22.5% 25.7% 28.9% 32.1% 28.9% 38.5% 41.8% 45.0% 48.2% 51.4% 54.6% 57.8% 61.0%

Ecological & Economic Sustainability Surv MIN AVG

Coastal Environment Management 14.3% 0.0% 100.0% 30 7 0 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Estuary Management 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 27 7 250 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Vegetation Management 14.3% 14.3% 85.7% 16 N/A 140 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Flood Management 71.4% 14.3% 85.7% 13 N/A 300 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Environmental Rehabilitation 14.3% 28.6% 71.4% 28 7 0 * * * T T T T T T T T T T T T

Provide Employment Opportunities 14.3% 14.3% 85.7% 24 11 350 * T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Strategic Land Use Planning 57.1% 14.3% 85.7% 23 10 600 * T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Environmental Health Inspection 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 25 N/A 175 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Onsite Sewerage Management 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 29 7 0 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Social, Culture & Community

Community Subsidies/Donations 0.0% 71.4% 28.6% 33 N/A 63 * * * * * * * * * * T

Youth Services 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 26 12 108 * * * * * T T T T T T T T T

Customer Services 14.3% 14.3% 85.7% 12 5 0 * T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Visitor Information Services 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 21 9 142 * * * * * * * * * * T T

Art Gallery 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 32 20 34 * * * T T T T T T T T T T T T

Festivals/Cultural Events 0.0% 42.9% 57.1% 31 N/A 61 * * * * * * T T T T T T T T

Library Services 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 11 6 960 * * T T T T T T T T T T T T TCommunity Safety & Crime

Prevention 28.6% 28.6% 71.4% 8 1 990* * * T T T T T T T T T T T T

Community Buildings/Halls 0.0% 57.1% 42.9% 15 16 843 * * * * * * * * * T T T T T



Total

IncreaseTotal

ReduceInc or

RetainComm

Survey2008

Survey

Funding

Required

($'000)

NoneWith

$2.44With

$3.50With

$4.00With

$4.50With

$5.00With

$5.50With

$6.00With

$6.50With

$7.00With

$7.50With

$8.00With

$8.50With

$9.00With

$9.50

0.0% 15.7% 22.5% 25.7% 28.9% 32.1% 28.9% 38.5% 41.8% 45.0% 48.2% 51.4% 54.6% 57.8% 61.0%

Provide Infrastructure and Services

Local Roads 85.7% 0.0% 100.0% 1 2 7,929 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Bridges 71.4% 14.3% 85.7% 2 2 740 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Cycleways and Footpaths 14.3% 57.1% 42.9% 20 8 201 * * * * * * * T T T T T T T

Street Lighting 0.0% 42.9% 57.1% 6 N/A 430 * * * * * * * T T T T T T T

Airport 42.9% 28.6% 71.4% 17 N/A 98 * * * T T T T T T T T T T T T

Cemetery Facilities 14.3% 28.6% 71.4% 5 N/A 28 * * * T T T T T T T T T T T T

Saleyards 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 22 21 0 * * T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Beach Foreshores (Lifesaving) 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 14 N/A 336 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Boat Ramps 0.0% 71.4% 28.6% 18 19 96 * * * * * * * * * * T T

Parks 0.0% 57.1% 42.9% 10 13 128 * * * * * * * * * T T T

Sporting Grounds 0.0% 71.4% 28.6% 7 15 481 * * * * * * * * * T

Public Toilets 14.3% 57.1% 42.9% 3 4 321 * * * * * * * * T T T T T T

Swimming Pools 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 9 14 762 * * * * * T T T T T T T T T

Street Sweeping 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 19 N/A 389 * * * * T T T T T T T T T T T

Stormwater and Flooding 71.4% 0.0% 100.0% 4 3 555 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T


Survey responses


Survey Results

• 166 survey responses– 97 from the initial survey– 28 from the Happynings Survey– 41 from web survey

• 17 letters

• 50 from previous consultations• 133 who had not attended.

• Sample size of response below optimal


Services Reduction V

More Rates


Importance of ServicesTotal

Increase

Inc or

Retain

Total

Reduce

2008

Survey

Required

Funding

('000)

Community Buildings/Halls 11.81% 70.83% 29.17% 16 336Vegetation Management 14.86% 70.27% 29.73% N/A LegislativeAirport 23.13% 68.03% 31.97% N/A 98Boat Ramps 9.33% 66.67% 33.33% 19 96Street Sweeping 8.28% 66.21% 33.79% N/A 389Cycleways and Footpaths 29.93% 65.99% 34.01% 8 201Visitor Information Services 8.22% 62.33% 37.67% 9 142Saleyards 11.49% 60.81% 39.19% 21 0Strategic Land Use Planning 15.86% 60.69% 39.31% 10 600Provide Employment Opportunities 20.14% 59.72% 40.28% 11 350Environmental Health Inspection 7.43% 57.43% 42.57% N/A LegislativeYouth Services 11.26% 54.97% 45.03% 12 108Estuary Management 7.48% 54.42% 45.58% 7 250Environmental Rehabilitation 12.84% 54.05% 45.95% 7 0Onsite Sewerage Management 3.47% 53.47% 46.53% 7 LegislativeCoastal Environment Management 8.72% 52.35% 47.65% 7 0Festivals/Cultural Events 12.24% 46.94% 53.06% N/A 61Art Gallery 3.42% 40.41% 59.59% 20 34Community Subsidies/Donations 5.41% 37.84% 62.16% N/A 63

Total

Increase

Inc or

Retain

Total

Reduce

2008

Survey

Required

Funding

('000)

Local Roads 64.90% 98.68% 1.32% 2 10,829

Bridges 42.76% 97.93% 2.07% 2 740

Public Toilets 22.15% 91.28% 8.72% 4 321

Stormwater and Flooding 27.21% 90.48% 9.52% 3 555

Cemetery Facilities 9.46% 83.78% 16.22% N/A 28

Street Lighting 13.70% 83.56% 16.44% N/A 430

Sporting Grounds 7.38% 77.85% 22.15% 15 481

Community Safety & Crime

Prevention 40.14% 77.46% 22.54% 1 128

Swimming Pools 9.40% 77.18% 22.82% 14 762

Parks 10.74% 77.18% 22.82% 13 990

Library Services 8.16% 74.83% 25.17% 6 960

Customer Services 11.64% 71.23% 28.77% 5 843

Flood Management 15.75% 71.23% 28.77% N/A 300

Beach Foreshores (Surf Lifesaving) 8.05% 71.14% 28.86% N/A 0


Who is willing to Cut WhatService Cuts Combined Rates Increase

10 Community Subsidies/donations 75.0% 14 Art Gallery 70.7% 14 Art Gallery 27.3%15 Festivals/Cultural Events 63.6% 15 Festivals/Cultural Events 69.0% 23 Airport 22.2%14 Art Gallery 61.8% 10 Community Subsidies/donations 66.7% 1 Coastal Environmental Management 20.0%6 Provide Employment Opportunities 59.3% 11 Youth Services 47.6% 2 Estuary Management 20.0%11 Youth Services 58.9% 5 Environmental Rehabilitation 46.3% 5 Environmental Rehabilitation 18.2%1 Coastal Environmental Management 56.4% 1 Coastal Environmental Management 42.9% 20 Bridges 11.1%5 Environmental Rehabilitation 56.4% 2 Estuary Management 42.9% 10 Community Subsidies/donations 10.0%2 Estuary Management 54.5% 8 Environmental Health Inspection 42.9% 7 Strategic Land Use 10.0%9 Onsite Sewerage Management 51.8% 25 Saleyards 42.9% 19 Local Roads 10.0%8 Environmental Health Inspection 50.0% 9 Onsite Sewerage Management 42.1% 15 Festivals/Cultural Events 9.1%12 Customer Services 48.2% 7 Strategic Land Use 38.1% 6 Provide Employment Opportunities 9.1%13 Visitor Information Services 48.2% 21 Cycleway and Footpaths 38.1% 32 Street Sweeping 9.1%25 Saleyards 48.2% 32 Street Sweeping 35.0% 21 Cycleway and Footpaths 9.1%7 Strategic Land Use 45.5% 16 Library Services 34.9% 11 Youth Services 0.0%27 Boat Ramps 44.6% 13 Visitor Information Services 33.3% 9 Onsite Sewerage Management 0.0%3 Vegetation Management 43.6% 6 Provide Employment Opportunities 31.0% 8 Environmental Health Inspection 0.0%18 Community Buildings/Halls 40.7% 23 Airport 31.0% 12 Customer Services 0.0%32 Street Sweeping 38.2% 27 Boat Ramps 30.2% 13 Visitor Information Services 0.0%23 Airport 37.5% 18 Community Buildings/Halls 28.6% 25 Saleyards 0.0%26 Beach Foreshores 37.5% 31 Swimming Pools 28.6% 27 Boat Ramps 0.0%4 Floodplain Management 34.5% 29 Sporting Grounds 25.6% 3 Vegetation Management 0.0%28 Parks 32.1% 26 Beach Foreshores 23.3% 18 Community Buildings/Halls 0.0%16 Library Services 31.5% 17 Community Safety & Crime Prevention 22.0% 26 Beach Foreshores 0.0%21 Cycleway and Footpaths 30.9% 4 Floodplain Management 21.4% 4 Floodplain Management 0.0%17 Community Safety & Crime Prevention 28.3% 34 Recycling 21.4% 28 Parks 0.0%29 Sporting Grounds 25.0% 28 Parks 20.9% 16 Library Services 0.0%34 Recycling 24.6% 3 Vegetation Management 19.0% 17 Community Safety & Crime Prevention 0.0%31 Swimming Pools 21.4% 24 Cemetery Facilities 16.7% 29 Sporting Grounds 0.0%22 Street Lighting 21.1% 12 Customer Services 14.3% 34 Recycling 0.0%24 Cemetery Facilities 14.0% 22 Street Lighting 11.9% 31 Swimming Pools 0.0%33 Stormwater and Flooding 12.5% 30 Public Toilets 7.1% 22 Street Lighting 0.0%30 Public Toilets 10.9% 33 Stormwater and Flooding 4.8% 24 Cemetery Facilities 0.0%19 Local Roads 0.0% 19 Local Roads 0.0% 33 Stormwater and Flooding 0.0%20 Bridges 0.0% 20 Bridges 0.0% 30 Public Toilets 0.0%


Acceptable Increase


Main Options

• Continue to underfund all services– Gradually provide worse and worse services.

• Provide what services we can properly– Allocate funding until resources are all allocated.– Balance of services not undertaken

• Provide reduced services in some areas– Most services seen as important, may have to sacrifice some service level to

keep range of other lower important service to some extent.

• Provide reduced services but also increase rates to allow for services considered required.

– Select the level of funding that will provide the services the councillors believe

should be provided.

• Base on available today or available after loans paid out with no new loans



` Community ResponseFunding

Required

($'000)

Today After Loans Paid Out

Total

Increase

Inc or

Retain

Total

Reduce

2008

Survey

No

Above

NoneWith

$2.44

With

$3.50

With

$4.00

With

$4.50

With

$5.00

0.0% 15.7% 22.5% 25.7% 28.9% 32.1%Ecological & Economic Sustainability

Coastal Environment Management 8.7% 52.3% 47.7% 7 0 * * * * * * *Estuary Management 7.5% 54.4% 45.6% 7 250 * * * * * * *Vegetation Management 14.9% 70.3% 29.7% N/A 140 * * * * * * *Flood Management 15.8% 71.2% 28.8% N/A 300 * * * * *Environmental Rehabilitation 12.8% 54.1% 45.9% 7 0 * * * * * * *Provide Employment Opportunities 20.1% 59.7% 40.3% 11 350 * *Strategic Land Use Planning 15.9% 60.7% 39.3% 10 600 * * *Environmental Health Inspection 7.4% 57.4% 42.6% N/A 175 * * * * * * *Onsite Sewerage Management 3.5% 53.5% 46.5% 7 0 * * * * * * *Social, Culture & Community

Community Subsidies/Donations 5.4% 37.8% 62.2% N/A 63 *Youth Services 11.3% 55.0% 45.0% 12 108 * * * * * *Customer Services 11.6% 71.2% 28.8% 5 0 * * * * *Visitor Information Services 8.2% 62.3% 37.7% 9 142 * * * * * * *Art Gallery 3.4% 40.4% 59.6% 20 34 * *Festivals/Cultural Events 12.2% 46.9% 53.1% N/A 61 * *Library Services 8.2% 74.8% 25.2% 6 960 * * * * * *

Community Safety & Crime Prevention 40.1% 77.5% 22.5% 1 990 * * * * * *Community Buildings/Halls 11.8% 70.8% 29.2% 16 843 * * * * *



Community Response

Funding

Required

($'000)

Today After Loans Paid Out

Total

Increase

Inc or

Retain

Total

Reduce

2008

Survey

No

Above

NoneWith

$2.44

With

$3.50

With

$4.00

With

$4.50

With

$5.00

0.0% 15.7% 22.5% 25.7% 28.9% 32.1%

Provide Infrastructure and Services

Local Roads 64.9% 98.7% 1.3% 2 7,929 * * * * * * *Bridges 42.8% 97.9% 2.1% 2 740 * * * * * * *Cycleways and Footpaths 29.9% 66.0% 34.0% 8 201 * * * *Street Lighting 13.7% 83.6% 16.4% N/A 430 * * * * * * *Airport 23.1% 68.0% 32.0% N/A 98 * * * * *Cemetery Facilities 9.5% 83.8% 16.2% N/A 28 * * * * * * *Saleyards 11.5% 60.8% 39.2% 21 0 * * * * * * *Beach Foreshores (Lifesaving) 8.1% 71.1% 28.9% N/A 336 * * * * * * *Boat Ramps 9.3% 66.7% 33.3% 19 96 * * * * *Parks 10.7% 77.2% 22.8% 13 128 * * * * * *Sporting Grounds 7.4% 77.9% 22.1% 15 481 * * * * * *Public Toilets 22.1% 91.3% 8.7% 4 321 * * * * * * *Swimming Pools 9.4% 77.2% 22.8% 14 762 * * * * * *Street Sweeping 8.3% 66.2% 33.8% N/A 389 * * * *Stormwater and Flooding 27.2% 90.5% 9.5% 3 555 * * * * * * *


Service Changes

• $17.1 million available to allocate• 12% attributed to administration (leaves $15 million)• Start at regulatory requirements

– Councillors: $278,000– Planning: $350,000– Building: $65,000– Regulatory Enforcement: $200,000– Noxious Weed Control: $157,000– Emergency Services Levies/Costs: $265,000

• Cost $1.3 million (Leaves $13.7 million)

• Commitment to loan repayments: $3,820,000• Leaves Discretionary Funds of $9.9 million


Funding Important Services

• Roads & Bridges:– Sealed Roads: $7.9million– Unsealed Roads: $2.6 million– Bridges: $730,000– Kerb & Gutter: $235,000– Total: $11.5 million

• Funding Streams: $2.9mill – So net resources $8.6million (Leaves $1.3 million)

• Focus on diverting funds to this area whenever available (First Priority)


Roads – Can we cut

• Funding per kilometre only sustainable under certain levels.

– Able to reduce annual costs by $97,800 by accepting rougher sealed roads

• Can reduce the road network that we maintain– Maintain less roads: Saving of around $10,000 per km– Need to create equity in providing services.

• Interim measure until loans paid out can be to close down bridges where alternative route exists once need

significant maintenance.


Road Funding ‐ SealedScenario (Years) Annualised Lifetime Costs External Impacts

Option Reconstruct Reseal Reconstruct Reseal Mtce Total Cost Average Roughness

Residents Costs

Residents Cost

Impact

Adj Total

1 20 8 9,311,750 1,371,796 142,562 10,826,108 1.50 2,014,856 -154,981 10,671,1272 20 10 9,311,750 1,134,408 172,191 10,618,349 1.56 2,029,224 -140,612 10,477,7373 20 12 9,311,750 919,024 206,206 10,436,980 1.62 2,045,973 -123,863 10,313,1174 50 8 3,724,700 2,021,183 2,239,633 7,985,517 2.11 2,169,837 0 7,985,5175 50 10 3,724,700 1,744,448 2,418,555 7,887,703 2.20 2,192,209 22,373 7,910,0756 50 12 3,724,700 1,425,991 2,808,250 7,958,940 2.24 2,204,112 34,276 7,993,2167 50 15 3,724,700 1,107,534 3,019,788 7,852,022 2.50 2,269,153 99,317 7,951,3388 70 8 2,660,500 2,625,110 3,242,963 8,528,573 2.30 2,220,113 50,276 8,578,8509 70 10 2,660,500 2,260,180 3,478,159 8,398,839 2.30 2,220,202 50,366 8,449,20510 70 12 2,660,500 1,936,636 3,725,757 8,322,893 2.46 2,260,493 90,657 8,413,54911 70 15 2,660,500 1,422,235 3,986,140 8,068,875 2.56 2,284,882 115,045 8,183,92112 100 8 1,862,350 3,229,037 4,546,792 9,638,178 2.48 2,264,627 94,791 9,732,96913 100 10 1,862,350 2,646,980 4,847,826 9,357,155 2.57 2,288,345 118,508 9,475,66314 100 12 1,862,350 1,936,636 5,163,175 8,962,161 2.73 2,328,566 158,729 9,120,89015 100 15 1,862,350 1,736,937 5,493,223 9,092,510 2.68 2,316,607 146,770 9,239,281


Road Funding ‐ UnsealedScenario (Years) Annualised Costs Relative

RoughnessExternal Impacts

Option

Resheet Depth (mm)

Resheet Time

(Years)

Grading Freq

Grading Gen Mtce Resheeting Total

Residents Costs

Residents Cost

Impact

Adj Total

1 100 3.7 6 1,368,720 500,000 2,063,943 3,932,663 7.63 3,578,475 -94,373 3,838,2902 150 6.3 6 1,368,720 500,000 1,324,363 3,193,083 7.63 3,578,475 -94,373 3,098,7103 180 7.9 6 1,368,720 500,000 1,444,760 3,313,480 7.63 3,578,475 -94,373 3,219,1074 200 8.9 6 1,368,720 500,000 1,912,182 3,780,902 7.63 3,578,475 -94,373 3,686,5295 250 11.6 6 1,368,720 500,000 1,805,950 3,674,670 7.63 3,578,475 -94,373 3,580,2976 100 3.7 12 684,360 600,000 2,063,943 3,348,303 8 3,672,848 0 3,348,3037 150 6.3 12 684,360 600,000 1,324,363 2,608,723 8 3,672,848 0 2,608,7238 180 7.9 12 684,360 600,000 1,444,760 2,729,120 8 3,672,848 0 2,729,1209 200 8.9 12 684,360 600,000 1,912,182 3,196,542 8 3,672,848 0 3,196,54210 250 11.6 12 684,360 600,000 1,805,950 3,090,310 8 3,672,848 0 3,090,310



• Public Toilets– Believe that can provide service people want better

with less number of toilets (over 30 currently). Reduced number of toilets will allow cash to be redirected to upgrading the remaining, giving people

service they expect.– Capital Replacement: $40,500– Regular Maintenance: $50,000– Vandalism: $5,000– Cleaning: $225,000

• (Required: $320,500)



• Flood Mitigation: Provision of infrastructure to minimise impacts of flooding

– May consider requesting those with most direct benefit (eg

rural area protected) pay the cost rather than over entire rate base.

– Capital Replacement: $785,000– General Cleaning & Maintenance: $30,000 current.– Grant funding likely of $260,000

• (Required: $555,000)

• Stormwater: Only capacity to reduce costs is to allow litter to enter waterways or provide less stormwater collection.

– Capital Replacement: $335,000– General Cleaning & Maintenance: $70,000– Gross Pollutant Traps: $50,000

• (Required: $455,000)


Funding Important Services• Cemetery: Full cost of constructing new cemetery in the future not incorporated

as rely on private providers coming into the market to reduce demand for plots.– Potential to increase direct charges to make fully user pays.– As alternatives become available net cost may rise significantly.– (Currently: $28,000)

• Street lighting:

Could revise hours lights operated to reduce costs. 4 hour reduction per night

should equate to half costs. Likely that per unit charge would be increased to cover

replacements costs.

– (Current: $430,000 ‐

3.7% or $29.78 (no new poles))

• Sporting Fields:

Review fields mown or maintained and frequency. Clubs and users to provide for greater portion of the upkeep of all facilities. No free lighting

provided.– $105,000 capital replacement.– $375,000 running costs.

• (Required: $481,000 – 4.1% or $33.31)



• Community Safety and Crime Prevention– Currently only allocate $53,000 per annum for limited

coordination/lobbying role.– Includes Graffiti Busters support– (Required: $128,000 – 1.1% or $8.86)– Considered that Youth Services is linked to this aspect of

operations and thus should allocate $108,000 as part of this area.

(Required: $236,000 – 2.0% or $16.34)

• Environmental Levy– Council has previously determined to rate the community for

environmental projects. It is considered that the Council has to continue to provide the support funding for the levy program.

(Current: $250,000 – 2.1% or $17.31)


Things we can do without rates

• Beach Foreshores: This is the lifesaving services. Currently funded by Caravan Park revenue so

would continue while that source of funds is available.

• Saleyards:

Large portion of the costs relate to loans, which could not be gotten out of if the saleyards are closed. Potential to ensure that run

so that the facility does not have to rely on debt and thus make cost neutral or profitable.



• Swimming Pools: Currently provide services at Crescent Head, Gladstone, Kempsey, SWR.

– Only way to reduce budget is to reduce operating hours or close some centres.– Capital Requirements: $150,000– Maintenance & Running $552,000 – (Required: $762,000 – 6.5% or $52.77)

• Parks: Still able to maintain the reserves that are linked to the caravan parks, allowing for ongoing maintenance of coastal reserves in Crescent

Head, Hat Head,

South West Rocks, Stuarts Point without any rates funding. – Other reserves and Council land could be reviewed for levels of service provided.– (Currently: $990,000 – 8.5% or $68.57)

• Libraries:

Provide services at Kempsey, SWR, Stuarts Point.– Would have to reduce where services are offered or hours of operation. May be able to

reduce some service levels to provide service at lower level.

– Capital: $80,000– Net Running Costs: $880,000– (Required: $960,000 – 8.2% or $66.49)



AT THIS STAGE FUNDING IS EXHAUSTED UNDER

Nil increase

SCENARIO



• Customer Services: Ways to reduce cost include longer wait times and lower response levels. Already criticised for service levels at the moment. Could have less

involvement in community events, but may not impact greatly on costs.

– (Currently: $843,000 – 7.2% or $58.38)

• Flood Management: Minimal impact as resources not currently available to do more than try to fix up

existing infrastructure. Not enter into this service until funds fully for higher priorities.

– (Required: $300,000 – 2.6% or $20.78)


Funding Important Services• Public Buildings:

May have to require users of facilities to take on more

responsibility for funding capital and maintenance until funds become available as loans paid down.

– Capital: $200,000– Maintenance & Outgoings: $80,000 maintenance budget required based on 1%

of asset value. Budget indications are that due to condition of buildings this optimal benchmark could not be met. Thus retain budget of $136,000.

– (Required: $336,000 – 2.9% or $23.27)

• Vegetation Management: Noxious Weed Control subject to 50% grant funding up to a specific limit, after which becomes 100% council

costs.

– Could review the level of support, but not a large budget to start with.– (Current: $116,000 – 1.0% or $8.03)

• Airport:

(Capital: $60,000, Ongoing $38,000 = $98,000 – 0.8% or $6.79)


Funding Important Service

• Boat Ramps:

Currently reviewing the number of ramps provided and what is required.

Significant investment likely to bring up to standard.

– Review of what is provided is likely to show can meet most needs with much fewer number of

ramps. – (Required: Capital $63,000 and operating of

$33,000 = $96,000 – 0.8% or $6.65)




Overall average Increase of $2.44

SCENARIO


Funding Important Service

• Street Sweeping:

Can review where the street sweeping is carried out and restrict only to main commercial centres.

– (Current: $389,000 – 3.5% or $26.94)

• Cycleways

and Footpaths: Can reduce where footpaths or cycleways

are provided. Would be a longer lead time before the

impact became evident. Would leave in place until became a risk and then remove. No footpath cleaning would be undertaken.

– (Capital: $201,000 – 1.7% or $13.92)

• Visitor Information Services:

Could move to position that the businesses that benefit from the tourism service should fund the

facility.– (Capital $30,000, Operational: $112,000 = $142,000 – 1.2% or $9.83)





SCENARIO



• Strategic Land Use Planning:

The council could determine a longer term frame for development of strategic planning outcome,

meaning longer periods between reviews of planning direction.

– (Required: $ 600,000 – 5.1% or 41.55)





SCENARIO


Funding Important Services• Provide Employment Opportunities:

People would go

directly to relevant staff for their needs. Not provide industry support or go to industry based events to

promote the region. – (Current: $350,000 – 3.0% or $24.24)

• Youth Services:

Seen as an area that strongly assists with the community safety and crime prevention as by

providing activities for youth it provides an alternative outlet. Could drop back to simply giving some money

to another agency to provide some type of services.– (Current: $108,000 – 0.9% or $7.48)



• Estuary Management: The majority of works (improvements in vegetation and disturbed/degraded areas) are under taken as a result of grants, but this will drop off because there will be no

funding for an environmental officer to seek funding or resources to implement grants received.

– (Currently relies on Coastal Management Budget)

• Environmental Rehabilitation: As with the above, without resources plans for the management of the environment and

remediation will not be undertaken.

• Coastal Environment Management:

The funding works as seed funding to access other grants. There is not seen to be scope for cutting without effectively ending the service.

– (Current: $250,000 – 2.1% or $17.31)



TO FUND ALL SERVICES WITH MORE THAN 50% WANTING TO RETAIN



Services wanted by less than 50%

• Festivals/Cultural Events: Council will not be involved in the development or support for the development of any events or

supporting the local band. (Currently: $61,000 –

0.5% or $4.22

• Art Gallery: Council will no longer support the running of an art gallery. The space would be expected to revert to community hall

space. (Currently: $34,000 – 0.3% or $2.35)

• Community Subsidies/Donations:

Community groups will not receive rate assistance or donations towards activities. Medical scholarships will be cut. Funding will be cut for supporting Work for

the Dole schemes, Volunteers programs and sharps programs support. Donations of awards to schools will cease. Civic events

will

not be held. (Currently: $63,000 – 0.5% or $4.36)


Risk

Likelihood Consequences

Insignificant1

Minor 2

Moderate 3

Major4

Catastrophic5

Almost Certain A

Moderate High High Extreme Extreme

Likely B

Moderate Moderate High High Extreme

PossibleC

Low Moderate High High High

Unlikely D

Low Low Moderate Moderate High

Rare E

Low Low Moderate Moderate High

FutureCurrent\

Low Moderate High Extreme

Low 0 0 0 0Moderate 25 0 0 0High 60 40 0 0Extreme 100 80 60 0


Nuisance/ServiceabilityImpact Description

Very High Prevents people from being able to live life without significant detrimental damage to their health and wellbeing over a medium

to longer term period.

High Has significant impacts on the quality of life of people in a way that will have a negative impact over a medium period of time.

Moderate Temporary reversible impact on quality of life, localised and can be quickly remediated.

Low Some minor adverse affects that are short term and do not create a lasting impact.

FutureCurrent\

Low Moderate High Very High

Low 0 60 80 100

Moderate 0 0 40 60

High 0 0 0 25

Very High 0 0 0 0


Usage

The bands used are:

• <10• 11 – 50• 51 ‐200• 201 – 500• 501 –

1,000

• 1,001 – 5,000• 5,001 –

10,000

• 10,001 –

15,000• 15,001 –

20,000

• > 20,000


Options for the Community?

5.4.4 Page 1 of 6

KEMPSEY SHIRE COUNCIL

HARDSHIP RELIEF TO RATEPAYERS Procedure 5.4.4

Policy No. and title 5.4 Financial Management and Control Policy

Procedure 5.4.4 Hardship Relief to Ratepayers

Version 1

Date Adopted

1 OBJECTIVES

To provide relief to those ratepayers who are experiencing genuine financial difficulties in paying their rates and charges. To detail the eligibility criteria and assistance available to ratepayers suffering hardship in paying rates and charges.

To provide staff with the criteria to determine "Applications by Ratepayers Suffering Hardship".

2 STATEMENT

Rates and charges covered by this procedure include the ordinary rate, annual domestic waste management charges, water and sewer access and usage charges. This procedure reaffirms the objectives and processes embedded within Council’s Recovery of Unpaid Rates and Charges Procedure (5.4.1).

3 THE HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE PROVISIONS OFFERED ARE DETAILED BELOW:

3.1 Hardship resulting from certain valuation changes or a special rate

variation:

a) The hardship provisions of Section 601 only apply when Council makes and levies an ordinary rate on a valuation having a later base date than any valuation previously used.

b) Hardship provisions may apply when Council makes and levies an ordinary rate which is a result of a special rate variation approval.

c) The ratepayer must show that they will suffer substantial financial

hardship if required to pay the rates and charges when they fall due.

d) The ratepayer will be required to complete a Hardship Rate Relief Application Form in order to have their application assessed. All information contained within an application shall be treated as being "strictly confidential".

3.2 Assistance Available

a) The relief shall only be considered in respect of the amount of the

increase in rates attributed to the use of the new valuation or special rate variation.

5.4.4 Page 2 of 6

b) Rates will not be waived or reduced, the relief shall only be to defer the payment of the whole or any part of the increase by either:

i) Deferring the payment of the amount of the increase to an agreed

time not being later than twelve months from the date of the application determination and write off (waiver) interest charges in respect of the deferral in accordance with Section 567 Local Government Act (NSW) 1993.

ii) Enter into a periodical payment arrangement in accordance with

clause 4.1 and the waiving of interest charges in accordance with Section 564 Local Government Act (NSW) 1993.

3.3 Assessment Criteria

a) The property must be categorised residential or farmland for rating

purposes. Where the property is categorised as business ratepayers may enter into periodic payment arrangements in accordance with Councils Recovery of Unpaid Debts, Rates and Charges procedure.

b) In the case of new valuations, the increase in land value must be

greater than the residential shire wide average increase or

c) The increase in ordinary rates levied as a result of a special rate variation must be greater than the applicable category average increase.

d) The ratepayer must own and occupy the property as their principal

place of abode. e) The ratio of ordinary rates payable to gross household income must be

greater than 3.6% (being the % of the average ordinary rate discounted by the pension concession available over the gross annual income from the single aged pension).

f) When assessing applications Council will consider personnel and family

circumstances impacting the ratepayers ability in meeting their financial obligations.

g) Hardship Applications are required to be submitted within 30 days of

the service of the rate notice. h) Relief under this part is only available in the first year that the new land

values and or special rate variation are applied used in the levying of the ordinary rate.

4 HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE - OTHER

4.1 Assistance by Periodical Payment Arrangements

a) Section 564 of the Local Government Act provides that Council may

enter into a formal agreement with a ratepayer eligible for alternative periodical payments for due and payable rates and charges. A periodical payment agreement will be offered in accordance with Council’s

Recovery of Unpaid Debts, Rates and Charges Procedure. Council may write off accrued interest in accordance with section 567 Local Government Act 1993 where the ratepayer can demonstrate that the payment of the accrued interest would cause the person hardship.

5.4.4 Page 3 of 6

4.2 Assessment Criteria

a) The property must be categorised residential or farmland for rating

purposes. b) The ratepayer must own and occupy the property as their principal

place of abode. c) The ratio of ordinary rates payable to gross household income must be

greater than 3.6% (being the % of the average ordinary rate discounted by the pension concession available over the gross annual income from the single aged pension).

d) The ratepayer will be required to complete a Hardship Rate Relief

Application Form in order to have their application assessed. All information contained within an application shall be treated as being "strictly confidential".

5 DETERMINATION OF APPLICATIONS

a) A Rates Review Committee, comprising the Director Corporate Management,

Manager Financial Accounting, and Senior Rates Clerk, shall consider each case on its particular merits, and make a determination as to:- i) Whether relief is to be granted or not, and

ii) Where relief is to be granted, the form of relief.

b) Relief shall not be granted except in very extreme circumstances. c) Following the determination of the application, Council shall advise the

ratepayers in writing of the outcome. d) If the ratepayer is dissatisfied with the decision, the ratepayer may request,

within seven (7) days, that the decision be reviewed by the Rates Review Committee and shall state any additional reasons for the review.

6 OTHER ASSISTANCE

Council’s Recovery of Unpaid Debts, Rates and Charges procedure provides the following assistance to ratepayers who are experiencing difficulties in settling their accounts:- Pensioners

Properties that are subject to a pension rebate will be granted until the 31 May to settle their current rate account on an interest free basis. Payment Arrangements

Ratepayers and customers may enter into a mutually agreeable payment arrangement as set out in Council’s Recovery of Unpaid Debts, Rates and Charges procedure in order to settle their accounts.

VARIATION

Council reserves the right to review, vary or revoke this procedure which will be reviewed periodically to ensure it is relevant and appropriate.

5.4.4 Page 4 of 6

HARDSHIP RATE RELIEF APPLICATION FORM

Approved by the Director General of the Department of Local Government, in accordance with clause 135 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 under the

Local Government Act 1993

APPLICATION FOR HARDSHIP RATE RELIEF FOR THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE YEAR COMMENCING 1 JULY 20__

*please answer all questions relevant to you using block letters and ticking appropriate boxes.

Assessment No. ___________________________________________________________ I, ______________________________________________________________________

(Full name in block letters)

of_______________________________________________________________________ (Address)

Telephone number__________________________________ apply for a concession on the basis of financial hardship. Property Description (Lot/Plan) _______________________________________________ (office use only) 1 Do you receive any pensions or benefits? Yes No If yes, please provide type of pension and amount received per fortnight. Pension: _____________________________ Amount: _______________________ 2 Do you have a current Pensioner Concession Card issued by the Commonwealth

Government? Yes No PCC No. ______________________________ Date of Grant __________________ 3 Have you claimed a pensioner concession on any other property this year? Yes No If yes, state the address of the other property ______________________________ 4 Is this property your sole or principal place of living? Yes No The property for which I am claiming has been my sole/principal place of living since ___________________________________________________________________ 5 I am liable for the payment of rates and charges on this property, together with

others as listed below. (If no others, write “SOLE OWNER”) ____________________

5.4.4 Page 5 of 6

Please provide details of all “other” persons indicated in Question 5. (ALL OWNERS other

than the applicant should be listed, including your spouse):

Name PCC

Holder Y/N

Pension No Date of Grant

Relationship

to me (e.g. spouse, father,

co-owner etc)

Resident

of Property

Y/N

% of ownership

Evidence of joint ownership is attached / has been provided to council previously (circle whichever is applicable).

6 Is the property owned as shares in a company title? Yes No If you do not own or rent the property, please explain why you are liable to pay the

rates _____________________________________________________________ 7 Are there people living at the property other than those listed at Question 5? Yes No 8 Please indicate who these people are?

Self Spouse Children (State ages ____________) Boarders Relatives Other (please specify)

9 Do you own (either fully or partially) any other land or buildings? Yes No If yes, list addresses. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

10 How many children do you support? ________________State ages _____________ 11 What is the cause of financial hardship? ___________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

5.4.4 Page 6 of 6

12 How long have you been experiencing hardship? ____________________________ 13 Please state gross weekly amount received in dollars and cents from the following

sources of income: a) Pensions and benefits $______________

b) Compensation, superannuation insurance or $______________

retirement benefits

c) Spouse’s income $______________

d) Income of other residents of the property $______________ e) Casual/part-time employment $______________ f) Family allowance $______________ g) Interest from banks/credit unions/building societies $______________

14 Please provide name and current balance of all bank, credit union or building society accounts held by you. ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

15 Please state details of fortnightly outgoings.

Outgoing Owed to Amount

Rent/Home Loan

Other mortgages

Personal loans/Hire purchase

Health Costs

Council rates and charges

Please attach a separate page with any other relevant information you feel may

assist your application.

I hereby declare that the information provided is true and correct. Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: ______________

Council Policy No. CPOL-87: Community Engagement · 2012. 3. 6. · value out of each process. It...

Documents

Transcript of Council Policy No. CPOL-87: Community Engagement · 2012. 3. 6. · value out of each process. It...