Sign In
or Create a new account
How important is it to you that we fund the Waverley Together 2 vision?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Waverley Together 2 is the strategic plan developed by Council in consultation with the community. It sets out the community's vision of what life should be like in Waverley by 2022.
For a summary of Waverley Together 2, including the community's vision and targets for the next 12 years, click on the link below, What is Waverley Together 2?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to
document:
What is Waverley Together 2? (451.031 KB)
Comment 1 11 Aug 2010, 8:28 PM
not important.
Comment 2 13 Aug 2010, 6:55 PM
Most of the "Service Plus" functions (and some of the existing services) should not proceed and therefore additional funding is not required. Small Government is good Government.
Comment 2.1 24 Oct 2010, 12:28 AM
Local government’s role is primarily ‘roads, rubbish and rates’. Building and maintaining local infrastructure and keeping the municipality clean; to provide a clean and safe environment for the local community. These ‘functions’ are gazetted as law into the local government act.
Welfare, housing, education and other cultural services are ‘functions’ that should generally be provided by state or federal governments; they can and do deliver these services more cost effectively than councils due to the economies of scale these larger branches of government can obtain. Waverley residents are already paying for these functions through general taxation. Waverley council inefficiently duplicating these functions that are already provided by state or federal governments, amounts to double taxation and over servicing.
Comment 2.2 31 Oct 2010, 4:47 PM
“How important is it to you that we fund the Waverley Together 2 vision?”
The Waverley Together 2 vision is of no importance.
Especially considering Council has forecast it cannot adequately fund the extra $125m needed for existing services for the next decade. In light of the existing services funding shortfall, implementing the enhanced services of Waverley Together 2 vision, at an addition $90m to the $125m shortfall, would be fiscally irresponsible.
Comment 2.2.1 31 Oct 2010, 5:36 PM
I agree with Peter Lalor and am very worried about the idea that Waverley Council could charge old time residents for all these extra services that we do not want. I cannot afford for my rates to increase. Electricity and water charges are making things very difficult as it is. It should be the responsibility of Council to try to help residents who can't afford for rates to go up. Bondi was a working man's suburb and we should not be forced out by the rich who have come lately.
Comment 3 15 Aug 2010, 9:12 AM
I am totally shocked by Waverley Together 2 and to learn Council thinks that the matters contained in that report are its responsibility. I believe the following items in WT2 should NOT be Council's concern:
- community safety
- community culture
- health and quality of life
- the local economy
- modes of transport
- greenhouse gas emissions reduction
- shifts in preferences for transport
- infrastructure and asset renewal
- affordable living, particularly in housing
Council must focus on the basic functions and not see itself as social engineers building or shaping our society. Spending rate payer money on these issues is really not appropriate when the streets and roads are in the state they are.
Comment 3.1 15 Aug 2010, 1:41 PM
I'm in full agreement with these comments. When I read that the benefits of Service Plus include upgrading footpaths it suggests to me that somewhere along the way the Council has lost track of its priorities. I would have expected that footpaths are a core responsibility.
Project Manager, Community Engagement Comment 3.1.1 Funding Services 2022 Team 17 Aug 2010, 9:00 PM
Hi AJL, David and QPR2010.
The full extent of Council’s responsibilities is often a surprise to our ratepayers. Not only have our services grown in response to very strong community demands, a number of these services have been passed onto us by other levels of government. We are delivering these services because they are asked for and other levels of government or the private sector will not step in to fill the gap. The services we have outlined in our “Service Plus” section of the funding proposal are largely based on community preferences and expectations expressed during our Waverley Together more…
Comment 3.2 17 Aug 2010, 4:58 PM
David - don't you think its important that Council fixes up streets and footpaths? I'm pretty sure that's what infrastructure and asset renewal is all about. I actually think that this is one of any Council's most important responsibilities.
Comment 3.3 13 Oct 2010, 2:31 PM
I agree with David Owens, these are services that are properly the remit of State Government, not local Government and it is clear that Waverley Council has adopted an expansionist policy that now needs to be wound back and Council needs to focus on core services, not have ventured into areas which should not be funded by local rates.
Comment 3.4 31 Oct 2010, 5:37 PM
I also agree with David Owens. Please do not increase rates.
Comment 4 16 Aug 2010, 7:42 AM
Its not important that council is responsible for funding a lot of the services described.
Comment 5 22 Aug 2010, 11:49 AM
I suppose if Council can't fund our vision, then it would be up to the state government. We'd still have to finance it and look at their track record. Millions wasted on the Metro and nothing spent on extending the Eastern suburbs railway. We've still got a station designed as an intermediate station (Bondi Junction) trying to cope with the crowds when trains terminate there.
Comment 5.1 13 Oct 2010, 2:33 PM
I find this the most bizarre logic. Are you saying Council have a better track record in social housing, disability and transport infrastructure than the State? I seriously doubt that. How is it relevant to the discussion to mention Eastern Suburbs railway. Or are you saying the State should hand over responsibility to Council's for state managed services?
Comment 5.1.1 13 Oct 2010, 2:56 PM
No, i'm saying people are trying to hand over council functions to the State government and was illustrating one of their many failures that has an adverse effect on our community. And that's not just State labour. The State Liberals did no better.
State shouldn't hand over anything to council, they should hand everything over to Federal government.
Comment 5.1.1.1 13 Oct 2010, 3:29 PM
I see what you are saying. I have no faith in State Governments to deliver, maybe this is product of recent history but I'd still prefer State public servants to manage services like housing and disabilitiy services than council.
Comment 6 23 Aug 2010, 1:28 PM
The Council should concentrate in core issue and forget about little things the only a couple of people really want and need . The are lots of duplication and lots of issues that should be addressed at STATE level .
Also in your pamphet "the rates quoted" are not inclusive of the levy that we pay for " Garbage colletion" HOWEVER this is one of the "services" you listed as services provided. Then the rates should be inclusive of this service NOT ADDED to the "rate itself".
Comment 7 22 Sep 2010, 12:04 PM
It’s my strong view that Waverley Together 2 is a flawed document, structured to facilitate the rates rise debate. It is not the document we need for the next decade. It’s not the strategy I want to help fund. Keen readers of the NSW Government’s ‘Planning and reporting manual for local government in NSW 2010’ will realise that Council, without giving a reason, chose the ‘basic’ option rather than the ‘comprehensive’ alternative for the strategic plan Waverley Together 2. Bewilderingly, Council then presented a plan with two sets of themes, linked by a somewhat ambiguous relationship, and without any indication more…
Project Manager, Community Engagement Comment 7.1 Funding Services 2022 Team 6 Oct 2010, 7:12 PM
Dear Policy Wonk,
After extensive documented dialogue between you and Council over a lengthy period, in which we have repeatedly provided substantiated evidence of just how closely and thoughtfully Waverley Together 2 does indeed comply with the highest standard of Integrated Planning set out in the DLG guidelines, there’s seems little more we can add here to improve your views on it. We shall have to agree to disagree. However for the community’s benefit we should set the record straight on the standard of the planning.
1. Waverley Together 2 – structured to achieve a rate rise? No. All consultation to more…
Comment 7.1.1 18 Oct 2010, 9:39 AM
Project manager, these days, any body can get an award or get asked to speak at major functions for pretty much doing anything. If you're integrated planning was so great, then we wouldnt be experiencing the major road congestion on Bondi Road, Moore park road or around westfields. You would have also been able to achieve affordable housing - which is indeed far from the case. PLease dontbe so indignant, councils planning leaves much to be desired.
Comment 7.1.2 18 Oct 2010, 12:01 PM
This is meant to be a community consultation yet it seems Council officers are justifying or defending themselves here. If this is indeed a community forum can Council Officers please allow the community to express their views without attempt to censor discussion.
The community does not have the information it needs to fully participate in a discussion about rate rises. The fact sheets etc are largely PR. It seems the main brochure sent out for 'funding the future' was prepared by Council's PR consultants. It presents a very shallow range of options - pay more or cut services. This is inadequate.
Attempts to create brands like Service Plus, Waverley Together, Waverley Together 2 etc are all gobbledegook to most residents.
We need all Waverley budgets online so we can assess, line by line. We need an end to 'commercial in confidence clauses' eg on recycling contracts etc. And can we please have a detailed item by item comparison with other Councils and service providers?
Comment 7.1.2.1 29 Oct 2010, 4:56 PM
Hi bell8, We’ve prepared some answers to your questions and similar queries from others in the community in Fact Sheet 11 http://haveyoursaywaverley.com.au/document/index/2.
Comment 8 28 Sep 2010, 3:08 PM
i am opposed to further rate rises. if savings can not be found in the council budget then we should move away from waverley together 2. the council should stick to the essentials and the state government should fund the rest.
Comment 9 11 Oct 2010, 4:24 PM
I also support the notion that Council should stick to its knitting, before it considers any extras, or 'service plus'. The fundamental flaw with the exhaustive 'consultation' process is the huge smorgasbord of attractive 'services' that we all like the look of - of course people will agree to it all, if presented as a wish list. What was needed was some 'trade-offs' to force more considered responses.
By spreading its resources over such a range of activities, naturally Council runs the risk of losing focus on its core functions, and eventually alienating everybody! The obvious corollary of all this dissection of its business is that Council should conduct a serious review, to eliminate unnecessary costs, before we start applying any rate increases. Why does Waverley have one of the highest staff levels in the state, for example?
Increasing parking fines as a main source of revenue is such a poor, unimaginative idea, when they are already outrageous enough - surely we can do a better business plan than that!
Comment 10 12 Oct 2010, 6:45 AM
Please can we just get our footpaths smooth and even, renewed after years and years of disrepair. Our current rates should cover this priority.
Comment 11 13 Oct 2010, 2:38 PM
I would like to see an independent audit of the Council's consultation strategy for this process. I do not believe it is a fair and balanced process and I think it will lead to outcomes that have been influenced by the way Council has presented the information. For the record, I support a reduction of Council's expenditure so that rates do not have to be increased.
Comment 12 21 Oct 2010, 5:50 PM
I'm not particularly impressed by the strategic plan itself, nor by the way this consultative process has been structured. I am however even less impressed by the predominantly ill informed commentary opposing any rates increase.
The value of my property here has increased significantly over the past decade, so I have no difficulty accepting the principle of paying my share for the ongoing care and maintenance of the common property I use and enjoy.
Comment 12.1 31 Oct 2010, 5:40 PM
Many of us cannot afford for rates to increase by the amounts Council wants.
Comment 13 23 Oct 2010, 8:49 AM
The "Service Plus vision" that Waverley Council has should not go ahead, and therefore extra funding will not be required. How can they say that 500 residents that were surveyed is a "statistically valid survey", this is a very small number to gauge the whole of Waverley's future on.
Comment 14 24 Oct 2010, 8:44 AM
I accept the need to increase rates, however, I would like to impress the need for balance between core services and "visions" outlined in Waverley Together. Small government is only good government if it has the resources to meet community expectations.
Comment 15 29 Oct 2010, 3:27 PM
Not important at all
Comment 16 31 Oct 2010, 2:39 PM
“How important is it to you that we fund the Waverley Together 2 vision?”
We cannot fund the Waverley Together 2 vision.
As we cannot fund adequately the extra $125m needed for existing services for the next decade, then an extra $90m in the next decade for enhanced services is out of the question.
Comment 17 31 Oct 2010, 5:41 PM
I would not like to see Waverley Together 2 funded. I am very happy with the ways things are now and I cannot afford for rates to increase. There is no point having extra services if we can't afford to live here.
