Sign In
or Create a new account
What are your views on not increasing income from rates and/ or other charges, but cutting back on services instead?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
To balance the budget without increasing rates or user charges, we would need to cut services by 10% or an average value of $10 million dollars per year over the next 12 years.
If this is the community's preference, Council will of course attempt to minimise impacts on service users.
Some services are not dependent on funding from rates and will continue regardless of decisions about how Council services are funded. These include:
- Parking services
- Cemetery services
- Child care services
- Affordable housing schemes
- Waste services
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 1 Aug 2010, 6:53 AM
If Council is unable to meet the cost of services it is unreasonable for the community to expect the provision of those services without paying increased rates. I suggest an increase in rates offset by a partial reduction in non essential services and Council delivery costs.
Comment 1.1 15 Aug 2010, 8:48 AM
I agree with this comment but would add that increases in revenue should be via increases in rates. The over-policing of parking and issuing fines is offensive to the community. The (mis)use of parking by some residents is not related to their use of other services.
The reason to impose parking restrictions and fines is to manage parking demand to meet supply. There is no need to impose restrictions and fines at times and locations where there is no excess demand - like in the evening at BJ.
Comment 2 6 Aug 2010, 9:58 AM
As mentioned , people can not expect to get services that are not afforable without paying for them. However Waverley council (while rates may be a bit lower that other council ) this council gets the 2nd highest dollar amount in Sydney metro from parking fees and fines.
Some services could be rollover into others or cease to be provided. A lot of money has been missused into litigation.
That is where the council could save lots of money instead of increase the rates more that 100% . I heard the Major yesterday in the radio and she said that some people only pay $ 350.00, well I have lived in B.J for 18 years and never paid that little . Even in a unit the rates where between 450.00 and $750.00 over the years.For the last 4years I live in a VERY small house and the rates are almost $ 1000.00.
Comment 2.1 31 Oct 2010, 5:57 PM
The information on this proposal has been very bad from Council. Council have not written down clear figures to make a decision. None of my family or friends realise what is happening.
Comment 3 11 Aug 2010, 8:11 PM
Hiding proposed rate increases as compounding weekly increases is dishonest.
An $0.80 weekly increase for each of the next 7 years increases $294 to $681 pa. And a $7.76 weekly increase increases $2,264 to $5,085 pa. Are these on top of the usual state government annual rate cap?
With such a high population density, our local council should be aiming to set the Australian benchmark for efficient provision of essential local services, not matching the neighbouring councils headline rates.
Project Manager, Community Engagement Comment 3.1 Funding Services 2022 Team 17 Aug 2010, 9:02 PM
Hi swhr,
The potential rate increases we’ve referenced include the State Government’s annual rate cap. This accounts for around 20-25% of the proposed increases across the 7 year period. We’ve also factored in the loss of our Environmental Levy. This levy ceases to apply from 30 June next year and will not be replaced (meaning our rate yield will actually drop backwards by about 3.4%).
I’m sorry you feel our information is misleading. We are committed to a transparent process and have tried to be as clear as possible about our potential increases. In fact, we have laid out the information in a number of different forms to allow ratepayers to see how this would impact - including a weekly and a yearly view. We have also illustrated the cost to ratepayers across the full 7 year period. For example, if we elect to fund the full enhanced services package, on an annual basis the percentage of rates increase for all ratepayers would be between 8.7 – 12.5% each year.
Comment 3.1.1 23 Sep 2010, 4:41 PM
swhr: "With such a high population density, our local council should be aiming to set the Australian benchmark for efficient provision of essential local services, not matching the neighbouring councils headline rates. "
I'd like to say that I couldn't agree more with that and wonder why none of Council's information and surveying that I've seen has addressed this point?
Isn't it true that Waverley ought to be able to provide more services for less rates than any other LGA in the country? Which other LGA would be in such a good ratepayer per sqkm position as Waverley?
Comment 3.1.1.1 9 Oct 2010, 11:16 AM
because more people means more services, which costs more money.
Comment 3.1.1.1.1 9 Oct 2010, 1:03 PM
No, the point is that greater population density gives Waverley more ratepayers per kilometre of streets to clean and maintain, more ratepayers per park to be kept nice and green, more ratepayers per garbage truck to collect waste, and so on. It also means greater capacity to raise revenue from things like parking because where there's a need to manage limited parking there's an opportunity to raise money from it. Waverley has been making plenty from parking fees and fines (although Mayor Betts and the Liberal team did campaign strongly with promises to cut back on the river of gold).
Btw as far as raw numbers go somewhere like Randwick has roughly 129,000 residents and 480 fulltime Council staff, while Waverley has 67,000 residents and 554 staff ie more than twice the number of staff per resident. But they are different LGAs, in different LGA categories, and in many respects not comparable.
So keep it simple - Waverley with the highest density of ratepayers per traditional Council service delivery should have the lowest rates per head, until Council starts attempting to provide more services than other Councils do (or perhaps if Waverley's overheads become greater than they should be).
Comment 3.1.1.1.1.1 9 Oct 2010, 9:38 PM
There are many more council services than roads and parks. People use alot of services. We're really lucky to have a Council that provides them.
It's different opinions though. I think that Waverley would be a far less interesting place without any festivals, art exhibtions, youth services, the murals on the corso, the skate bowl, the library, the beach is clean and safe, there are good childrens servies, disability services, the list goes on.
Also there's the question of thinking of your own community as a whole, rather than just you, your family and your friends. It about social and community services. Like services for old people. I'm not old but I want the elderly people in my community to be properly looked after. Or I'm not disabled but I want the disabled people of this community to have opportunities and to live full lives.
I guess what the Council is asking is what services do you value and want to pay for?
It's not about who's right and wrong, they're just different perspectives.
Comment 3.1.1.1.1.1.1 18 Oct 2010, 10:03 AM
festivals and exhibitions are great, but council should have to contribute to them financially - if there offered less red tape i can guarantee you the private sector would be providing more such events- without having to charge those rate payers (via rates) who arent interest in a particular event.
Comment 3.1.2 24 Oct 2010, 12:58 AM
Project Manager, to translate those increases into a language that people can understand;
Bronwyn Kelly, Director, Corporate and Technical Services at Waverley council quoted on streetcorner.com;
"....to implement council’s new expanded spending program..."
“rates will need to increase over the next seven years by between 70% and 120%”
That equates to 50% of ratepayers paying an extra $416 per year more in rates, another 17% will be paying $728 extra per year, 14% will be paying $1,020 extra per year and the remaining 19 % will be paying increases well in excess of $1020 per year.
Project Manager, Community Engagement Comment 3.1.2.1 Funding Services 2022 Team 25 Oct 2010, 4:37 PM
Hi Peter
Yes you are correct. The 70% to 120% figures are also clearly identified in the information brochure that was delivered to some 35,000 households and made available on this web site back in August. A range of fact sheets and other materials have also been available on this web site for some time. One of these is Fact Sheet 2 - Financial facts about Service Plus - which shows the projected annual figures for each property value bracket, and explains that these would be multiplied by seven under the seven year increase scenarios. (See the last section headed "What more…
Comment 3.2 31 Oct 2010, 5:55 PM
I am worried by the proposed rate increases and would like services cut not rate increases.
Comment 4 13 Aug 2010, 6:57 PM
This (i.e. cutting back on services) and reducing council costs is a great starting point.
Comment 4.1 17 Aug 2010, 2:12 PM
Council cash revenue has increased from around 78m in 2005/2006 to just under $100m 2008/2009 . I fail to see why we should reward them with more revenue when its not immediatley obvious where the increase in revenue over the past 4 yeears has been spent
Comment 5 16 Aug 2010, 7:35 AM
I agree with not increasing rates - but just because current rates are cut back, doesn't mean services will be neglected. The private sector could easily take over the responsibility of providing many of the services council provides. In this case, council has prejudiced the manner in which it has worded the question to absolve itself of responsible business management.
Comment 5.1 22 Oct 2010, 5:31 AM
Carlo you keep mentioning the capacity and ease with which the private sector could replace Council's involvement in the delivery of services. Given the private sector operates on profit margins I would not expect the services to be cheaper, better resourced and more efficient, and would further expect the private sector would need to be subsidised to run the services and ensure their affordability. Perhaps the private sector would provide the services to only those who can afford them? What do you think carlo?
Comment 5.1.1 23 Oct 2010, 4:50 PM
Im not expecting private sector resources to be cheaper. Why would i? subsidising or failing to pay full price is why waverely council will soon experience a financial short fall. its why were having this discussion. Its also the root cause of shortfalls in many of sydneys other key infrastructure. Im my opinion, subsidies has also contributed to our excessive CO2 output - ie; if we paid full price for electricity, i doubt we'd be using as much of as we currently do.
Whether private sector services would would be resourced as well as public sector services is also beside the more…
Comment 6 26 Aug 2010, 10:14 AM
I think that there is another issue that needs to be addressed and that is efficiency. Waverley is very overstaffed in some areas, compared with other Councils and they need to look at doing more with fewer staff as other Councils have had to do. Look at your neighbouring Councils and see how many staff they have to do the job in particular areas, you could make a lot of savings without having to increase the budget.
Comment 7 22 Sep 2010, 11:56 AM
I don’t like these polarising questions. The world is a complex place and this complex problem of balancing needs and wants with finite resources, sometimes expressed as ‘squaring the circle’, requires a complex response.
Based on ABS statistics and a recent NSW Government document providing financial comparisons of councils, I am sympathetic to the call for a rate rise. It’s unambiguous that Waverley rates are relatively low, as Council suggests.
What is also quite clear is that we are generally a very wealthy community. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication 6524.0.55.002 - Estimates of Personal Income for more…
Comment 7.1 23 Sep 2010, 4:46 PM
I agree that complex issues are being addressed too simplistically in this survey.
Comment 7.2 18 Oct 2010, 10:04 AM
i agree the world is becoming more dynamic - even more of a reason to stop councils charging a one size fits all fe (rates) which doesnt serve everyone.
Comment 8 12 Oct 2010, 5:54 PM
Cut back services to what you can afford in your budget, do not increase rates. Ratepayers are not a bottomless source of income. are you telling me there you operate a lean efficient machine up there at the council? done any benchmarks to other councils?
Comment 9 18 Oct 2010, 11:05 AM
Increase rates or cut services is a false dichotomy. If this is the best Council can do, it is not good enough. We need some real creativity and willingness to consider different ways of delivering services not just business as usual.
Can Council explain how the services above (eg parking, child care, affordable housing etc) are not reliant on rates? Where does the money come from for these services?
Cut the PR budget including for consultants eg Bang The Table. Is there any plan to act on the community feedback or is this just window dressing / a sales pitch for a rate rise that has already been decided?
Comment 9.1 22 Oct 2010, 5:43 AM
Hey bell8... if its not good enough or its a false dichotomy to either increase rates or cut services..... I'd like you to let us know what are your creative ways to deliver services and move away from business as usual?
In relation to PR and consultants.....this type of engagement (online) should be consistently used by Council to build a better picture of our thinking across a range of issues and ideas and not just rolled out for one project or one issue. Consistent communication and interaction is a creative way to move forward.
Comment 9.1.1 30 Oct 2010, 3:27 PM
If council was more transparent and info was more accessible it would be a lot easier for residents to make suggestions. I'm not employed at council so I don't know what the culture is like and how things really work. From an outsider perspective it does not seem like a very efficient organisation. Here's a few suggestions which may or not be any good. Don't build the huge new pavilion in Waverley Park that we don't need - all that was needed was a simple grandstand for the cricket. Cut the winter magic festival. Charge businesses that put 'free' newspapers' more…
Comment 10 23 Oct 2010, 9:11 AM
Waverley Council tells us in their colourful brochures that I have received, that our rates only cover 28% of the costs of the Council....... Well how about increasing by just 1%, the other 72% of their income, and that would cover any short fall in the future forecasts.
Comment 11 27 Oct 2010, 4:34 PM
i say a big NO to more rate rises. i am sick of paying taxes left right and centre for governments to waste. the public sector is notoriously inefficient. please make savings within the existing budget.
Comment 12 29 Oct 2010, 3:31 PM
Definitely Council should focus on planning, libraries, parks and rubbish collection. Parking services such as the one at Eastgate have no business being in Council's control nor do affordable housing schemes, that is a state government responsibility
Comment 13 31 Oct 2010, 3:04 PM
“What are your views on not increasing income from rates and/ or other charges, but cutting back on services instead?”
To answer this question we need to analyse the 22 main service categories provided by Council.
For those services that are essential the services should not be cut back and the income from rates should increase only in proportion to the normal continuing business operational cost increases on a year to year basis. Generally, these increases should be within the annual rate increase cap imposed by the State Government. The essential services provided by Council are:
• Beach and pool maintenance
• Lifeguard more…
Comment 14 31 Oct 2010, 3:24 PM
Absolutely not.
Services are already sub standard and from experience it is not services that will be cut but capital expenditures.
Waverley rates are already comparatively low, so it is no wonder that the public intfrastructure is so poor.
Comment 14.1 31 Oct 2010, 5:59 PM
I am learning more from the people's comments and Waverley has sufficent income, so I would not like to see rates increase.
Comment 15 31 Oct 2010, 5:00 PM
“What are your views on not increasing income from rates and/ or other charges, but cutting back on services instead? “
Existing services provided by Council that fall into the ‘roads and rubbish’ categories are very important. Of councils $100m pa spending about $50m is spent on these essential ‘roads and rubbish’ services. All other services outside these categories are of less importance.
The predicted existing services funding shortfall of $125m should be met by cutting some of or all of these less important services;
• Services for the aged, youth, Indigenous groups, multicultural groups and the disabled
• Child care and family support services
• Arts, cultural and volunteering programs
• Social and affordable housing services
• Management of major places, malls and villages
• Environmental management
• Emergency management services
• Events and festivals management
• Recreation and active living
• Traffic and transport management
Under no circumstances should rates or charges be increased to meet the predicted $125m shortfall until these non essential services are cut.
Comment 16 31 Oct 2010, 6:00 PM
I cannot afford an increase in rate. I 100% support cutting services if this is what is required. I think that is the most fair thing to do.
Comment 17 31 Oct 2010, 11:48 PM
Council’s annual financial statements for the financial year ending 30th June 2010 show at note 14, investment properties valued at $115,000,000. Note 3d shows rental income for these investment properties of only $1,911,000 pa. If this figure is correct it shows a yield of less than 2 %. A realistic market rent would be 7% pa or $8,000,000 pa (an extra $6,000,000 income per year).
Standard bank deposits can earn 6.5%. Council could increase its annual income by more than $4,500,000 pa just by redeploying these funds into a bank deposit or $6,000,000 pa more by obtaining a realistic market rent for its investment properties.
The $115,000,000 could be used to fund essential infrastructure costs over the next 12 years, thus balancing the budget without increasing rates or user charges and alleviating the need to cut services by 10% or an average value of $10 million dollars per year over the next 12 years.
