Budget lifted 0.15% to cover Waste to Landfill Levy

Budget lifted 0.15% to cover the Waste to Landfill Levy was the decision last night by Council. A unanimous decision made after much reasoned and considered debate last night.

Deputy Mayor Peter Hughes presented Council with an alternative budget position at our traditional budget meeting.  An alternative to the one we presented you just a couple of months back. His alternate motion was to lift the rate increase from 2.1% to 2.25%. An increase of 0.15%.

We learnt last night the impact of the 40% waste to landfill levy on our budget. The levy would add $ 115,000 to our costs. Lifting the rate will cover around half this.

The Budget lifted 0.15% will raise an extra $ 57,000. With some 26,000 rate payers this means an increase of $ 2.00 for the year to each ratepayer.

With such a small individual contribution we could have considered passing on the whole impact. We chose instead to show some leadership and restrict the impact on you.

Like last year, with the China Sword, we opted to share the impact. We are committing ourselves to finding $ 57,000 of savings over the year.

We would like to think we are showing, yet again, our ability to set responsible and considered budgets. Being financially responsible as I promoting during the last election campaign. This, in the face of a Government promoting otherwise while throwing significant last minute surprises at us.

Even with the extra, the rate increase is 0.65% below what it could have been under the government’s proposed rate capping agenda.

I am proud of this Council.

It is showing itself to be a Council that takes their responsibility seriously. Just seven months in, it is a council that is following in the footsteps of the Unley Councils of recent times.

We are a Council I believe you can rely on to take the responsible decisions. To be fiscally responsible.

A rate rise of 2.1% is set to be approved by the City of Unley

The City of Unley will approve their 2019-20 budget at this month’s formal Council meeting. I expect us to approve a rate rise of 2.1% at this meeting.

A 2.9% increase would have applied under the Government’s proposed rate capping. This demonstrates, with many councils following our example, that councils are responsible and able to manage their financial affairs.

In theory therefore the rates you pay will increase likewise by 2.1%.

Changes in property values, if consistent across a local government area, do not change what council rates you pay. It is therefore incorrect to say an across the board increase in property values means Council makes a killing.

If you have read my last blog post however, you will know that this year changes in property values however will be erratic to say the  least. This means some of us will pay more, some less.

Two factors influence the calculation of the rates you pay. The budget set by Council and the capital value of the property you own, as set by the Valuer General.

The process of assessing rates for an oncoming year commences with Council setting their budget. The valuer general then advises council what they have calculated is the total value of all rate-able properties in the council area.

The budget is then divided by the total property value to strike what we call “the rate in the $”. In my time on Council, this “rate in the $” has gone down each year.

When the value of your property (as valued by the Valuer General) moves at the same rate as the collective or total then your rates will increase by the amount of the budget increase set by council. If the value of your property increases less than the collective, your rates will increase by less than council’s budget increase. Likewise, if it escalates above the collective, then your increase will exceed the council budget increase.

Hopefully you appreciate a rate rise of 2.1%, and the services they provide you.

Valuer General to cause stress to rate payers in Unley

Many City of Unley rate payers will be distressed when they receive their first rates notice for 2019-20.

 

Office of the Valuer-General

Office of the Valuer-General

Not I must say because of anything Council has or has not done. Their grief will be due to changes to the way their properties are valued by the Valuer General.

.

While Council looks set to strike a 2.1% increase, the rates you pay may not reflect this. Changes in property values could show a different picture. We could see rates increase or decrease by up to 50% and more.

In other words, changes both ways. Significant changes.

Yes. There will be winners and losers. Some rate payers will be paying more than they traditionally have. Some significantly more.

Others, on the other hand, will be paying less. Some significantly less.

I expect Council will wear the brunt of any anger that may occur. This, even though the Valuer General is accepting the responsibility.

You will be receiving the rates notice from us. You must pay us. Many don’t recognise the value of your property is not set by Council, but by the Valuer General.

Concerned about the significance of the changes, the Valuer General briefed Council last week.

The Valuer General have advised they will be writing to all those property owners whose valuation will increase by 15% or more. There will be many however under this threshold that won’t know until they receive their first rates notice.

This is all (would you believe) due to an attempt to make the valuation of properties fairer. The Valuer General is changing how they calculate the property value. Factors not previously considered will now be used when assessing a property’s value.

These changes will affect mainly commercial properties, not residential properties. I expect therefore that changes in residential property rates thankfully will be minimal.

A fairer system of valuation that will not be seen that way this year.

Providing Local Leadership: Ensuring Financial Responsibility.

Ensuring financial responsibility is one of the major obligations of an elected member of Council. Without financial responsibility there is no limit to what a Council could charge its ratepayers for the services they provide.

 

Ensuring Financial ResponsibilityCouncils have an obligation to provide services to their community. Many of these are mandated by the Local Government Act. Many are the result of Council responding to community needs over time.

……..

…….

They have however a responsibility too, to keep expenditure on these services to a level our community can afford.

Whatever the impetus behind the provision of a service they do come at a cost. Every time Councillors make a decision at a Council meeting it invariably means the commitment of dollars ($). Quite frequently it also means adding to the long-term cost of running the Council.

Initiatives like changing footpaths from bitumen paved to paved with concrete pavers not only come at a one time cost. They also add to the long term budget. Such an exercise adds to the budget for (in this case) in excess of 20 years just to make it happen.

It adds permanently to the maintenance budget as well. Maintaining concrete/brick pavers come at a cost well in excess of bitumen. Why?

Pavers last longer than bitumen. They are not flexible however and easily create trip hazards we would not see with bitumen. A decision by Council decades ago has impacted on all of us. The cost to you and I of this decision is significant.

The current council has been very conscious of this impact.

We have been very discerning about the decisions we make as a result. Those members who continue (I hope I am one) will take this same responsibility going forward.

We have in my opinion kept rate rises to an absolute minimum. As I have blogged before, we have been imposing a rate cap on ourselves for the last 6 years or so. We have delayed therefore projects and not included initiatives requested by our community because of it.

It is my intention to continue providing local leadership by ensuring financial responsibility with my contribution in all the decisions we make.

That said, we also do not need any external oversight, other than from you.

Authorised & printed by Don Palmer. 19 Kelvin Avenue, Clarence Park.

Providing Local Leadership: A glimpse into the future

For all we have achieved together, as I noted in my last blog we have much still to achieve into the near future.

Providing Local Leadership and Working For YouFor a glimpse into the future read on as I summarise what I see as the challenges going forward. Challenges which requires proving local leadership. The following summarises what lies ahead of the Clarence Park Ward. Watch for future blogs over the next couple of weeks for more detail.

Goodwood Oval Precinct Redevelopment.

Since Jayne Stinson secured a $2.0m grant from the previous government before the last State election much has happened. Much is still left however to do at Goodwood Oval however. I will release a series of blog posts in the next couple of weeks addressing each.

Millswood Croquet Club

 As the club marches toward its centenary it desperately needs a new clubroom. A future blog will review this in more detail.

Managing Higher Density

Watch for a future blog as I explain the need for continued vigilance to ensure any changes to our development plan are respectful of the amenity will all currently enjoy.

Local Economic Prosperity

Business and economic development for an area is a shared responsibility. Council should take the lead.

I am looking for Council to consider all of its businesses, including the forgotten majority. The home based businesses.

Ensuring Financial Responsibility

Rate Capping as one of a number of financial measures in setting our budget, and therefore the rate, ensures financial responsibility. Setting the rate first and cutting our cloth to suit.

This must be done by Council with you providing the oversight, not a State Government external body.

Communication with Council

Those of you that have issue with communication from Council would be well aware of my intention to see this improve. Look out for my strategy to achieve this.

I will always that said be ready to represent you and advocate for you when needed, to help you work your way through the bureaucracy.

Trees

Always a topical and emotional topic are trees. Providing Local Leadership to ensure the correct balance will the subject of a future blog.

Council matters outside Clarence Park Ward and outside City of Unley.

Believe it or not but there is life outside our boundary. I will explore some of these shortly.

Then there is need for providing local leadership input into State and Federal issues that impact directly on Clarence Park Ward.

……………………………………………………

For more detail in each of these areas, and others, watch for my blogs on each. I will share each blog on Facebook.

Written & authorised by Don Palmer. 19 Kelvin Avenue, Clarence Park.

Externally imposed Rate Capping is Dead

Labor warned us a day ago. They confirmed today that they would join the cross benches and vote the Government’s bill down. Externally imposed rate capping is dead as a result.

 

Rate Capping is DeadSo up go the headlines. Rate capping Dead. No, externally imposed rate capping is dead.

The fact of the matter is, the Government’s Rate Oversight Bill is doomed.  As I have explained before the Government’s bill was not so much about rate capping as it was about an external body setting a cap on council rates.

This is good news for the local government industry. With due respect to ESCOSA, the body earmarked to be the oversee-er, you (the local community) are the best overseer there can be in keeping rates down.

Good news in that the government has never been clear on what how the rates should be capped. We were led to believe by the CPI.

By doing so we were told the average rates would come down $ 500.00 . That claim by Minister Knoll was probably the trigger for the bill’s failure.

If this were true, with 26,000 rate payers, the City of Unley revenue of some $ 40m would reduce by  $ 13m. An extravagant claim by the Government. That Councils are so extravagant they can reduce their rate based revenue by a third. I defy anyone to shave $ 13m of the Unley budget and honestly believe that the Council would survive.

The bill is yet to be voted down in the Parliament however. Until the fat lady sings as it were.

All that aside, it is comforting to hear that the opposition appears to be heeding the call of our Local Government Association’s assessment of how the sector CAN be reformed. The sector can do with reforming. The Government could do well to jump on board and grab the agenda back.

See Saw Margery Daw

See Saw Margery Daw Jacky shall have a new master. Jacky shall earn but a penny a day.

The seesaw is one of the oldest ‘rides’ for children, easily constructed from logs of different sizes. The words of “See Saw Margery Daw” reflect children singing this rhyme to accompany while playing on a see-saw.

This children’s nursery rhyme is being played out currently by our leaders. I refer to the rate capping saga that is being played out before us right now.

See SawAt one end of the see saw we already know is South Australia. At the other end we now find is New South Wales. Amazingly as the South Australian Government seeks to follow the lead of New South Wales and introduce rate capping we see New South Wales potentially going the other way. So. See saw Margery Daw is the game being played.

A year after the NSW Government scrapped its council amalgamations policy, the Committee for Sydney has released a report. Would you believe, a  report that is calling for the capping of council rates to be scrapped.

The report, A New Era for Local Government, calls for the end to ‘rate capping’. IPART (their equivalent of ESCOSA) sets the maximum amount NSW councils can collect in general revenue through an annual peg. It describes the annual rate peg as “a blunt instrument, with little economic rationale behind it, and which hinders local institutions on which much of our civic life depends”.

It is also calling for the establishment of a Council of Metropolitan Mayors to work alongside the Greater Sydney Commission and the introduction of a new fund to pay for local infrastructure.

Catch this, a levy on local rates to support local councils generate a pool of funds to expand and improve open space or maintain civic infrastructure, like roads and libraries or support town centre renewal. In other words, to allow Councils to catch up with their need to upgrade infrastructure.

Externally imposed Rate Capping I believe to be poor policy.

Externally imposed Rate Capping I believe to be poor policy. Poor policy that you will (in time) pay dearly for. I expect that your other representatives will also view it as poor policy. We will need to wait on Monday’s special council meeting to know however.

Balancing the BudgetThe Rate Oversight Bill being considered by Parliament is aimed at shifting oversight on Council rates. From you to another arm of state government.

We are accountable to you. They are not. Do you want a single philosophy (rate capping) decided by a body, not accountable to you, to determine what services are provided you by your local council.

We will consider this at Monday night’s special council meeting. In so doing we will not simply vote yes or no. We will consider and make public our reasons for our decision.

I for one continue to be concerned that the Bill is bad policy. I say this even though I and Unley support the rationale of setting the rate first and cutting your cloth to suit.  Council and its community are surely best placed to provide this oversight.

My primary concerns I have shared with you last night. Some of my other concerns, which I am sure we will discuss on Monday night, I put on record below.

Grant Funding

South Australian Councils receive the lowest per-capita share of state government funding in the country.

I ask, is this State Government ready to put their hands in their pockets to bring us in line with the rest of the country.  We have yet to hear from them on this.

I doubt it. It is more likely there will be a continuation of cost shifting to local government (see next).

Cost Shifting-Overview

As the Government promotes their intention to avoid you paying more than you need to for the services provided by your local government we must all ask what guarantees they are going to provide against cost shifting. Cost shifting is a practice for governments of both persuasions have thrust upon local government.

Mandatory Fees and Charges

Many of our services are subject to a fee for service. An example of cost shifting is services such as Development Assessment. As I indicated in a recent post, rate payers subsidise these services and substantially. This will be even worse since the larger development projects are now being assessed by the State Commission Assessment Panel.

Is this fair?

Will the new government and future governments ensure we can truly get cost recovery for this service? I doubt it. I doubt it very much.

Social Housing

One of the most significant cost shifting is (by default) the transfer of management of social housing to community housing providers. When the previous government did this they also legislated that these providers receive a mandatory 75% rate rebate on council rates.

A reduction in their costs but a reduction in our revenue. The loss of this income has been transferred to you by way of rate increases above CPI.

The current government has made no offer to reverse this.

Not a huge impact on Unley but for some councils prohibitive. Of course, much of the medium density housing is expected to be social housing.

Solid Waste Levy

Rate payers through their councils pay the State Governments solid waste levy. To fate, to the tune of $118m. Very little of this money has been used for the intended purpose which is to improve recycling.

And catch this. The rate has increased 1450% since 2001. 9% this year. Compare that to the amount your council rates have increased.

To date of course, there is no indication from the government that they will peg these astronomical increases or (better yet) remove the levy. Perhaps ESCOSA should be commissioned to set these rate increases rather than the government.

No! What we have learnt from them is they believe we should be able to absorb the increased costs we are to be burdened by due to the recent China refusal to take that same underfinanced recycled material.

Finally

I wonder too about such things as:

  • As intimated above, if the government is serious about ensuring value for money for rates and taxes maybe they should be mandating that ESCOSA, as an independent body, be given the responsibility for capping such things as state government taxes, levies, fees and charges.
  • Should ESCOSA have the power to fine councils for inadvertently breaching the cap, and to name and shame them publicly. Inadvertently. Fined. Shamed. How punitive is that.

All in all then, unless there are arguments that sway my current paradigm, I struggle to see the Government’s proposed legislation as anything other than poor policy. If it is passed then we are going to be severely challenged in complying.

A reminder. The special council meeting will be held in our Civic Centre, commencing at 7.00pm.

Rate Capping passes the Lower House and awaits the Upper House.

Rate Capping passes the Lower House and awaits now reaction of the Upper House. The Local Government Industry in the meantime, is assessing the Bill presented to Parliament by the Government.

 

Rate Oversight Bill

RTe Oversight Bill

The Rate Oversight Bill which presents rate capping and which can be found here seeks to place authority in a (3rd) independent party for setting future rate increases in local government.

The Government is doing this to restore faith, they tell us, in Local Government. That said polls suggest that Local Government is the most trusted of the three levels of Government. That said, is this good policy or not. Is it bad policy.

While it has passed the lower house, where the Government has the numbers, its passage through the upper house does not look all that promising for those keen to have rate capping. Opposing the legislation are Mark Parnell (the Greens) and Frank Pangallo (SA Best). John Darley is leaning towards accepting but is unsure. The Labor Opposition are likewise yet to determine their position, even though it has passed the lower house. In both cases I suggest they are awaiting the response to the Bill from the Local Government Industry.

Is it good policy or not. What is the view of the Local Government Industry and indeed your own local Council, the City of Unley?

We will be considering this on Monday night at a special council meeting, convened to consider this very question. I invite you to come along and hear the debate. The venue for the meeting will be the Unley Civic Centre. It will commence at 7.00pm. The agenda will be available on line from Thursday here.

There are a number of questions in my mind that concern me, particular given the evidence overseas and interstate when rate capping has been introduced. I will reveal these in a subsequent blog post. Watch this space.

 

Unley Community has been a shining example for all Local Government Communities

The City of Unley Community has been a shining example for all Local Government Communities. 117 of our citizens have contributed to our 2018/19 budget. 29 of those attended our public meetings.

Thank you for your contribution.

This follows the example set last year. It is inspiring given in my 1st 3 years as a Councillor we had 1, 2 and then 4 people respectively attend our public meetings.

You have answered my call to stay with us in this climate of rate capping. Rather than rely on the Government to rate cap us you have taken the responsibility to encourage us to include what you want.

Last year your input impacted on the then proposed rate increase of 2.8%. You wanted more and to achieve it we lifted the increase by 0.2% to 3.0%. This was still inside the rate cap we work on which is CPI plus 1%.

At our workshop on Monday night we had some tough decisions to make. Once again you wanted us to include more, and without suggesting cutting anything to accommodate the cost of the initiative you wanted.

Most of you were looking for even more environmental initiatives than we have already included. That said some of you weren’t too aware of what initiatives we had included. Next year we will need to be a lot clearer in detailing this.

A small handful of you wanted a reduction in rates and for us to focus on roads, rates and rubbish.

The budget will be finalised when Council meets formerly on the last Monday of this month. When we meet we will have to consider whether to include some of the extras being requested or not.

.

.

If they are to be included we will need to consider whether to reduce our projected surplus, whether to reduce other services and/or to increase the rate.

Wish us well please in our deliberations.

LGA Rate Capping Stance Prompts Call for LGA to be Dumped.

Everyone knows the State Government wish to impose rate capping on Local Government. We also know that the Local Government Association (LGA) has consistently opposed this.

Now some elected members are nervous of retribution by the State Government because of the LGA campaign.

Many are calling for the LGA to withdraw its campaign. Some for the sacking of the LGA. Others, including from within Unley, are calling for their Council to cancel their membership.

Hang on guys. We do not yet know what the Government is proposing or what form rate capping will take. We do not even know whether it will be approved by Parliament. When we do know then we will be able to direct the LGA to lobby on our behalf.

The question of LGA membership or the future of the LGA I addressed this morning in my LGA Lunatic Asylum blog post.

The question of rate capping remains however whatever happens in the LGA arena.

In my opinion, and from what I believe should be an Unley point of view, I still do not see a need for a State induced rate capping. I have written several blog posts covering this.

Let us recognize that Unley DOES have rate cappingRate Capping.

For the last six years we have set our rate first and adjusted our budget to suit. The cap we have set is CPI plus 1%.

During this time our rates have increased 25% compared to an average 41% in the rest of the industry.

This year we expect to be well inside this, maybe CPI plus 0.3%

.If other Councils were doing this then I venture to suggest the Government would not be threatening to impose an external cap.

Would it not be great if most Councils followed Unley’s lead? We would not be having any arguments now. Not rate capping. Not cancelling membership of the LGA etc.

New Initiatives form the basis of the rate increase proposed by the City of Unley for 2018/19.

New Initiatives form the basis of the rate increase proposed by the City of Unley for 2018/19.

As I indicated in my blog post of 22 April, Council is seeking your feedback on this year’s draft annual business plan and budget. A budget of new initiatives at around CPI to achieve.

Council’s budget reflects what I believe to be a more than appropriate approach. One that balances what I believe our community is seeking for us to add to our services with a rate increase that only all but matches CPI.

As seen by the table below our proposed increase is only marginally above CPI. The increase focuses pretty much only on new initiatives. Savings made in the last few years has meant we have kept our operating budget (those ongoing regular activities) at almost the current year’s figures.

The result is the rate increase we are proposing covers only new initiatives.

Initial Proposed Rate Increase 2.5%
ADD for impact of China Waste refusal 0.3%
TOTAL proposed rate increase 2.8%
CPI (annual to March 2017) 2.3%
Proposed New Initiatives 3.0%
(from table below) $ 1,241,500

In my blog post of 24 April, I highlighted the major initiatives, all of which are funded by loans. We have taken advantage of the low interest environment to fund works we had planned on doing later. These projects are shown in that blog post of 24 April.

The new initiatives that are the basis of this year’s rate rise are listed below.

New Initiatives

New Initiatives

 

Here’s are the questions for you.

Are you keen to see these projects undertaken. If not which ones. If you are but you don’t like the cost impact on your personal budget which of our normal activities would you like to see removed or scaled down.

Let us know by one of the many ways I indicated in my 22 April Blog Post.

 

Highlights of draft City of Unley 2018/19 Budget.

While limiting the likely rate increase to 2.8% (including a 0.3% allowance as our best guess as to what the China rubbish crisis may inflict on us), the City of Unley 2018/19 Budget is achieving great things for our community.

Balancing Budget

Council is embarking on some major projects. Projects that will benefit future generations of Unley. Given this and in keeping with our policy on Capital Works we will be taking out loans to fund the balance after some successful grant applications. By so doing they will have a minimal effect on the rate rise in the Unley 2018/19 Budget.

The proposed New Capital Projects total $8.321M net and include:

  • King William Road Streetscape project $2.25M, with a further $5.5M to be spent in 2019-20.
  • Implementation of the local area traffic management study for Parkside and Fullarton $215K.
  • Continued implementation of Council’s Cycling and Walking Plan. Year 3 totalling $180K, focussed on the King William Road intersection with Simpson Parade and King William Road from number 29 to Greenhill Road.
  • Unley Oval Grandstand upgrades. Includes Female Change Rooms, and accessible canteen area stage 1 of a 2 year project, with a total net cost of $1.5M.
  • Goodwood Grandstand. $1.8M for year 1 of a  2 year program, at a total cost of $3.6m.
  • Brown Hill Keswick Creek project of $1.5M.

Capital Replacement Program

The proposed Capital Replacement Program of $7.627m net has been based on current asset information and asset management plans. Items include:

  • $1.127M for the proposed road reseal program;
  • $1.041M for the footways renewal program;
  • $872K for drains and stormwater;
  • $883K for the Property Program; and
  • $493K for reserves, recreation and open space projects.

A copy of the Capital Replacement Program providing more detail can be found on pages 81 thru’ 91 of the Draft 2018-19 Annual Business Plan.

As I indicated in my recent blog you can contribute your thoughts on the inclusion of these projects in the City of Unley 2018/19 Budget.

Please stay with Us is the second message coming from this years budget consultation

Please stay with Us is the second message coming from this years budget consultation. Your participation is needed next year as well, and beyond. Not just so you can own the budget but ….

 

You should stay with us because ratepayer involvement in the budget process can only bring about a better budget. A budget owned by our ratepayers. If you agree with this I simply ask you to please stay with us.

I cannot guarantee what impact you have had over this years budget but I can say I believe your councillors, your elected representatives, have heard you. Watch out for changes to the budget when it goes before council on that traditional last Monday of June.

Here is the second reason to stay with us.

As you know next March is an election to detrmine the next State Parliament. At this point in time it would appear that the Liberal Party is in the box seat; their election to lose as it were.

The Liberals rate capping pledge will be the Sword of Damocles sitting over our heads. Their belief is that Councils are not capable of determining a budget in your best interests. They believe that a centralised (sounds like something the Labor Party would do) bureaucracy is better qualified to detrmine what your local needs are.

Councils take their budgets out to you for your input. This will not happen under the Libs scheme.

As I am sure we will see at the end of this month your input will influence the final budget outcome. Interestingly the focus of our community was not on rate capping, unlike what will be the focus of the new bureaucracy. The communities attention was focused on the priorities of programs in the draft.

I finish this blog as I started it. Please stay with us.

Particularly if you would prefer to be a contributor rather than hand it over to the State Government’s new department. Who would you prefer?

Welcome to Our World.

Following on from my last blog post, there are two observations I believe warrant making in this platform. The first is welcome to our world and please stay with us.

I will deal with the latter in a later blog post.

With some of the observations that our ratepayers have made on this years draft budget I say welcome to our world. You are experiencing what we (the councillors) experience each year.

Elected members historically focus only on new initiatives in our budget deliberations. New initiatives in the operating projects amount this year to $ 1.2 m. This is very small compared to our general rates income of some $ 38 m.

Ongoing operating programs are reviewed regularly by elected members during what is known as regular service reviews. They are therefore not addressed at budget time . This includes a number of initiatives in our environment strategy.

Things like maintaining our parks and gardens. That includes the Village Green. So while we have been criticised by some for not allowing maintenance of the Village green in our budget we have. It just is not highlighted. Showing the maintenance of every one of our parks and gardens woudl make for a very complex budget and therefore not shown.

Then there are new initiatives such as the Brownhill Creek flood mitigation project, funded through capital works and loan funding. The biggest single environmental project I suggest we have ever done.

Talking roads, rates and rubbish which some have asked us to focus on. We have been asked to spend more in this area. After a service review we will actually be spending some $ 1.0 m pa more on reactive footpath repair. Requests to resurface Kenilworth Road. It is in the budget.

Yes. Welcome to our world.

We elected members focus on just 1/40th of the overall budget. You get to comment on that too.

This is not easy for sure but please stay with us. If you do you will become more intimate with the budget and it’s real depth.

Proud of our Community’s contribution to determining our next budget.

Before this year I have not seen much interest from our community in setting our yearly budget. This year I can honestly say I am proud of our Community’s contribution to determining our next budget.

So why am I proud of our Community’s contribution to determining our next budget?

Previously we have seen only between one and four members of the public turn up to our information sessions. This year we had in excess of 25. Numerous requests and observations were received on our have your say site, or by email or letter. This has followed on from the keen interest our community showed recently in the Unley Central DPA.

We have always had good community consultation on all manner of things. For some reason we have not on the budget itself. As a result, I believed this to mean our Community were telling us that they have already had their say on the various projects. More to the point they were happy to leave it to us to determine the priorities.

With the Sword of Damocles of the State Liberals rate capping promise for the next election sitting over our heads our community did not focus on this. Their attention was focused in lieu on the priorities of programs in the draft.

A significant portion of the observations we received focused on:

  1. Our being too much a “happy city” focused on events.
  2. There being too much focus on what they see as favouring the Sturt Footy Club.
  3. A concern over the first two possibly contributing to a reduction in spending on environmental issues.

Whilst I am proud of our Community’s contribution to determining our next budget we are yet to see what impact it has. I believe we will see Council make some meaningful adjustments in response to our Community.

What do you want from Council

What do you want from Council in the next 12 months or even the next 4 years.

We are asking you to help us prioritise what Council does for you in the next 12 months and beyond. The first step was for us to prepare a draft Community and Business Plan, and accompanying budget for next year, which we have now done.

You have had and many of you have taken opportunity previously to help and guide us to design our individual programs.

The next step is for you to provide your input into how we should prioritise the many programs we have or envisage. We would dearly love to hear from you. Check out this video and be stimulated into giving us your thoughts as to how we should prioritise the many things we do.

For more detail and an opportunity to respond check the links below which from part of our Have Your Say webpage.

Draft Annual Business Plan and Budget 2017 – 2018

This sets out the program we expect to conduct over the next twelve months, including the budget.

Draft Community Plan and 4 Year Delivery Plan 2018 – 2021.

We have taken the opportunity to review our Community Plan. This review coincides with the development of a new 4 Year Delivery Plan which provides focus for priority in program delivery.

How to provide comment
Have your say by:

  • Providing feedback online at Your Say Unley
  • Sending a written submission to The City of Unley, PO Box 1, Unley SA 5061

Hard copies of the draft plans are available from the Unley Civic Centre, 181 Unley Road, Unley.

Public Meetings
Our staff will be available to discuss the draft plans with you at the following public information sessions:

  • Monday 15 May, 10.30 – 11.30am. Goodwood Library, 101 Goodwood Road, Goodwood
  • Tuesday 16 May, 2 – 3pm. Fullarton Park Community Centre, 411 Fullarton Road, Fullarton
  • Wednesday 24 May, 5.30 – 6.30pm. Unley Civic Centre, 181 Unley Road, Unley

So! What do you want from Council?

 

Increasing Rates Diminishing Services

Increasing rates diminishing services is the catch cry of a today tonight storey on Channel 7 tonight.

3robrogers_potholeslalom_robrogersA damming story aired tonight on the popular Channel 7 program about Council rates rising but services provided reducing. Two councils, Salisbury and Charles Sturt, were the focus of the story. Interestingly these are two of the State’s largest municipalities.

Thankfully the City of Unley did not feature. Unley is one of the smaller.

Two primary concerns were highlighted by the program. The first was maintenance of verges. Fixing pot holes in roads was the second.

One resident in Salisbury expects that verges should be cut by Council. The street shown on TV was one where there is a fence on the property boundary. This conflicts with those suburbs where there is no fence and where everyone appreciates the verge is the responsibility of the home owner. Here in Unley we have been giving residents the option of a green verge on the condition it is looked after by them. The alternative is for a dolomite verge.

Road potholes in Unley I don’t believe is a problem. If anything I believe we may have been over-serving in road replacement.

Removing trip hazards in footpath has been my bane. We have in my opinion too many trip hazards in our “brick” paved footpaths. That is a story for another day as we review what footpath service level we are prepared to accept. This is a debate we are currently having and I expect to report further on this sooner rather than later.

I ask you, what is the answer where or when Councils are under performing?

What do you expect from council when it comes to mowing verges, repairing pot holes in roads or eradicating footpath trip hazards? Do you agree with the topic of this article………increasing rates diminishing returns? What about my opinion on Unley. Is it accurate or do you believe Unley is as guilty as the two mentioned in the program?

Walking the streets of Unley I am forever reporting what I see. I often wonder how long the issue I have found, a trip hazard or whatever, has been there. I also wonder if the people who live in the adjacent house or work at the adjacent shop or office have reported it or whether they think Council should simply be ware without being alerted by them.

Help us to be better than those being complained about. Reporting what concerns you to us rather than to a TV station or the RAA would help.

You can do this by ringing 83725111, be emailing us at [email protected] Another way is to report it via our website at https://online.unley.sa.gov.au/ePathway/Production/Web/Default.aspx?js=-1154500411

Better yet how about downloading the My Local Services Web App for your smart phone.

Help us to help you and stay in front of such bad press.

 

Lower Rate verses Lower loan funding the question in Unley’s budget

Council on Monday night will consider as part of the rate budget how much loan funding we should use to fund council programs.

 

loan approvedWhen we as individual property owners need to improve or redevelop our property we will be faced with how to finance any such project. Like I suggested in my last blog post he larger the project the more likely we are to finance it by way of loan funding. This is because the larger the project the more likely it is we cannot fund it without loan funding.

The same applies to council. Indeed I would suggest the longer a newly created or improved asset we purchase will live the more we should consider using loan funding for it.

If we build an addition to our home the chances are we are going to use loans to fund it, assuming we can service the loan. If we can’t service the loan we cant pay cash and we should not be undertaking the project. Coucnil does have an option though. Almost like winning the lottery and being able therefore to pay cash Council can pay for it now by simply saying to current rate payers we are going to lift your rates.

I put it that each component of that addition a home owner will do to their home will invariably be loan funded rather than by using cash. That means the curtains you might pay for by cash in a room in your existing house, or the re-tiling you might do in your existing bathroom, or the pergola you might put on the rear of your house will funded by loan funding if part of a larger/major redevelopment.

Councillors can be emotionally frightened of debt and that is to be expected and understandable. They are people just like you. They could easily take the increase the rates approach. Let’s face it (as noted above) we have a captive audience.

I for one am satisfied that the “curtains, tiles and pergolas” that have been included in larger projects like the Goodwood Road redevelopment and the Cycle Path can and should be included in the loan funding for those projects.

Why would we bother to pull them (things like street signs, line marking etc) out and pay cash for them. To pull them out and account for them separately will actually add to our administrative costs.

It is not a case in other words Lower Rate verses Lower loan funding but budgeting for the both today’s rate payer and tomorrows rate payer to contribute based on good financial management practices. Unless convinced otherwise on the night by alternate logic I will be staying therefore with loan funding as planned and with keeping your rate increase down to 2.2%.

2.2% or 2.7% rate increase or something else the question for council

Council sits on Monday night to consider our annual business plan and budget. The focus will be whether or we adopt a 2.2%, 2.7% rate increase or something else. That is the question for council.

Rate CappingAs mentioned in my last blog post Council up to now at least seems divided on what this years rate increase should be. You would be well aware by now that we have been long considering a 2.2% increase. Coupled with that is an intent to increase loan funding by $ 3.3m to fund long term projects.

We are likely to debate on the night increasing the rate increase the rate by 2.7% and reduce the increase in loan funding we have been considering.

The theory behind this is we should not be diverting funding of today’s projects to future generations. Put them in debt so we can enjoy now. Sounds a bit like the spend the kids inheritance now statement we are all familiar with. Having said that much of what we are contemplating is to the benefit of the future generations more so than it will be for the coming generation. The challenge then is to determine how much should be paid for now verses how much the next generation should pay for given projects.

As I see it Council is no different to our rate payers. Council has an annual income, so do we. The method of creating that income and the control over how much income can be achieved of course differs but I am not going to talk about that here. Council owns “real” assets (property, roads, footpaths, parks). So do we.

When we need to improve or redevelop our property we will be faced with how to finance any such project. The larger the project the more likely we are to finance it by way of loan funding. This is because the larger the project the more likely it is we cannot fund it without loan funding. The same applies to council. Indeed I would suggest the longer the life span of a newly created an asset we purchase the more we should consider using loan funding for it, unless of course we have won the lottery and can afford to pay cash.

If we build an addition to our home the chances are we are going to use loans to fund it, assuming we can service the loan. If we cant service the loan we cant pay cash and we should not be undertaking the project.

So….2.2% or 2.7% rate increase.