community engagement strategy for special rate … · from october 2013 to february 2014 to gauge...

Ku-ring-gai Council - Special Rate Variation - Infrastructure 2014

2013/256867 of 28

Report on Community Engagement Strategy

for the continuation of the Special Rate

Variation for Infrastructure

October 2013 to February 2014


2013/256867 of 28

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Importance of roads for Ku-ring-gai residents .............................................................................................. 5

The Engagement Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 6

Objectives of our engagement strategy ........................................................................................................ 6

Underpinning our engagement strategy with best practice principles .......................................................... 6

Phases of the Engagement Strategy ................................................................................................................ 8

Building on past community engagement ..................................................................................................... 8

Stakeholders and target audience ................................................................................................................ 8

Phase 1 – Informing the community ............................................................................................................. 9

Letter to residents in rates notice .............................................................................................................. 9

Information on Council’s website ............................................................................................................. 10

Special Rate Variation – Have Your Say webpage ................................................................................. 10

Fact sheets and frequently asked questions ........................................................................................... 10

Promotion via Council’s monthly E-newsletter ........................................................................................ 10

Extensive print advertising campaign ...................................................................................................... 11

Social media ............................................................................................................................................ 11

Phase 2 - Consulting and engaging with the community ............................................................................ 11

Random telephone survey of ratepayers ................................................................................................ 11

Special Rate Variation – Have Your Say webpage ................................................................................. 12

Written submissions ................................................................................................................................ 12

Community workshop .............................................................................................................................. 12

Common themes ............................................................................................................................................ 13

Reporting back ................................................................................................................................................ 16

Appendix 1a ................................................................................................................................................ 17

Appendix 2a ................................................................................................................................................ 19

Appendix 2b ................................................................................................................................................ 20

Appendix 2c ................................................................................................................................................ 21

Appendix 2d ................................................................................................................................................ 26

Appendix 3a ................................................................................................................................................ 28


2013/256867 of 28

Executive Summary

Ku-ring-gai Council conducted a comprehensive community engagement and communications campaign

from October 2013 to February 2014 to gauge support for a continuation of the Special Rate Variation for

Infrastructure.

The engagement campaign consisted of a statistically relevant survey of 400 residents who represent a

demographically valid cross-section of Ku-ring-gai ratepayers. In addition we hosted a community

workshop; an online guest book and survey open to the broader community.

The communications campaign was far reaching using a range of channels to build awareness and engage

all ratepayers. The campaign consisted of fact sheets, frequently asked questions, web content, print,

electronic newsletters and a mail-out to 33,000 ratepaying households.

The findings concluded overwhelming support for Council’s application to IPART and the continuation of the

Special Rate Variation for Infrastructure Assets.

• 81% of respondents support Council’s application to IPART to continue the special rate, and

• 97% indicated that continuing to improve road condi tions was of high importance

The communications and engagement campaign built on prior work to develop our revised Community

Strategic Plan, Delivery Program and Operational Plan. In addition, throughout 2012-2013 Ku-ring-gai

Council had consulted extensively with the community on asset priorities and funding options which

informed our ‘Closing the Gap’ report and was pivotal to the development of Council’s adopted Asset

Management Strategy 2013-2023.


2013/256867 of 28

Introduction

On 25 June 2013, Council adopted its revised Community Strategic Plan 2030, Delivery Program 2013-

2017 & Operational Plan 2013-2014, and Resourcing Strategy 2013-2023 (including Long Term Financial

Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Strategy).

In adopting these strategies and plans Council recognised the need for the existing Special Rate Variation

for Infrastructure to continue to deliver the road’s renewal program which had been in place since 2001, and

is due to expire on 30 June 2014.

As required under the Integrated Planning & Reporting framework, the Local Government Act 1993 and the

Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, on the 30 July and 26 November 2013, Council resolved to

apply to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal for a Special Rate Variation for a permanent 5%

increase to the rate base. Council also committed to consult with the community in preparation of the

application.

This report on our Community Engagement Strategy outlines how Ku-ring-gai Council communicated to and

involved the community in the development of the application to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory

Commission (IPART). This report details the principles, guidelines and actions undertaken to ensure all

ratepayers and member of our community were informed of the special rate application and had an

opportunity to make comment.

The Community Engagement Strategy was implemented between October 2013 – February 2014.

Background

Ku-ring-gai Council has in excess of $90M in backlog funding1 for road improvements. The Special Rate

Variation (SRV) for Infrastructure funds renewals for Council roads, contributing approximately $2.7M to our

roads programs annually. The SRV funds these much needed improvements and boosts the funding

towards the total roads program

If Council’s application is successful, an additional $2.7M will be invested into council’s roads program

annually.

As the SRV for infrastructure has been in place since 2001, there will be no change to current rate levels,

above that of the nominal rate increase linked to the CPI which is at 2.3%.

Pensioners and households facing hardship are exempt from the paying the SRV Infrastructure.

If continued the SRV it will equate to approximately $66 per annum for the average ratepaying household

or approximately $1.30 per week.

1 Ku-ring-gai Council Asset Management Strategy 2014-2023 – Revised February 2014


2013/256867 of 28

If Council is unsuccessful in its application for the SRV Infrastructure, then rates will be reduced accordingly

and there will be $2.7M less invested into improving council roads annually.

Importance of roads for Ku-ring-gai residents

Like most other Sydney metropolitan councils, roads and road networks are of high importance to our

ratepayers.

Council began studies into ratepayer satisfaction with infrastructure assets in the mid-2000s, and since that

time a performance gap has existed for road infrastructure2. This performance gap indicated that the

moderate levels of satisfaction ratepayers had for our roads did not meet the high importance placed on

these assets.

This reflected our community’s desire for Council to increase investment in road renewal and upgrades.

As our community also places a high demand and importance on other community assets, Council could

not dramatically reduce the funding of other assets to boost the road renewals program. Therefore, a

Special Rate Variation was necessary to provide an additional and reliable revenue source to fund

improvements to our roads.

2 Ku-ring-gai Council Asset Management study “Close the Gap”, June 2012


2013/256867 of 28

The Engagement Strategy

Objectives of our engagement strategy

The objectives of our engagement strategy are to:

• Increase community awareness of our infrastructure needs and road renewals

• Tap into local knowledge and expertise on local assets

• Build on our current visions and aspirations from recent consultation

• Determine community priorities for road renewal

• Comprehensively involve our ratepayers in the decision making process

• Meet IPART requirements for applying for a levy

Underpinning our engagement strategy with best prac tice principles

Our engagement approach will be robust and transparent. We will ensure all community stakeholders have

an opportunity for comment and input. Our approach will be underpinned by two key principles:

1. NSW Social Justice Principles

2. International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum

The NSW Social Justice Principles of inclusion and democratic representation are:

Equity – There is fairness in decision making and prioritising and allocation of resources.

Access – All people have fair access to services, resources and opportunities to meet their basic needs

and improve their quality of life.

Participation – Everyone has the maximum opportunity to genuinely participate in decisions which affect

their lives.

Rights – Everyone’s rights are recognised and promoted.


2013/256867 of 28

The International Association of Public Participati on (IAP2) spectrum illustrates:

That at various stages of the CSP (and other plan and program) development, different engagement

techniques will reflect the IAP2 spectrum including:

Inform We will keep you informed.

Consult We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and provide feedback on how

public input influenced the decision.

Involve We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the

alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

Collaborate We will look to you for direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate

your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.


2013/256867 of 28

Phases of the Engagement Strategy

The process for engaging our community was divided into a series of building phases: -

Phase 1 – Informing the community (October 2013 to February 2014)

A multi-channel communications program to inform ratepayers, residents and community stakeholders

Phase 2 – Consulting and engaging with the community (November 2013 – February 2014)

A multi-modal engagement process to consult with the broad community

A breakdown of the actions for the Engagement Strategy are attached in Appendix 1a

Building on past community engagement

Community engagement is the cornerstone of Council decision making. We have consulted regularly and

extensively over the past four years to establish policies, plans and strategies that contribute to the future of

Ku-ring-gai. The current Community Strategic Plan stemmed from robust and best practice research,

including our ‘Sustainability Vision Report’, an intergenerational examination of our community now and into

the future.

In developing information to be presented to our community we also built on past engagement activities

including the following:

• Closing the Gap – community consultation survey 2012

• Infrastructure Levy extension survey 2012

• Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plans

In addition, we regularly conduct satisfaction studies to determine what is important to our community and

how satisfied they are with current service levels. This helps determine future investment in services and

assets.

Stakeholders and target audience

Our community stakeholders are wide and varied. They not only include people living within our boundaries,

but also people that use our services, are members of our clubs and run local businesses.

Broad Ku-ring-gai community

The engagement strategy allowed for all members of the local community to participate in the conversation

on the special rate continuation. This includes residents, ratepayers, landowners, organisations, businesses

and anyone with an interest in Ku-ring-gai.

Representative sample of residents

Despite having an actively involved community with usually strong representation from our demographic

groups, we must ensure that our application for special rate variation is informed by a demographically


2013/256867 of 28

representative group of residents. This will ensure, with 95% confidence, that we reach all age groups and

suburbs. This is especially critical in reaching those ‘hard to reach’ residents like young people, older

people, people with a disability and people from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds.

Phase 1 – Informing the community

A primary objective of the engagement strategy was to notify and inform our community about:

• Council’s resolution to apply for a special rate continuation with IPART

• The financial situation now and into the future for road renewal and infrastructure assets

• The link between this proposal and the long term objectives identified in the Community Strategic

Plan 2030

• The link between this proposal and the term achievements and capital work program identified in

the Delivery Program 2013-2017 & Operational Plan 2013-2014 and draft Plans 2014-2015

• The high importance our community has placed on roads from past consultation

• The impact of the special rate variation on ratepayers

• Avenues for the community to have their say and access additional resources

The types of activities undertaken by Council to inform our ratepayers, residents and stakeholders were:

• Letter to residents in rates notice

• Information on Council’s website

• EngagementHQ ‘Have Your Say’ website

• Fact sheets and frequently asked questions

• Promotion via Council’s monthly E-newsletter

• Extensive print advertising campaign and media releases

• Social media

Letter to residents in rates notice

A letter notifying ratepayers of Council’s intention to apply for a continuation of the Special Rate Variation

for Infrastructure was included in the October 2013 rates notice. The letter informed ratepayers of the

following:

• Council’s decision to apply to IPART for the continuation of the special rate variation

• Background information on how long the special rate has been in place

• What the special rate funds

• How ratepayers can get involved and have their say

The letter was mailed to 33,000 Ku-ring-gai ratepayers. The letter is attached in Appendix 2a.


2013/256867 of 28

Information on Council’s website

Extensive information was made available on Council’s website with information on the proposal to continue

the special rate variation, details on rate structures, information on past consultation and the financial

impact on the average ratepaying household of Ku-ring-gai.

A link to the Have Your Say webpage for the Special Rate Variation for Infrastructure Assets was made

available for quick reference to further background studies and information, along with opportunities for rate

payers to leave comments and opinions regarding the proposal.

Special Rate Variation – Have Your Say webpage

A separate webpage was created using the EngagementHQ online platform. This webpage was a ‘one stop

shop’ for interested ratepayers and stakeholders to source background information and studies, download

documents, ask questions and to leave comments and opinions.

From October 2013 to January 2014 the webpage had:

• 1,360 page views

• 447 unique visitors

• 32 comments

• 297 documents downloaded

This webpage was promoted extensively to our ratepayers via online newsletters, advertisements and

Councils website. To view the page visit haveyoursaykuringgai.com.au/infrastructure-levy

Fact sheets and frequently asked questions

A fact sheet was produced to provide residents with additional information on the application for the Special

Rate Variation, the IPART application process, the condition of our roads and financial implications for

ratepayers. In addition, we articulated the operational efficiencies implemented by Council to save money,

and the how the special rate variation is the only viable funding option to ensure that the road renewal

program is delivered in line with community priorities and level of service.

Between October 2013 to January 2014, 600 ratepayers were issued this factsheet as part of our

community survey, and an additional 156 ratepayers downloaded this factsheet from our Have Your Say

page.

The fact sheet is attached in Appendix 2b.

The frequently asked questions are attached in Appendix 2c.

Promotion via Council’s monthly E-newsletter

A story on the special rate variation proposal was distributed to over 6,500 residents via Council’s monthly

E-newsletter in the November and December 2013 editions. The story notified ratepayers of the special rate

application to IPART and directed respondents to leave comments and feedback.


2013/256867 of 28

Extensive print advertising campaign

Media releases and print advertisements were placed in the local newspaper The North Shore Times in

December 2013. The circulation of the North Shore Times is 60,034 on Wednesday and 73,130 on Friday.

The North Shore Times is circulated to all Ku-ring-gai households.

Date Print Media

10 December 2013 Media release issued to North Shore Times

13 December 2013 Public notice printed in North Shore Times

18 December 2013 Story printed in North Shore Times

Content of these press releases and public notices aimed to notify ratepayers of the application process

and encourage comment and feedback.

Copies of the print advertisements are included as Appendix 2d.

Social media

Residents and stakeholders were notified by Facebook and Twitter of the application to IPART. Council

posted information on the application process and links to our website to encourage comment and

feedback.

Phase 2 - Consulting and engaging with the communit y

Council is committed to providing multiple avenues for comment and input from the broad community. We

engaged ratepayers, residents and interested stakeholders via a range of channels on the proposal for a

continuation to the special rate for infrastructure assets. This included:

• Random, representative telephone survey of 400 ratepayers in the Ku-ring-gai LGA

• EngagementHQ ‘Have Your Say’ online guestbook and poll

• Written submissions

• Community workshop

Random telephone survey of ratepayers

An independent research company was contracted to conduct a randomly selected telephone survey of

400 ratepayers from across the Ku-ring-gai LGA. The primary objective of the survey was to measure the

support for the continuation of the special rate variation across a statistically valid and representative

sample of ratepayers. The telephone survey was conducted between 25 November and 3 December 2013.

Some of the key findings include:

• 81% of respondents indicating support for the continuation of the special rate variation

• 97% indicated that continuing to improve road conditions was of high importance


2013/256867 of 28

• Of the 19% of respondents that did not support the continuation, only a small percentage claimed

hardship and a need to save money as their reason. The majority of those that did not support the

continuation believed Council should “better use” its income.

A copy of the final report is included in Appendix 3a.

Special Rate Variation – Have Your Say webpage

A separate webpage was created using the EngagementHQ online platform. This webpage was a ‘one stop

shop’ for interested rate payers and stakeholders to source background information and studies, download

documents, ask questions and leave comments and opinions.

From October 2013 to January 2014 the website had 447 unique visitors. Of those who registered for the

site, only 6% wrote in the guest book (32 comments).

Common themes for the comments included:

• Need for better usage and allocation of existing council revenue from rates and levies

• Damage to roads from the construction of new developments

• Need for improved council efficiencies and staffing freezes

• Acceptance of challenges to maintaining extensive network of local roads

The low volume of comments from visitors to the site indicate general acceptance of the information

provided by Council for the need to continue the special rate variation.

Written submissions

A total of 13 written submissions were received from ratepayers. The submissions covered a range of

themes that were subsequently addressed in the frequently asked questions.

Themes included:

• The need for the special rate

• Allocation of general revenue to fund road renewal

• Council efficiencies

• Rate pegging

• Improved clarity of special rate on rates notices

The most common themes are addressed later in this strategy document.

Community workshop

Following the telephone survey, the Research Consultants conducted a deliberative forum of n=24

participants recruited from the survey.


2013/256867 of 28

The engagement took place on Monday 9 December 2013 and was held at Council Chambers. The

workshops included presentations from Council’s Director of Operations, Corporate, and Strategy and

Environment. Information presented included:

• Council’s financial position

• How income is distributed

• Allocation of income to assets and services

• How Council have explored all options to fund assets’ improvements and implemented operating

efficiencies

• Explanation why special rate is preferred to alternative funding options

• The need for road improvements and total funding required

• State of the roads with and without the special rate (LGA map)

• 81% of people in the survey supported the continuation of the special rate for infrastructure assets

There was some confusion as to how the special rate variation appeared on residents’ rates noticesls, As a

result form 1 July 2014 all Rates Notices will more clearly identify the amount of the Special Rate Variation

for Infrastructure as a separate line item.. In spite of this, the average amount of $64 per annum3 was

considered by most a relatively small amount. Many participants appreciated that it was a difficult task with

no simple solution, but that roads should continue to be maintained so they do not depreciate in the future,

and that it is important to think longer term.

A full copy of the consultant’s report is in Appendix 3a.

Common themes

Although Ku-ring-gai Council received overwhelming support for our proposal during representative surveys

and workshops, a number of common themes emerged from community feedback that Council needed to

address. Below are a series of common questions and themes, and Council’s response to these questions.

Why do we need to continue the Levy?

Ku-ring-gai needs better roads. The levy boosts our roads budget by $2.7M each year, ensuring important

road renewal works are undertaken and our roads improve over time.

There is a funding shortfall for roads. The revenue Council receives from rates is not enough to cover the

investment required to improve our road network.

To reduce this shortfall we implemented a range of initiatives to redirect funding to roads and other assets.

These include:

• A rates restructure to provide an extra $36 million over the next 20 years

• Operating efficiencies to redirect $18 million over 10 years

• Redirecting funds from lower priority assets and services into our roads

Even with this additional funding, Council still requires the levy to fund the shortfall.

If the levy is not approved, Council will have to redirect further funds from other community assets and

services, or reduce our roads renewal program.

3 Approximate annual charge 2013-2014 Ku-ring-gai Council Rates Notice


2013/256867 of 28

Why can’t we redirect funding from new assets to ex isting assets?

Funding for new assets is obtained predominantly through contributions received from developers. Due to

legislative requirements these monies must be spent on new assets only.

Councils Contributions Plan seeks to ensure that the level of infrastructure provided at Ku-ring-gai is

adequate to address the demand created from new development. This means that Council has to spend

funds on new car parks, new recreational facilities, new buildings and new roads to cater for the impact of

future development.

Council has already constructed a number of new parks including Greengate Park at Killara and Balcombe

Park in Wahroonga. We have also acquired a number of properties to provide new roads linkages to

improve the effects of increased traffic.

Why don’t developers pay for damaging our roads?

Construction of new development in the area may impact on our existing infrastructure such as roads and

footpaths. To ensure that damage is rectified, Council charges developers a restoration fee. The fees

collected go directly into special fund which is used to restore the road damaged.

Why isn’t asset funding prioritised?

Funding for the maintenance and renewal of existing assets is allocated based on community priorities.

In 2012, Council engaged with the community to determine asset priorities and allocation of funding. As a

result, roads were identified as the number one priority followed by footpaths, buildings and drainage. The

results from the representative survey were used by Council to redirect funds into the high priority assets

from other lower priority assets. The report on this survey is available on our website at

http://haveyoursaykuringgai.com.au/document/index/3

What efficiencies have been implemented?

An external review of services has been conducted and Council has implemented a number of initiatives to

increase funding to our assets. These include reducing staff, changes to the operational fleet and

environmental initiatives including energy savings.

Council has also contracted out various services to the private sector, obtained savings through joint

procurement activities and a focus on workplace health and safety has contributed to a reduction in workers

compensation costs. An external review of services in 2012 found that relative to the scale of other like

councils, Ku-ring-gai delivers its range of services at lower total operating costs, with fewer total employees

and at lower employee costs than average.

What are the other options to raise funds?

Other options for council to raise funds are loans, grants, fees and charges and asset sales. Council

already actively applies for grant funding to assist with service and program delivery and we have

undertaken the sale of surplus assets to fund local centre revitalisation projects. We have also taken out

loans for the improvement of our community facilities such as public toilets and Gordon Library upgrade.


2013/256867 of 28

Fees for services and rent revenue from Council property are regularly reviewed to ensure appropriate

returns and contributions from users.

Why is the levy the best option?

For a number of years Council has investigated and implemented a range of options to address the funding

shortfall and even with this additional funding we still require the levy to ensure the roads program is fully

funded and that the condition of our roads does not deteriorate further.

The levy, which has been in place since 2001, is a reliable income stream, it is affordable for our ratepayers

and it allows Council to maintain our existing services. Without the levy Council will need to review asset

related service levels.

What is the rate peg?

Each year the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) sets or ‘pegs’ the amount of rates

councils can collect from ratepayers. The rate peg is expressed as a percentage increase – such as 2 or 3

per cent - and is the maximum amount councils can increase its total rates revenue.

IPART announced the rate peg for the 2014/2015 financial year as 2.3 per cent, which is less than the likely

increase in wages and other costs from general inflation.

It is not clear on my rates notice how much I pay?

The SRV for Infrastructure forms a minor component of the total Infrastructure Levy which is identified on

rates notices. The SRV costs on average $64 per household per annum and represents approximately 11%

of the total infrastructure levy. In 2014/15 the SRV component will be separately identified on the rate notice

Why are our roads in such a bad condition? What imp rovements have been made to our roads?

Last financial year Council spent approximately $ 1million on maintenance of our roads and approximately

$7.9million for the renewal of our road surface and pavement; this includes $2.6million from the

infrastructure levy. Most of the Council’s road network was constructed by developers and from government

grants, often provided and accepted without consideration of ongoing operations, maintenance and

replacement needs. This has led to a renewal backlog of $96 million which is the required funding to

improve the 56% of local roads in a poor condition.

Council is responsible for over 480km of roads and has to prioritise maintenance and renewal works to

ensure that the roads in a poor condition are improved and those in a good and fair condition are

maintained. In the past five years, Council has completed over 60km of road works but there is still a long

way to go to get our roads in good condition. While Council carries out road works to fix poor and failed

roads it also has to try and keep fair and good roads in good condition. It is cheaper to resurface a good

road and keep it that way rather than letting it deteriorate and fail and cost more to fix. Therefore, there

needs to be a balance on what works need to be done each year and this is determined by a Pavement

Management System.


2013/256867 of 28

Reporting back

Upon completion of the Community Engagement Strategy and application to IPART for the Special Rate

Variation, Council will report back the outcomes from the consultation activity via the following methods:

• Councillor briefing

• Information posted on Council website

• Media release to North Shore Times

• Annual Report

• Delivery Program


2013/256867 of 28

Appendix 1a

Community Engagement Strategy Actions


2013/256867 of 28

The Community Engagement Strategy - Actions

Action

(What is the engagement action we are taking?)

Activity

(What are the activities we need to complete for our engagement actions?)

IAP2

(Type of engagement)

Timeframe

(When will it happen?)

Performance targets

(How will we measure success?)

Build on Council’s commitment to public participation Develop an Engagement Strategy Inform Oct 2013 Committee created

Raise public awareness and provide opportunity for comment and feedback on levy extension

Develop a communications plan that includes:

• Local newspapers

• Website – Council and Have Your Say Ku-ring-gai

• Email newsletters

• Community networks – organisations, associations, staff networks

• Rates notice

Inform

Consult

Oct 2013 – Jan 2014

Communications plan developed

No. of activities

Evidence of effectiveness

Adopt a multi-modal consultation approach to ensure that stakeholders are adequately represented and their views are identified and documented

TARGET - ‘Whole of Community’

Establish online discussion forums Consult Oct 2013 – Jan

2014

No. of registered online users

No. of views

No. of comments

Priorities identified

TARGET – ‘Representative sample’

Undertake survey and focus groups with representative sample of Ku-ring-gai residents

Consult Nov 2013 – Dec 2013

No. of focus groups

No. of attendees

Priorities identified

TARGET – ‘Councillors’

Undertake meetings and discussions with councillors Consult Nov 2013 – Dec

2013

No. of meetings

No. of participants

Priorities Identified


2013/256867 of 28

Appendix 2a

Letter to residents in rates notice


2013/256867 of 28

Appendix 2b

Special Rate Variation - Ratepayer Factsheet

Infrastructure Levy

Reference: S06788/2 2013/296639

20 November 2013 «Barcode» «Name» «Address» «Suburb»«Postcode»

Dear Resident Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. Woolcott Research has been engaged by Council to conduct the survey on its behalf. Please read through the attached factsheets and Woolcott Research will contact you next week to conduct the telephone survey. The first factsheet contains information about the existing Infrastructure Levy, which funds the road improvement program. It outlines how it improves our road network and the current condition of our roads. The levy expires in June 2014 and in order for it to continue Council must reapply to the NSW State Government’s Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). The second factsheet includes information on other priority assets including footpaths, drainage and buildings. The purpose of the telephone survey is to measure our community’s support for the continuation of the Infrastructure Levy for the application to IPART. The survey will also ask you some questions relating to how we fund other priority assets in the future. If you have any questions about the information contained in these factsheets then please contact Deborah Silva by email [email protected] or phone 9424 0000. In addition to the telephone survey we are hosting a forum and online consultation which will provide another avenue for you to have your say. Please visit www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/InfrastructureLevy for more information. The website also provides a list of roads that have been identified for renewal in Councils 4 year Delivery Program. Thank you in advance for your participation in the survey next week. Yours sincerely

σ John McKee General Manager

Infrastructure Levy – Improving Ku-ring-gai’s roads - Fact sheet 1 What is the Infrastructure Levy? The Infrastructure Levy funds improvements to Council’s road network. The levy improves the condition of our road surfaces and pavements that are identified as being in a poor condition. The current levy equates to $64 per annum for the average rate paying household and has been in place since 2001. Eligible pensioners are entitled to a full rebate.The levy expires in June 2014. The levy contributes $2.7M to our total roads budget and accounts for 5% of the total rate income. About the application process to IPART Ku-ring-gai Council must apply to IPART in early 2014. We are applying for a permanent continuation to the Infrastructure Levy under 508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993. The application must demonstrate to IPART the:

• importance of the levy for Ku-ring-gai; • impact to our roads without the levy;

and • level of rate payer support to continue

paying the $64 per annum (on average) to the levy.

If Council’s application to IPART is approved, the $2.7 million will continue to be invested in roads each year. You will see no change to your rate levels, above that of the nominal rate increase linked to the CPI.

If the application is not approved, your rates will be reduced by approximately $64 per annum and the amount invested in roads will decrease by $2.7 million each year. Why do we need to continue the Levy? Ku-ring-gai needs better roads. The levy boosts our roads budget by $2.7M each year, ensuring important road renewal works are undertaken and our roads improve over time. There is a funding shortfall for roads. The revenue Council receives from rates is not enough to cover the investment required to improve our road network. To reduce this shortfall we implemented a range of initiatives to redirect funding to roads and other assets. These include:

• A rates restructure to provide an extra $36 million over the next 20 years


• Redirecting funds from lower priority

assets and services into our roads

Even with this additional funding, Council still requires the levy to fund the shortfall. If the levy is not approved, Council will have to redirect further funds from other community assets and services, or reduce our roads renewal program.

818 Pacific Highway Gordon | T 02 9424 0000 | F 02 9424 0001 | E [email protected] ı www .kmc.nsw.gov.au

Infrastructure Levy – Improving Ku-ring-gai’s roads - Fact sheet 1

Council Roads Council currently invests $8.8 million on road improvements each year. This amount of funding is required to continue renewing our roads and improving the condition of this asset over time. The Infrastructure Levy contributes over 30% of the roads budget or $2.7 million of the total funding. Current Asset Condition

Ku-ring-gai has a vast network of roads. Since the introduction of the Infrastructure Levy in 2001, we have seen ongoing improvement to the condition of our roads. Despite these improvements, a recent assessment has determined that 56% of our roads are still in a ‘poor’ condition.

The priority for Council’s roads program is to continue renewing our ‘poor’ roads bringing them into a ‘good’ condition. In addition to this, we must continue the work already started and maintain the quality of our roads in a ‘good’ condition.

Good Fair Poor Little cracking Slight roughness Significant cracking/potholes Smooth surface Slight cracking and minor potholes Rough surface

Future Funding for Other Priority Assets - Fact Sheet 2

In 2012 we surveyed residents to determine their highest priority assets. The consultation identified that in addition to roads, the assets most important to our community are footpaths, drainage and buildings. Council’s current budget allocates $1.4 million on improving these assets per year. We have assessed however, that we should be spending $4.2 million each year to bring these assets to a good standard. This results in an annual funding shortfall of $2.8 million. In the past year Council has improved operating efficiencies to redirect funding into our footpath, drainage and building programs, and we will be investigating other opportunities in the future to further address the shortfall. One option may be to apply to IPART for a new levy, or for an increase to the Infrastructure Levy to include funding for these assets. To ensure that the community is not unduly burdened we would only do this once other levies have expired. Options will be further explored in a consultation with the community at a future date.

The graph above shows the current condition of our footpath, drainage and building assets. The cost to renew the assets in a poor condition is shown below.

Asset Required Funding budgeted Funding Funding shortfall

Footpath $ 344,082 $ 300,000 -$ 44,082

Drainage $ 1,500,380 $ 197,174 -$ 1,303,205

Buildings $ 2,388,450 $ 927,122 -$ 1,461,327 TOTALS $ 4,232,912 $ 1,424,297 -$ 2,808,614

Footpaths

Fair Poor Good Fair Poor - No cracking - Minor cracking - Cracked and broken slabs - Smooth surface - Minor trip hazards - Large trip hazards Drainage Good Fair Poor - No cracks in pipe work - Moderate openings in joins - Significant misalignment in pipe - Minor or no openings in joins - Moderate cracking in joints - Significant cracking in pipes - Moderate deformation of pipes - Significant openings in joins Buildings Good Fair Good Fair Poor - Structurally sound, compliant - Structurally reliable - Badly deteriorated - Good condition internally - Minor defects - Potential structural issues - Good condition externally - Requires regular maintenance - Major defects - Functional toilet and plumbing - Services functional but need attention - Components fail regularly


2013/256867 Page 21 of 28

Appendix 2c

Frequently Asked Questions


2013/256867 Page 22 of 28

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What is the Special Rate Variation for Infrastructure?

The Special Rate Variation (SRV) funds improvements to Council’s road network. It contributes to renewing the roads

that have been identified in a poor condition.

The SRV forms a component of the infrastructure levy which is identified in residents rates notices and costs the

average rate paying household approximately $64 per annum. The SRV has been in place since 2001 and expires in

June 2014. Eligible pensioners are entitled to a full rebate.

The SRV contributes $2.7M to our total roads budget and accounts for 5% of the total rate income.

Q. Why do we need to continue the Special Rate Variation?

Ku-ring-gai needs to improve the condition of our roads. The Special Rate Variation boosts our roads budget by $2.7M

each year, ensuring important road renewal works are undertaken and our roads improve over time. There is a

funding shortfall for roads. The revenue Council receives from rates is not enough to cover the investment required to

improve our road network.

To reduce this shortfall we implemented a range of initiatives to redirect funding to roads and other assets.

These include:

• A rate restructures to provide an extra $36 million over the next 20 years


• Redirecting funds from lower priority assets and services into our roads

Even with this additional funding, Council still requires the SRV to fund the shortfall.

If the SRV is not approved, Council will have to redirect further funds from other community assets and services, or

reduce our roads renewal program.

Q. About the application process to IPART

Ku-ring-gai Council must apply to IPART in early 2014. We are applying for a permanent continuation to the Special

Rate Variation under 508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.

The application must demonstrate to IPART the;

• importance of the SRV for Ku-ring-gai;

• impact to our roads without the SRV; and

• level of rate payer support to continue paying the $64 per annum (on average) to the SRV.

If Council’s application to IPART is approved, the $2.7 million will continue to be invested in roads each year. You will

see no change to your rate levels, above that of the nominal rate increase linked to the CPI.

If the application is not approved, your rates will be reduced by approximately $64 per annum and the amount

invested in roads will decrease by $2.7 million each year.

Q. What were the results from the representative survey?

In late November through to early December 2013, Council engaged an independent research company to complete a

telephone survey with ratepayers.


2013/256867 Page 23 of 28

The primary objective of the survey was to measure whether Ku-ring-gai ratepayers supported the continuation of the

SRV to fund the roads improvement program.

The survey results indicated that there was a high level of support for the continuation of the special rate variation,

with 81% of all respondents indicating they supported it. The final report is available on our website at

http://haveyoursaykuringgai.com.au/document/index/3

The survey also explored community opinions on expected levels of service for assets and to obtain feedback on

potential options for future funding of other priority assets.

Q. What were the results of the deliberative forum?

Following the telephone survey, the research company conducted a deliberative forum with ratepayers who had

participated in the telephone survey. The objectives of the forum were to discuss the outcomes of the survey and to

gauge community opinions and options for future funding. Future funding options will be discussed with the community

throughout 2014/2015.

Q. Why can’t we redirect funding from new assets to existing assets?

Funding for new assets is obtained predominantly through contributions received from developers. Due to legislative

requirements these monies must be spent on new assets only.

Councils Contributions Plan seeks to ensure that the level of infrastructure provided at Ku-ring-gai is adequate to

address the demand created from new development. This means that Council has to spend funds on new car parks,

new recreational facilities, new buildings and new roads to cater for the impact of future development.

Council has already constructed a number of new parks including Greengate Park at Killara and Balcombe Park in

Wahroonga. We have also acquired a number of properties to provide new roads linkages to improve the effects of

increased traffic.

Q. Why don’t developers pay for damaging our roads?

Construction of new development in the area may impact on our existing infrastructure such as roads and footpaths.

To ensure that damage is rectified, Council charges developers a restoration fee. The fees collected go directly into

special fund which is used to restore the road damaged.

Q. Why isn’t asset funding prioritised?

Funding for the maintenance and renewal of existing assets is allocated based on community priorities.

In 2012, Council engaged with the community to determine asset priorities and allocation of funding. As a result, roads

were identified as the number one priority followed by footpaths, buildings and drainage. The results from the

representative survey were used by Council to redirect funds into the high priority assets from other lower priority

assets. The report on this survey is available on our website at http://haveyoursaykuringgai.com.au/document/index/3

Q. What efficiencies have been implemented?


2013/256867 Page 24 of 28

An external review of services has been conducted and Council has implemented a number of initiatives to increase

funding to our assets. These include reducing staff, changes to the operational fleet and environmental initiatives

including energy savings.

Council has also contracted out various services to the private sector, obtained savings through joint procurement

activities and a focus on workplace health and safety has contributed to a reduction in workers compensation costs.

An external review of services in 2012 found that relative to the scale of other like councils, Ku-ring-gai delivers its

range of services at lower total operating costs, with fewer total employees and at lower employee costs than average.

Q. What are the other options to raise funds?

Other options for council to raise funds are loans, grants, fees and charges and asset sales. Council already actively

applies for grant funding to assist with service and program delivery and we have undertaken the sale of surplus

assets to fund local centre revitalisation projects. We have also taken out loans for the improvement of our community

facilities such as public toilets and Gordon Library upgrade.

Fees for services and rent revenue from Council property are regularly reviewed to ensure appropriate returns and

contributions from users.

Q. Why is the levy the best option?

For a number of years Council has investigated and implemented a range of options to address the funding shortfall

and even with this additional funding we still require the levy to ensure the roads program is fully funded and that the

condition of our roads does not deteriorate further.

The levy, which has been in place since 2001, is a reliable income stream, it is affordable for our ratepayers and it

allows Council to maintain our existing services. Without the levy Council will need to review asset related service

levels.

Q. What is the rate peg?

Each year the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) sets or ‘pegs’ the amount of rates councils can

collect from ratepayers. The rate peg is expressed as a percentage increase – such as 2 or 3 per cent - and is the

maximum amount councils can increase its total rates revenue.

IPART announced the rate peg for the 2014/2015 financial year as 2.3 per cent, which is less than the likely increase

in wages and other costs from general inflation.

Q. It is not clear on my rates notice how much I pay?

The SRV for Infrastructure forms a minor component of the total Infrastructure Levy which is identified on rates

notices. The SRV costs on average $64 per household per annum and represents approximately 11% of the total

infrastructure levy. In 2014/15 the SRV component will be separately identified on the rate notice

Q. Why are our roads in such a bad condition? What improvements have been made to our roads?


2013/256867 Page 25 of 28

Last financial year Council spent approximately $ 1million on maintenance of our roads and approximately $ 7.9million

for the renewal of our road surface and pavement; this includes $2.6million from the infrastructure levy. Most of the

Council’s road network was constructed by developers and from government grants, often provided and accepted

without consideration of ongoing operations, maintenance and replacement needs. This has led to a renewal backlog

of $96 million which is the required funding to improve the 56% of local roads in a poor condition.

Council is responsible for over 480km of roads and has to prioritise maintenance and renewal works to ensure that the

roads in a poor condition are improved and those in a good and fair condition are maintained. In the past five years,

Council has completed over 60km of road works but there is still a long way to go to get our roads in good condition.

While Council carries out road works to fix poor and failed roads it also has to try and keep fair and good roads in

good condition. It is cheaper to resurface a good road and keep it that way rather than letting it deteriorate and fail and

cost more to fix. Therefore, there needs to be a balance on what works need to be done each year and this is

determined by a Pavement Management System.


2013/256867 Page 26 of 28

Appendix 2d

Media releases, public notices and advertisements


2013/256867 Page 27 of 28

Tuesday December 10, 2013

Ku-ring-gai residents have your say on road levy

Ku-ring-gai Council is inviting residents to have their say on Council’s application to extend the existing Special Rate

Variation for Infrastructure at http://haveyoursaykuringgai.com.au/infrastructure-levy by February 24, 2014.

The rate variation would improve the Council’s aging road network by renewing roads in poor condition.

Costing the average rate paying household $64 per annum, the rate variation has been in place since 2001 and

expires in June 2014. .

Eligible pensioners would continue to be entitled to a full rebate.

A recent independent study among Ku-ring-gai ratepayers found 81 per cent support the Council’s application to the

NSW Government’s Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (iPART) to extend the rate variation beyond 2014.

“When speaking with residents, roads are consistently one of the top concerns I hear about,” said Ku-ring-gai Mayor

Jennifer Anderson.

“That’s why we wrote a letter to ratepayers about the levy in the latest rates notice and commissioned an independent

study that included surveys and a community workshop.

“If you haven’t yet told us what you think about the extension of the rate variation to improve our roads, we’d love for

you to have your say in our online forum,” she said.

Ku-ring-gai residents are encouraged to have their say on the application by 24 January 2014 at:

http://haveyoursaykuringgai.com.au/infrastructure-levy

-Ends-

Media enquiries Tiffiny Kellar 9424 0982, 0400 321 727 or [email protected]

of 1NewsLocal digital edition - North Shore Times - 13 Dec 2013 - Page #12

11/02/2014http://newslocal.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/services/OnlinePrintHandler.ashx?issue...

of 1NewsLocal digital edition - Residents to have a say on rate variation - 18 Dec 2013 - P...

11/02/2014http://newslocal.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/services/PrintArticle.ashx?issue=87152...


2013/256867 Page 28 of 28

Appendix 3a

Consultant’s Report including findings and results from the telephone survey and workshop

Research Report: Special Rate Variation (SRV)

- Ratepayers’ Feedback

Prepared for: Ku-ring-gai Council

December 2013

2

Special Rate Variation - Ratepayer feedback report

December 2013 [Date] Table of Contents

Background and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Detailed Research Findings

Telephone Survey

1. Importance of Improving Road Condition ............................................................................... 8

2. Support for the Continuation of the SRV .............................................................................. 12

3. Acceptable Conditions of Other Priority Assets .................................................................... 16

4. Support for Future Funding of Priority Assets ....................................................................... 21

Ratepayers' Engagement Forum

1. Positives and Negatives of Living in Ku-ring-gai Council ....................................................... 24

1. Reactions to Information on Roads and the SRV .................................................................. 26

2. Reactions to Information on Future Options ........................................................................ 29

3. Voting on Preferred Option ................................................................................................... 38

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A: Copy of Telephone Survey Questionnaire ................................................................. 42

Appendix B: Copy of the Proforma used at the Deliberate Engagement Forum ........................... 47

3


December 2013 [Date] Background and Objectives

Background

Council currently invests $8.8 million on road improvements each year. This amount of funding is required to continue renewing our roads and improving the condition of this asset over time. The Special Rate Variation (SRV) contributes 30% of the roads budget or $2.6 million of the total funding in 2013/14.

The previous SRV was approved in 2006 for seven years ending on 30 June 2013, and last year was extended for a year. Council would like to continue this SRV as a percentage of the notional general income from 1 July 2014. Without the funding from the SRV, the proposed roads program could not continue. Council would need to either reduce investment significantly, and/or reallocate funding from other important services.

In order to continue the SRV from 1 July 2014, Council needs to provide evidence of support from the community.

Therefore Council conducted a survey with ratepayers and a deliberative engagement forum to help gauge support and capture comment on this proposal.

The results of both these projects are presented in this document.

Objectives

The primary objective of this project overall, was to measure the support for the continuation of the SRV to fund the roads renewal program in Ku-ring-gai.

The secondary objectives were to explore community opinions on expected levels of assets and services and to gauge reactions to options for future funding of other priority assets.

Telephone survey question areas:

The more specific question areas in the telephone survey were as follows: (A copy of the questionnaire is appended to the back of this document)

• importance of continuing to improve condition of roads in Ku-ring-gai,

• incidence of supporting continuation of the SRV component of the existing SRV (approximately $64 each year for the average rate payer) to fund the roads initiatives, and reasons for lack of support,

4


December 2013 [Date]

• level of support for continuation of the SRV at a reduced rate, and amount willing to pay (knowing it is currently $64)

• perceived minimum acceptable condition for conditions for roads, footpaths, buildings

and drainage, • incidence of being in favour or against Ku-ring-gai Council applying for the introduction of

an increase or new SRV for Infrastructure Assets, and

• demographic information.

Deliberative engagement forum question areas:

The specific question areas covered in the deliberative forum included the following: (a copy of the agenda used is appended to the back of this document)

• positive and negative aspects of living in Ku-ring-gai LGA,

• reactions to information regarding roads and the SRV,

• reactions to a series of options for funding for the future, and

• preference for each option.

5


December 2013 [Date] Methodology

Telephone Survey

A total of n=400 Ku-ring-gai Council ratepayers were surveyed via Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI).

A telephone survey rather than an online methodology was chosen because the small number of Ku-ring-gai ratepayers on internet research panels made this method unfeasible. A telephone survey was also considered beneficial because it allowed the interviewer to explain the information in more depth and obtain more reliable and informed responses. It also ensured that a representative sample was obtained rather than simply placing the survey on a link from Council’s website which would skew results considerably.

A ‘deliberative style’ approach to the survey was also taken, in that ratepayers were given enough time and information to provide an informed opinion. So rather than including substantial amounts of information for interviewers to read out in the survey, which would probably not be fully absorbed or understood by participants, the information was sent out to them before being asked to participate the telephone survey. Then they were simply reminded of the main points of the information in the survey.

Telephone surveying was conducted between 25 November and 3 December 2013.

Engagement Forum

Following the telephone survey, Woolcott Research conducted a Deliberative Forum of n=24 participants recruited from the survey. A total of n=33 ratepayers were recruited to participate (and confirmed on the day) however a total of n=24 attended.

The engagement forum took place on Monday 9th December 2013 and was held at Council Chambers, from 6-9pm.

A profile of the Engagement Forum attendees is presented below:

Table 1: Profile of Engagement Forum attendees

Gender

Male 11

Female 13

6



Age

Under 55 9

55+ 15

Suburb

Gordon 2

Killara 1

Lindfield 2

Pymble 2

Roseville 2

St Ives 4

Turramurra 5

Wahroonga/ Warrawee 6

Woolcott Research provided a Lead Facilitator, who chaired the event, and table facilitators for each table who guided the discussions and recorded the main points. Laptops were used at each table for facilitators to capture their table’s discussions. Each laptop was set up to offer:

1. Facilitator prompts - providing a structured format for facilitators to input discussion summaries, with screen prompts where necessary 2. Time-coded storage of all qualitative data - available for download into grids for subsequent detailed analysis

After the event the data from laptops was collated and downloaded into an Excel grid. This discussion data was then analysed by researchers.

Copies of all materials used at the deliberative forum are appended to the back of this report (e.g. agenda, proforma, hand outs, questionnaires).

7



Telephone Survey

- Detailed Research Findings -

8


December 2013 [Date] 1. Importance of Improving Road Condition

This section of the report provides the results of the telephone survey with ratepayers in Ku-ring-gai. The breakdown for gender, age and suburb has been presented for many of the survey questions. However, the findings for 18-39 year olds must be interpreted with caution due to a very small base size as must the results for some of the suburbs.

Importance of Continued Improvement of Roads

The majority of Ku-ring-gai Council ratepayers indicated that continuing to improve road conditions was of high importance, as shown in Figure 1 (74% felt it was ‘very important’ and a further 23% said it was ‘somewhat important’ (NETT 97% important).

This result was consistent across both gender (male and female 97% NETT important) and age (18-39, 40-54 and 55+ age brackets 100%, 98% and 96% NETT important respectively).

Figure 1: Importance of Continued Road Improvement – By Total, Gender and Age

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q3. How important would you say it is to continue improving the condition of roads in Ku-ring-gai? Would you say it is… *Caution: Small base size.

Figure 2 demonstrates that consistently high results were found across suburbs - NETT importance ranged from 100% for Gordon to 94% amongst Pymble ratepayers.

At most, ‘not important’ responses reached 4%. This occurred in both Pymble and Wahroonga/Warrawee.

Figure 2: Importance of Continued Road Improvement – By Suburb

76

72

79

76

71

74

20

26

21

21

26

23

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

55+ years(n=206)

40-54years

(n=180)

18-39years

(n=14)*

Female(n=237)

Male(n=163)

Total(n=400)

%

Very important Somewhat important Not important Unsure

9



Base: All respondents (n=400). Q3. How important would you say it is to continue improving the condition of roads in Ku-ring-gai? Would you say it is… *Caution: Small base size.

Minimum Acceptable Condition of Roads

There was an expectation of high quality roads, with more than half of all respondents considering the minimum acceptable condition to be ‘good’ (Figure 3). A further 38% responded with ‘fair’ while only 4% found the minimum acceptable condition of roads to be ‘poor’.

The age of the respondents seemed to play a role in determining what participants considered to be acceptable. 29% of 18-24 year olds suggested the minimum condition was ‘good’. This increased to 50% amongst 40-54 year olds and again increased amongst those aged 55+ to 67%. The frequency of ‘poor’ responses also decreased across these categories (7%, 4% and 2% reported across 18-39, 40-54 and 55+ age groups respectively).

Males and females reported similar results (61% and 56% ‘good’ respectively).

76

73

86

74

63

66

76

77

21

24

13

24

31

31

22

23

4

1

2

2

4

2

1

2

3

Wahroonga/Warrawee (n=78)

Turramurra(n=70)

St Ives(n=64)

Roseville(n=42)

Pymble(n=48)

Lindfield(n=35)*

Killara(n=41)

Gordon(n=22)*

%

Very important Somewhat important Not important Unsure

10



Figure 3: Minimum Acceptable Condition of Roads – By Total, Gender and Age

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q7a. The factsheets you were sent showed different levels of conditions for roads, footpaths, buildings and drainage. For each of these assets, can you please tell me what you consider to be the minimum acceptable condition? So first of all, for roads, what is the minimum acceptable condition? Would it be… *Caution: Small base size

When broken down by suburb, Figure 4 shows that more respondents from Killara (66%), St Ives (64%) and Turramurra (64%) found the minimum acceptable condition to be ‘good’ when compared to the average (58%).

Pymble (50%), Gordon (45%) and Roseville (50%) were the suburbs that gave the fewest ‘good’ responses.

67

50

29

56

61

58

30

46

64

41

35

38

2

4

7

4

3

4

1

55+ years(n=206)

40-54 years(n=180)

18-39 years(n=14)*

Female(n=237)

Male(n=163)

Total(n=400)

%

Good Fair Poor Unsure

11



Figure 4: Minimum Acceptable Condition of Roads – By Suburb

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q7a. The factsheets you were sent showed different levels of conditions for roads, footpaths, buildings and drainage. For each of these assets, can you please tell me what you consider to be the minimum acceptable condition? So first of all, for roads, what is the minimum acceptable condition? Would it be… *Caution: Small Base Size

58

64

63

50

50

57

66

45

38

31

36

48

46

40

27

50

4

4

2

4

3

7

5

2


Turramurra(n=70)

St Ives(n=64)

Roseville(n=42)

Pymble(n=48)

Lindfield(n=35)*

Killara(n=41)

Gordon(n=22)*

%


12


December 2013 [Date] 2. Support for the Continuation of the SRV

As shown in Figure 5 below, there was a high level of support for the continuation of the SRV with 81% of all respondents indicating they supported it.

A higher percentage of females (86%) supported the continuation than males (74%).

Within the age groups, the highest level of support was found among the 18-39 years age bracket (93%), while 40-54 year olds gave a lowerlevel of support (78%).

Figure 5: Support for the Continuation of the SRV – By Total, Gender and Age

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q4. After reading the information, do you support continuation of the special rate variation component of the existing Infrastructure Levy (approximately $64 each year for the average rate payer) to fund the roads initiatives? * Caution: Small base size

81 74

86 93

78 83

Total(n=400)

Male(n=163)

Female(n=237)

18-39 years(n=14)*

40-54 years(n=180)

55+ years(n=206)

%

13



Respondents from Gordon reported a noticeably lower level of support than other suburbs with only 64% saying they supported the continuation of the SRV (Figure 6). However, there was a very small base size for this suburb. On the other hand, Lindfield, Roseville and St Ives were the suburbs with the highest level of support (86% each).

Figure 6: Support for the Continuation of the SRV – By Suburb

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q4. After reading the information, do you support continuation of the special rate variation component of the existing Infrastructure Levy (approximately $64 each year for the average rate payer) to fund the roads initiatives? * Caution: Small base size

64

78 86

77 86 86

79 82

Gordon(n=22)*

Killara(n=41)

Lindfield(n=35)*

Pymble(n=48)

Roseville(n=42)

St Ives(n=64)

Turramurra(n=70)

Wahroonga/Warrawee

(n=78)

%

14



Of the n=77 respondents who did not support the continuation of the SRV, the main reason given for not supporting was a lack of trust that the council would use the money properly (29%) (Table 1). Other reasons respondents gave were that there was no need for more levies and that it should come out of Council rates already (21%) and that they wanted further information regarding the spending of the money (17%). Some also reported that they failed to see any progress being made (16%).

Table 1: Reasons for not Supporting Continuation of the SRV

Reason for not supporting continuation of SRV (n=77)

%

The council wastes money / I don't trust that they use it wisely 29

This should come out of council rates / No need for extra levies 21

Want to know how the money is spent before any Levy change / more information

17

I don't see progress / they don't seem to take action 16

I pay too much already / need to save money 12

I don't trust the council to be honest / I don't trust its management 12

Rate payers shouldn't pay for it / It can be taken from elsewhere 9

I don't agree with the priorities of the road initiatives 6

It should be a state government matter / should use money from the state government

4

I think the Levy is unnecessary / it is just an additional tax 4

The Levy should be a flat rate and not based off of property size 3

Other 5

Unsure 3

Base: Respondents who did not support the continuation of the SRV (n=77). Q5. What are your reasons for not supporting the continuation of the Special Rate Variation?

15



When respondents who did not support the continuation of the SRV were asked if they would support it at a reduced rate, 31% of them said they would. Nine per cent (9%) would support it at a rate of $41-64, 13% would support it at $21-40 and a further 9% would support it at $1-20 per annum. Sixty nine per cent (69%) said that they would not support it at a reduced rate.

Figure 7: Support for the Continuation of the SRV at a Reduced Rate

Base: Respondents who did not support the continuation of the SRV (n=77). Q6. Would you support continuation of the Special Rate Variation at a reduced rate? Base: Respondents who support the SRV at a reduced rate (n=24). 6b. The Special Rate Variation costs an average of $64 for the average ratepayer per year. What amount of the SRV would you be willing to pay? Please answer with a $ amount.

69%

9%

13%

9%

No

$41-64

$21-40

$1-20

16


December 2013 [Date] 3. Acceptable Conditions of Other Priority Assets

Minimum Acceptable Condition of Footpaths

Footpaths were seen to be of slightly higher priority than roads with 64% of all respondents saying that the minimum acceptable condition was ‘good’ (as opposed to 58% for roads) (Figure 8). Thirty two per cent (32%) found a ‘fair’ condition acceptable and only 4% stated that a ‘poor’ condition was acceptable.

However, when looking at the demographic split a familiar pattern emerged to what was found for roads. Males and females reported similar results (65% and 62% ‘good’ respectively) and the lowest age group gave the fewest ‘good’ responses (43%) followed by the middle group (59%) and the highest rate of ‘good’ responses came from the 55+ age bracket (68%).

Figure 8: Minimum Acceptable Condition of Footpaths – By Total, Gender and Age

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q7b. And what about for footpaths: what is the minimum acceptable condition? *Caution: Small base size

Most suburbs reported similar results with approximately two thirds saying ‘good’ was the minimal acceptable condition for footpaths (Figure 9). However Pymble respondents gave slightly fewer ‘good’ responses at 52% and Gordon reported noticeably lower at 36% ‘good’ (although the base size makes interpretation of this result problematic).

68

59

43

62

65

64

27

36

57

34

30

32

4

3

3

4

4

1

1

1

55+ years(n=206)

40-54 years(n=180)

18-39 years(n=14)*

Female(n=237)

Male(n=163)

Total(n=400)

%


17



Figure 9: Minimum Acceptable Condition of Footpaths – By Suburb

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q7b. And what about for footpaths: what is the minimum acceptable condition? *Caution: Small base size

Minimum Acceptable Condition of Buildings

Just over half of the respondents gave ‘good’ as the minimal acceptable condition of buildings (Figure 10). Most of the remaining respondents gave ‘fair’ as their response (43%) and only 2% said ‘poor’ was acceptable.

This total result was consistent across both gender (51% ‘good’ for male, 53% ‘good’ for female) and age (50%, 52% and 52% for 18-39, 40-45 and 55+ years old respectively).

63

69

69

64

58

66

66

36

35

27

31

31

33

29

27

59

1

4

2

6

6

7

5

1

2

2


Turramurra(n=70)

St Ives(n=64)

Roseville(n=42)

Pymble(n=48)

Lindfield(n=35)*

Killara(n=41)

Gordon(n=22)*

%


18



Figure 10: Minimum Acceptable Condition of Buildings – by Total, Gender and Age

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q7c. And what about for buildings? *Caution: Small base size

However when these results were broken down by suburb, noticeable variation was observed (Figure 11). Again, Gordon and Pymble were the suburbs that gave the fewest ‘good’ responses for the minimum acceptable condition of buildings (32% and 40% respectively). These suburbs also gave the highest number of ‘poor’ responses (5% and 6% respectively). Conversely, more than 60% of respondents in Killara, Roseville and Turramurra said the minimum acceptable condition was ‘good’.

52

52

50

53

51

52

44

42

50

42

45

43

1

3

3

1

2

2

3

2

3

3

55+ years(n=206)

40-54 years(n=180)

18-39 years(n=14)*

Female(n=237)

Male(n=163)

Total(n=400)

%


19



Figure 11: Minimum Acceptable Condition of Buildings – By Suburb

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q7c. And what about for buildings? *Caution: Small base size

Minimum Acceptable Condition of Drainage

Drainage was the most highly prioritised asset with nearly three quarters of all respondents saying the minimum acceptable condition was ‘good’ (Figure 12). A further 23% thought the minimum acceptable condition was ‘fair’.

Both males and females reported with similar ratings (71% and 74% ‘good’ respectively).

Within the 18-39 years age bracket there was a drop in the priority given to drainage. Only 43% said that the minimum acceptable condition was ‘good’. The 40-54 years age bracket gave a similar result to the total, while those aged 55+ were slightly more concerned with drainage with 77% saying the minimal condition was ‘good’. This pattern of the eldest age group being most concerned with conditions and the youngest age group being least concerned was found for all priority assets.

49

61

50

62

40

54

61

32

47

37

44

36

52

40

37

59

3

6

3

2

5

4

1

3

2

2

3

5


Turramurra(n=70)

St Ives(n=64)

Roseville(n=42)

Pymble(n=48)

Lindfield(n=35)*

Killara(n=41)

Gordon(n=22)*

%


20



Figure 12: Minimum Acceptable Condition of Drainage – By Total, Gender and Age

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q7d. And finally for drainage, what is the minimum acceptable condition? *Caution: Small base size

Generally there was little variation among different suburbs (Figure 13). Although the base sizes must be taken into account, Gordon and Pymble were once again the suburbs with the lowest standards of acceptable conditions with 59% and 60% ‘good’ responses respectively. Turramurra gave the highest number of ‘good’ responses at 83%.

Figure 13: Minimum Acceptable Condition of Drainage – By Suburb

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q7d. And finally for drainage, what is the minimum acceptable condition? *Caution: Small base size

77

71

43

74

71

73

19

25

57

22

25

23

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

55+ years(n=206)

40-54 years(n=180)

18-39 years(n=14)*

Female(n=237)

Male(n=163)

Total(n=400)

%


77

83

77

74

60

66

71

59

19

16

22

24

31

34

20

36

4

2

2

7

1

2

6

2

5


Turramurra(n=70)

St Ives(n=64)

Roseville(n=42)

Pymble(n=48)

Lindfield(n=35)*

Killara(n=41)

Gordon(n=22)*

%


21


December 2013 [Date] 4. Support for Future Funding of Priority Assets

Support for Increase or New SRV

There was substantial support for an increase or new SRV to include further funding for assets, with nearly two thirds of respondents being either ‘totally’ or ‘somewhat’ in favour (26% and 38% respectively) (Figure 14). In comparison, 10% of respondents were somewhat against an increase and 16% were totally against it.

In terms of comparing males and females, 9% more males were ‘totally against’ an increase or new SRV (21% males, 12% females) and 9% more females were ‘somewhat in favour’ of an increase (33% males, 42% females).

Figure 14: Support for Increase or New SRV – By Total, Gender and Age

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q10. Within the information there was a suggestion that in order to help fund other priority assets, an option might be to apply to IPART for an increase or new Special Rate Variation to include funding for assets such as footpaths, drainage and buildings. This request for additional funding would only occur once other current levies have expired.Once other levies have expired, to what extent would you be in favour or against Ku-ring-gai Council applying for the introduction of an increase or new Special Rate Variation for Infrastructure Assets? Would you say you were… *Caution: Small base size

When looking at suburb of respondents, variation in response rates was apparent (Figure 15). Gordon, Pymble and Turramurra were the suburbs with the fewest responses that were ‘totally in favour’ of a new or increased SRV. In contrast, Lindfield and St Ives had the highest level of combined ‘total’ and ‘somewhat’ in favour responses (75% and 72% NETT in favour respectively).

Killara respondents were highly polarised, with both high levels of support and high levels against changes to the SRV.

27

23

36

25

26

26

35

41

43

42

33

38

12

8

14

11

9

10

10

11

7

10

11

10

16

16

12

21

16

55+ years(n=206)

40-54 years(n=180)

18-39 years(n=14)*

Female(n=237)

Male(n=163)

Total(n=400)

%

Totally infavour

Somewhatin favour

Undecided Somewhatagainst

Totallyagainst

22



Figure 15: Support for Increase or New SRV – By Suburb

Base: All respondents (n=400). Q10. Within the information there was a suggestion that in order to help fund other priority assets, an option might be to apply to IPART for an increase or new Special Rate Variation to include funding for assets such as footpaths, drainage and buildings. This request for additional funding would only occur once other current levies have expired.Once other levies have expired, to what extent would you be in favour or against Ku-ring-gai Council applying for the introduction of an increase or new Special Rate Variation for Infrastructure Assets? Would you say you were… *Caution: Small base size

29

19

36

29

15

26

29

18

38

41

36

38

46

49

20

36

10

16

2

12

15

9

5

18

9

13

16

7

8

6

15

13

11

11

14

17

11

32

27


Turramurra(n=70)

St Ives(n=64)

Roseville(n=42)

Pymble(n=48)

Lindfield(n=35)*

Killara(n=41)

Gordon(n=22)*

%

Totally infavour

Somewhatin favour

Undecided Somewhatagainst

Totallyagainst

23



Ratepayers’ Engagement Forum

- Detailed Research Findings -

24


December 2013 [Date] 1. Positives and Negatives of Living in Ku-ring-gai Council

Participants were initially asked to discuss the positive and negative aspects of living in the Ku-ring-gai Council area.

Positives

Some clear themes emerged regarding the positives of living in the Ku-ring-gai area. One strong theme was the proximity to natural vegetation, bushland, National Parks, water and general green space. Ratepayers talked about how they enjoyed accessing and viewing the natural bushland as well as living amongst the vast amount of trees and gardens throughout the streets and suburbs. Similar to this was the easy access to waterways both in terms of accessing the river/harbour as well as viewing it.

‘It’s wonderful being so close to places like Bobbin Head’

‘I love the changing colours of the trees’

Being close to the train line and accessing the city and other parts of Sydney relatively quickly and efficiently was another frequently mentioned positive of the area. Accessibility to the motorways north and west was also mentioned.

Access to services was also raised such as access to health/medical services, libraries, good schools (public and private) and shops. Similarly access to sporting facilities such as ovals, basketball and tennis courts.

Another positive raised was the relative safety of the area vis a vis other areas in Sydney and the general feeling that ‘you don’t have to constantly live with the threat of having an intrusion’. This was important in regards to children’s safety as well as adults, particularly the elderly.

The general ambience and atmosphere was also felt to be a major advantage of living in Ku-ring-gai Council – this included the architecture, gardens, tree lined streets and the reasonably high socio-economic demographic profile of the ratepayers, which influence crime and safety, noise, etc. Similar to this was the wide mix of people including the mix of ages, those with and without children/families.

The overall lifestyle that the Ku-ring-gai area offered was also felt to be a positive aspect, which included having privacy and space yet still enjoying neighbours close by and a real community spirit.

Negatives

There were some consistent themes regarding negatives of the area, with perhaps one of the most prominent being the increasing number of units/high rise buildings being built in the

25



area. Specific concerns were in relation to the State Government’s medium density policy and the perception that the current infrastructure will struggle to deal with the number of people coming into the area. The increase in multi-dwelling housing also meant demolishing the trees/greenery and large garden blocks being replaced with large buildings and more concrete. Similar to this was the nature of the architecture and the buildings style not ‘in-keeping with the area’ and the general multitude of multi-dwelling blocks changing the atmosphere of the area.

‘There’s a cookie cutter format… trees can only cover a certain amount’

The large volume of traffic along the Pacific Highway corridor was also raised as a negative – particularly crossing the Pacific Highway and parking near the shops/railway stations.

Bus access in areas further away from the railway line was also thought to be insufficient and did not provide easy access to services in certain areas.

Some raised the number of pot holes in the roads and a lack of public footpaths in some areas.

Other negatives raised were generally concerning quite specific aspects like the state of the Turramurra shopping centre which was seen as old, tired and in need of renovation; and the feeling that people who do the wrong thing (like cutting a tree down without permission), are not penalised yet those that do the right thing (and ask Council for permission), are penalised because their applications are refused.

There was also mention of not enough cafes, restaurants and bars for younger people in the area.

26


December 2013 [Date] 2. Reactions to Information on Roads and the SRV

The following information was presented to participants regarding overall rates funding allocation and the roads and SRV:

• Council’s income & expenditure

• How income is distributed

• Allocation of income to assets and services

• Council has explored a range of funding options to fund assets’ improvements/ efficiencies implemented to date

• Explain why the SRV is preferred to the alternate funding options.

• The need for improvement to roads

• The total funding that is required

• State of the roads with and without the SRV (LGA map)

• 81% of people in the survey supported the continuation of the SRV component of the Levy

Participants were then asked their reactions to information given in the presentation, the extent to which they agree/disagreed with Council that the best option to fund the roads shortfall is a SRV and reasons why/why not; opinions regarding other funding options presented, e.g. going into debt, selling off assets; and their thoughts on the results from survey that 81% supported the continuation of the SRV and why do they thought there was such high support.

Reactions to Council Funding Allocations and the Need for a SRV

Overall there was widespread confusion regarding the current SRV and ‘Infrastructure Levy’ as it currently appeared on ratepayers’ bills, and what the levy comprised. In isolation the amount of an average of $64 per annum, was considered a relatively small amount -’it’s such a drop in the ocean’, so there was support for its continuation. However there were concerns in relation to what the other (larger) component of the Infrastructure Levy comprised.

‘It’s not a lot of money so it probably should be continued.’

‘Where does it say that on my bill?’

Correspondingly many indicated that they were not surprised by the 81% support in the survey because it was not thought to be a significant amount of money per year.

Many participants appreciated that it was a difficult task with no simple solution, but that roads should continue to be maintained so they do not depreciate in the future, and that it is

27



important to think longer term. Some expressed concerns about not wanting to burden future generations with debt, but they did not want to live beyond their means either.

‘It’s a juggling act.’

Selling off all the assets was not thought to be the answer or a preferred option either, unless it was earmarked for a specific project.

‘That’s a slippery slope… don’t sell the family jewels.’

‘It’s maybe not good to sell off assets. People use those. We can’t keep selling off assets.’

The information presented raised some further specific questions and comments as follows:

- The extent to which the new developments/high rises in the area have increased income in the form of rates; - Why Council is not charging developers to maintain the roads they destroy; - The extent to which the incremental length of the road network has increased and therefore the volume of roads that have to be maintained; - Why rates have gone up at a higher rate than CPI over the last few years; - Workmen make mistakes – work has to be redone, so there is wastage; - How much money is spent on legal costs fighting development applications; - Some questioned the type of asset management system council uses – and what distinction was made between maintaining and replacing roads.

Some felt that the way the SRV amount is worked out now, based on the size of land/house did not make sense. One table therefore suggested another option such as a road user pays system for ratepayers – households that own more cars pay more and households that own fewer cars pay less.

Various other cost saving ideas and comments included the following:

- Installing LED lighting (it was explained that this was Ausgrid’s responsibility and that this was being carried out);

- Using Council’s cash reserves; - Exploring other additional funding options, e.g. paying for car parking (if not a Ku-ring-gai

resident), - Higher levies on developers’ trucks that impact the roads, footpaths, etc - More fundraising events such as a large concert / festival like the Tamworth music festival

that people would come to from outside the area.

28



Many also expressed uncertainty regarding the issue overall and wondered if the expense needed was major. Some wanted to know the trend of improvement and past efficiency before making a decision regarding support for the SRV.

‘Are we just corking the Titanic?’

29


December 2013 [Date] 3. Reactions to Information on Future Options

In the next session participants were presented with some future options for other assets. The presentation included:

• Previous research showing which are priority assets

• State of assets currently and why work is required

• Benefits of improving our assets

• Future options for assets from 2015: Option 1: Decline in levels; Option 2: Maintain levels; Option 3: Improve levels

Participants were then provided with handouts which showed the details of three options, and asked what they thought were the benefits of each option; the negatives of each option; the risks for the future; and any specific points they would like to change about each option.

30


December 2013 [Date] Option 1: All assets decline

Overall reactions to Option 1 were poor. Most felt that the concept of letting all assets decline and not spending money on maintenance/upkeep was not a good idea because it would cost too much to repair them in the future. Although a couple of ratepayers pointed out that there would be other external factors/legal requirements that would come into play that would require them to replace items regardless of the Council’s policy.

Many felt that they needed to know more specific information about the assets the Council were referring to as there was a great deal of variation by asset. For example some things would need to be fixed up but others are less essential as long as they are fair and functional.

31



‘We don’t need everything to be beautiful… some things might be worth spending money on others not, it comes down to personal opinion!’

Most felt that $40 a year was a very small amount of money to be discussing, and that if $40 was all it would take to keep things maintained then that would be a very good result.

‘Do I really want $40 a year more – it’s a no brainer.’

There were also some negative comments regarding the use of perceived ‘emotive language’ in the option one handout to seemingly influence opinions.

‘That’s worded very much like a bad option!’

32


December 2013 [Date] Option 2: Priority assets improved, other assets maintained at current levels

Reactions to Option 2 were generally positive, however again there was confusion amongst some participants regarding whether or not the previously mentioned $64/annum was included in the calculation or excluded.

‘This is the status quo option… this is what we’ve had over the past few years. This strategy could work.’

There was also a great deal of comment regarding the inclusion of bridges and how bridges could be deemed ‘lower priority’. Car parks were also a concern if they were allocated to a lower

33



priority item especially in view of the increasing population of the area and the ageing population who rely a great deal on their cars to get them to and from services, shops and transport.

Some who were aware of the North Turramurra Levy mentioned that the money previously allocated to this Levy could help improve the assets.

There were also comments again from some participants that developers should be made to pay more to cover drainage because they probably crack them.

34


December 2013 [Date] Option 3: All assets improved

Reactions to Option 3, improving all assets for an additional $40 per annum, were predominantly positive. Participants particularly liked the idea that bridges and footpaths would be improved and that there would be sufficient money to invest and improve infrastructure rather than allow it to deteriorate further.

They liked the idea that there would be less of a gap between assets, i.e. everything improved. They did not like the idea of some assets being in really good condition and others really poor like in option two.

35



‘I would rather see most things at a reasonable level then some things sparkling and others decrepit.’

‘A ‘good enough’ level is what we want!’

The amount of $40 was considered minimal, however some still questioned whether this was in addition to the $64 they are already paying or $24 less.

‘Yes I’m happy to pay that to get some expenditure on assets’ ‘A good enough level is what we want’ ‘That’s how much my daughter pays on her mobile phone each month!’ Overall this option was considered a good option, however there were still some concerns about increasing rates next year and how much more the new apartment buildings will bring in for Council.

36


December 2013 [Date] Option 4: All assets improved plus additional assets provided

Participants were then presented with information about a fourth option, which showed the following information:

How S94 funds new assets

What is needed to deliver new assets

The funding gap to deliver new assets

The Option 4 handout (see below) was provided and again participants were asked the perceived negative and positives of this option, the risks for the future, and any specific points they would like to change about this option.

37



There were mixed reactions to this option. For many this option was deemed too much to ask at one time - that is the $40 from Option 3 and then an additional $60 resulting in $100, and including the $64 SRV discussed earlier. While many thought it would be good to have new infrastructure and assets, it was also thought to be a lot extra and that it could be unaffordable for some, particularly for new home owners, and this may result in less demographic diversity due to unaffordability of housing.

Others questioned aspects such as how much input there would be from the public in terms of prioritising spending in this option, and others felt that it was too difficult to make a decision on something like this as there was not enough information about the current state of the assets, where they were located and what new assets/infrastructure was identified in the Council’s Community Strategic Plan.

38


December 2013 [Date] 4. Voting on Preferred Option

Voting forms were then handed out at each table and participants were asked to complete a voting form identifying their preferred option and why.

Table facilitators did a brief tally up of votes on their tables and results were presented back to the room.

On one of the tables, the majority preferred Option 2 (with two participants preferring Option 3). The main reasons for appeal for Option 2 were that they felt that there was already going to be rate increases, so they do not need to add extra costs. It was also felt that the levy from North Turramurra could be redirected into other assets. Further comments were made regarding Options 3 and 4 being too ‘broad brush’ and that there was a need to push for improved productivity/efficiency within Council.

On another table the majority preferred Option 3 (six participants) with the minority (two participants) preferring Option 2. Option 3 was preferred because ratepayers wanted some assets to be improved a little bit more than now. It was also felt to be the most cost effective strategy, because costs of repairs are going up all the time so if Council doesn’t improve assets now, in 10 years down the track it’s going to significantly more to repair or replace assets. Participants also acknowledging the ageing population of the area and thought that in the future it will be more difficult for some ratepayers to provide additional funding/levies.

Those preferring Option 2 did not see where incremental value was in Option 3, and thought Option 2 covered off the basics. There was also some scepticism regarding some of the figures that Council presented, and an objection to emotive language being used e.g. ‘All assets decline’.

On another table there was a preference for Option 4 (five participants), with a further two participants preferring Option 3. Overall those preferring Option 4 felt that it was a smallish sum for a large impact. It was also felt that there should be community input in terms of prioritisation of spending and that Council should be held to account. It was also felt that the continued contribution from developers and the increasing number of ratepayers to the area will also help increase funds in the future.

There were also broader comments and concerns expressed regarding the fact that the State Government are almost ‘forcing’ local ratepayers to pay more and more and more because they know that the area is ‘well off’ and that the locals will ‘chip in’ and pay the difference. It was felt that the community should not have to keep having to pay the difference.

Some also thought that they should look at alternative assessments for rates based on other things not just land value, for example the very wealthy pay more and pensioners pay less/get more discounts.

39



The results of the individual voting sheets are presented in the table below, which show that 43% of participants indicated Option 3 (All assets improved) as their first option, followed by Option 2 (Priority assets improved).

First preference

%

Second

preference

%

Total first OR

second

preference

%

Option 1: All assets decline 0 4 4

Option 2: Priority assets

improved, other assets

maintained at current levels

30 17 47

Option 3: All assets

improved 43 43 86

Option 4: All assets

improved plus additional

assets provided

22 26 48

40


December 2013 [Date] Conclusions

Telephone Survey

From the telephone survey, it appears that most participants believe it is important to continue to improve road conditions in the area and there is an expectation of high quality roads, with more than half of the sample considering the minimum acceptable condition to be ‘good’.

81% of respondents are in favour of Council continuing the SRV.

In terms of a minimal acceptable condition for Council’s assets like roads, footpaths, buildings and drainage, while over 50% believe that the minimal is ‘good’ for all these assets, drainage and footpaths gain highest agreement.

% rating minimum

acceptable level to be

‘good’

Drainage 73%

Footpaths 64%

Roads 58%

Buildings 52%

The survey results also show that there is support for an increase or a new SRV to include further funding for assets – with just under two thirds of the sample (64%) either ‘totally’ or ‘somewhat’ in favour.

Engagement Forum

There are many positive aspects that ratepayers cited about living in the Ku-ring-gai area, with perhaps the strongest theme to emerge being the easy access and close proximity to natural bushland and being surrounded by greenery – in the form of trees, gardens and national parks. Other positives include train access, access to important services, and the ambience and atmosphere of the area. Negatives raised are often in relation to the increasing number of multi-dwelling buildings and the corresponding loss of green space and the lack of infrastructure to cope with the influx of people. Other aspects raised include the large volume of traffic on the Pacific Highway corridor and the condition of roads and footpaths.

In terms of reactions to the SRV and ‘Infrastructure Levy’, there is widespread confusion regarding the ‘Infrastructure Levy’ as it currently appears on ratepayers’ bills, and what the Levy comprises. In isolation the amount of an average of $64 per annum, was considered a relatively

41



small amount, however there are concerns in relation to what the other, larger component of the Levy comprises.

Many appreciate that it is a difficult task with no simple solution, but that roads should continue to be maintained so they do not continue to depreciate in the future, and that it is important to think longer term. There are concerns about not wanting to burden future generations with debt, but ratepayers also do not want to live beyond their means.

Of the four options presented to participants for future funding of assets, while there is some level of support for Options 2, 3 and 4, on average, it seems that there is greatest support for Option 3: All assets improved, whereby ratepayers pay $40 more than they are currently paying.

The main reasons for the support of Option 3 are that important assets like bridges and footpaths are improved and some money is allocated to improving other priority assets and infrastructure, at what most participants consider to be, a relatively small and fair cost of $40.

This result is supported by the results of the voting sheets which show that the greatest proportion (43%) chose Option 3 as their first preference – and 86% selected it as their first or second preference.

42


December 2013 [Date] Appendix A: Copy of Telephone Survey Questionnaire

Ku-ring-gai council ratepayers

Client: Ku-ring-gai Council

Job Number: 8844-F

Sample Description: CATI – from list

Date: 25th November 2013

Hello, my name is .... from Woolcott Research. You may remember that we telephoned you

about a week ago to ask you to take part in a survey for Ku-ring-gai Council?

Q1. Recently you should have received a pack of information to read before completing the

survey? Do you recall receiving it?

Yes – CONTINUE to Q2

No – I’m sorry to hear that. Do you have an email address so that I can email the

information to you?

Email:

_______________________________________________________________________

Ok, thanks. I will arrange to have the information emailed to you today/tomorrow. And can

I arrange a time to call you back in a couple of days’ time, after you have had a chance to

read the information I’m going to email you?

MAKE APPOINTMENT DAY/TIME.

Thanks very much. We’ll call you back then. Goodbye.

Q2. And have you had a chance to read the information?

Yes – CONTINUE

No – Ok, can I arrange a time to call you back in a couple of days’ time, after you

have had a chance to read the information?

MAKE APPOINTMENT DAY/TIME.

Thanks very much. We’ll call you back then. Goodbye.

Great, I’m just going to ask you a few questions regarding the information.

As mentioned in the information sent to you, Ku-ring-gai Council is submitting an

application to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal ( IPART) for a special rate

variation which is a component of the existing Infrastructure Levy.

Q3. How important would you say it is to continue improving the condition of roads in Ku-ring-gai? Would you say it is… READ OUT

43



Very important 1 Somewhat important 2 Not important 3 Don’t know DNRO 4 Q4. After reading the information, do you support continuation of the special rate variation component of the existing Infrastructure Levy (approximately $64 each year for the average rate payer) to fund the roads initiatives?

Yes I support continuation of the Special Rate Variation 1 (Go to Q7a) No I do not support continuation of the Special Rate Variation 2 (Go to Q5)

IF NO, ASK: Q5. What are your reasons for not supporting the continuation of the Special Rate Variation? OPEN ENDED Q6. Would you support continuation of the Special Rate Variation at a reduced rate?

Yes 1 (Go to Q6b) No 2 (Go to Q7a)

6b. The Special Rate Variation costs an average of $64 for the average ratepayer per year. What amount of the SRV would you be willing to pay? Please answer with a $ amount. $_______________ Q7a. The factsheets you were sent showed different levels of conditions for roads, footpaths, buildings and drainage. For each of these assets, can you please tell me what you consider to be the minimum acceptable condition? So first of all, for roads, what is the minimum acceptable condition? Would it be… READ OUT Good 1 Fair 2

Poor 3 Unsure DNRO 4

Q7b. And what about for footpaths: what is the minimum acceptable condition? REPEAT OPTIONS IF NECESSARY. Good 1 Fair 2


Q7c. And what about for buildings? REPEAT OPTIONS IF NECESSARY.

44



Good 1 Fair 2


Q9d. And finally for drainage, what is the minimum acceptable condition? REPEAT OPTIONS IF NECESSARY. Good 1 Fair 2

Poor 3 Unsure DNRO 4 Q10. Within the information there was a suggestion that in order to help fund other priority assets, an option might be to apply to IPART for an increase or new Special Rate Variation to include funding for assets such as footpaths, drainage and buildings. This request for additional funding would only occur once other current levies have expired.

Once other levies have expired, to what extent would you be in favour or against Ku -ring-gai Council applying for the introduction of an increase or new Special Rate Variation for Infrastructure Assets? Would you say you were…READ OUT Totally in favour 1

Somewhat in favour 2 Undecided 3 Somewhat against 4

Totally against 5 Q11. We are also holding a forum on the topic of the Infrastructure Levy and future funding of other priority assets on Monday 9 th December from 6pm-9pm. A light dinner and refreshments will be provided. You will also get $50 to cover your expenses for participating. Would you like to register your interest in attending?

Yes, I would like to register my interest in attending on Monday 9 th December 1 No, I do not want to attend 2 Don’t know 3

If yes, thank you, we will call you nearer the time to confirm attendance and give y ou further details.

Demographics Thank you. I just have a few further questions to make sure we have a good cross -section of the community. D1. How many children aged 18 or under, if any, do you have living with you? One 1

45



Two 2 Three 3

Four 4 Five or more 5 None 6

D2. What is your marital status?

Single/never married 1 Defacto/married 2 Separated/divorced 3 Widowed 4 Other (specify) 5 Refused 6

D3. Which of these best describes your current employment? Employed full time 1 Employed part time/casual 2 Student 3 Unemployed 4 Engaged in home duties 5 Retired 6 Refused DNRO 7 D4. Which of these best describes the annual income before tax of the main earner in the household? READ OUT $35,000 or less 1 $35,001 - $69,999 2 $70,000 - $99,999 3 $100,000-$149,999 4 $150,000 - $199,999 5

$200,000 - $249,999 6 $250,000 or more 7 Refused DNRO 8

Respondents Name: _________________

Address: _____________________

Phone No.: ____________________

46



Interviewer’s Name: ______________________________________ Number: _______________ I certify that this is a true, accurate and complete interview taken in accordance with my instructions and conducted in accordance with the MRSA Code of Professional Behaviour (ICC/ESOMAR). I will not disclose to any other person the content of this questionnaire or any other information relating to this project. Signature: ____________________________________________ Finish Time: _______________ Date: _______________________

47


December 2013 [Date] Appendix B: Copy of the Proforma used at the Deliberate Engagement

Forum

Forum Proforma – Ku-ring-gai Council

KEY

PLENARY SESSIONS IN BLUE BOXES

FACILITATOR INSTRUCTIONS IN YELLOW BOXES

WHITE BOXES FOR RECORDING DISCUSSION

VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS IN RED

PLEASE REMEMBER TO SAVE REGULARLY

TABLE NUMBER: ________

FACILITATOR’S NAME: _____________________________________

DATE: Monday 9th December – 6pm-9pm

Time Session

6.00-6.02

(2 mins)

Plenary: Welcome

Woolcott Research Lead Facilitator to welcome, thank participants for coming and introduce representative from Ku-ring-gai Council.

6.02-6.07

(5 mins)

Plenary: Welcome and Introduction

Ku-ring-gai Council representative to welcome, thank participants for coming.

Explain background to the issue and objectives for the session:

o To discuss continuation of the SRV component of the infrastructure levy.

o To get reactions to future funding options for other assets

6.07-6.15 Plenary: Housekeeping

Woolcott Research Lead Facilitator to give overview of agenda for the

48



(8 mins) session, guidelines and housekeeping.

Also mention where toilets are and any fire instructions.

6.15-6.25

(10 mins)

Table Discussion: Table introductions and warm up

Table facilitator to go round the table and ask participants to introduce themselves and say whereabouts in the LGA they live.

Have you always lived in Ku-ring-gai LGA? In the same suburb?

What do you like about living in Ku-ring-gai?

What do you dislike about living in Ku-ring-gai? (Table facilitator to allow participants to ‘get things off their chests’ if they need to at this stage).

Outcomes of session:

Participants have introduced themselves to each other and are starting to feel

comfortable talking about their views. They have also been able to express

themselves on specific issues that might not be relevant to later discussions.

Type notes here…

6.25-6.35

(10 mins)

Plenary: Short Presentation on Overall Rates Funding Allocation

Council’s income & expenditure

How we use our income (pie chart)

Allocation of income to assets and services (pie chart)

Council has explored a range of funding options to fund assets ’ improvements. Discuss efficiencies implemented to date

Explain why the SRV is preferred to the alternate funding options.

6.35-6.45

(10 mins)

Plenary: Presentation on Roads and Special Rate Variation (SRV)

Some slides outlining:

o The need for improvement to roads

o The total funding that is required

o State of the roads with and without the SRV (LGA map)

o 81% of people in the survey supported the continuation of the SRV component of the Levy

6.45– 7.00 Table Discussion: Reactions to information on roads and the Special Rate Variation

49



(15 mins) Reactions to information given in presentation

o Surprises?

Do they agree with Council that the best option to fund the roads shortfall is a levy/SRV? Why/why not?

Obtain feedback from table on other funding options presented e.g. going into debt, selling off assets, etc.

Thoughts on finding from survey that 81% supported the continuation of the SRV component of the infrastructure levy? Why do they think there is such high support?

Table to write very brief feedback on flipchart for next session:

Overall level of support for SRV

Do they agree that a SRV/Levy is the best option? Why/why not?

Facilitator to choose a spokesperson to feedback in next session.

Outcomes of discussion:

Participants have had a chance to respond to the survey findings. They have heard about Council efficiencies already implemented and the fact that there is still a

funding shortfall. Ascertain level of support for SRV/Levy.

Type notes here…

7.00–7.10

(10 min)

Plenary: Feedback from the tables

Each table to provide feedback on whether they think SRV/Levy is the best option and reasons why/why not.

7.10 - 7.25

(15 min)

DINNER (participants to take back to tables)

7.25 - 7.35

(10 mins)

Plenary: Presentation on the future options for other assets:

Previous research showing which are priority assets (Close the gap)

State of assets currently and why work is required - show images

Benefits of improving our assets

Future options for assets from 2015:

o Decline in levels x1

50



o Maintain levels x1

o Improve levels x2

7.35-8.05

(30 mins –

roughly 10

mins on

each

option)

Table Discussion: Reactions to information on future options

IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON TABLES THEN FACILTATOR TO PUT UP HAND FOR COUNCIL TO ANSWER.

Tables ROTATE order of discussion of options as below:

o Table 1: Option 1,2,3



GIVE OUT HANDOUT FOR EACH OPTION SEPARATELY THEN ASK:

What are the benefits of this option?

What are the negatives of this option?

What are the risks for the future?

Are there any specific points you would like to change about this option?

Repeat for each of the three options.

Type notes on option 1 here...



8.05– 8.15

(10 min)

Plenary: Presentation on introduction to Option 4

How S94 funds new assets

What’s needed to deliver new assets?

Funding gap to deliver new assets

8.15-8.25 Table Discussion: Reactions to Option 4

GIVE OUT HANDOUT FOR OPTION 4

For Option 4:

51



(10 mins) What are the benefits of this option?

What are the negatives of this option?

What are the risks for the future?

Are there any specific points you would like to change about this option?

Type notes on option 4 here…

8.25-8.40

(15 mins)

Table Discussion: Voting on Preferred Option

TABLE FACILITATORS TO HAND OUT INDIVIDUAL VOTING FORMS:

Each participant to complete a voting form identifying their preferred option

and why.

FACILITATOR TO COLLECT VOTING FORMS – add up totals for top ranking options and tell the group the preferred option.

Why this option was preferred – what are the benefits of this option over the others?

Write preferred option on flipchart with reasons underneath. Facilitator to choose a spokesperson to feedback in next session.

Type notes here…

8.40-8.55

(10 mins)

Plenary: Feedback from the tables

Each table to give feedback on which option was the table’s preferred option and why

Outcomes of discussion and feedback sessions:

Council will have clear feedback for which is the preferred option.

8.55– 9.00

(10 mins)

Plenary: Summing up and close

Closing remarks – what Council will take from today and outline of next steps by Ku-ring-gai Council Representative

Woolcott Lead facilitator thanks and closes

TABLE FACILITATOR TO HAND OUT INCENTIVES AND END OF SESSION QUESTIONNAIRE

community engagement strategy for special rate … · from october 2013 to february 2014 to gauge...

Documents