· web viewthe information provided residents with an annual breakdown of the rate increase...

Special Variation Application Form – Part BFor applications for 2014/15

Issued October 2013

Burwood CouncilDate Submitted to IPART: 24 February 2014Council Contact Person: Tommaso BrisceseCouncil Contact Phone: 9911 9808Council Contact Email: [email protected]

© Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales 2013This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, news reporting, criticism and review. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may be reproduced for such purposes provided acknowledgement of the source is included.

The Tribunal members for this special variation assessment are:Dr Peter J Boxall AO, ChairmanMr Simon Draper, Part Time Member

Inquiries regarding this document should be directed to a staff member:Dennis Mahoney (02) 9290 8494Heather Dear (02) 9290 8481

ii IPART Special Variation Application Form – Part B

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South WalesPO Box Q290, QVB Post Office NSW 1230Level 8, 1 Market Street, Sydney NSW 2000T (02) 9290 8400 F (02) 9290 2061www.ipart.nsw.gov.au

Contents

1 Introduction 21.1 Submitting your application 3

2 Focus on Integrated Planning and Reporting 4

3 Assessment criterion 1: Need for the variation 63.1 Community needs 133.2 Alternative funding options 143.3 State of financial sustainability 153.4 Capital expenditure review 20

4 Assessment criterion 2: Community awareness and engagement 204.1 The consultation strategy 214.2 Alternatives to the special variation 364.3 Feedback from the community consultations 364.4 Considering the impact on ratepayers 384.5 Considering the community’s capacity and willingness to pay 39

5 Assessment criterion 3: Impact on ratepayers 405.1 Impact on rates 405.2 Affordability and community capacity to pay 435.3 Other factors in considering reasonable impact 44

6 Assessment criterion 4: Assumptions in Delivery Program and LTFP 45

7 Assessment criterion 5: Productivity improvements and cost containment strategies 46

8 Other information 488.1 Previous Instruments of Approval 488.2 Reporting to your community 488.3 Council resolution to apply to IPART 49

9 Checklist of contents 50

10 Certification 51

Special Variation Application Form – Part B IPART 1

1 IntroductionEach council must complete this application form (Part B) in order to apply for a special variation to general income. The same Part B form is to be used for applications made either under section 508Aor under section 508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.

IPART assesses each application against the criteria set out in the Division of Local Government (DLG) Guidelines for the preparation of an application for a special variation to general income for 2014/2015(the Guidelines). Councils should refer to these guidelines before completing this application form. They are available at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.

We also publish Fact Sheets on our role in local government rate setting and special variations and on the nature of community engagement for special variation applications. The latest Fact Sheets on these topics are dated September 2013. They are available on our website at www.ipart.nsw.gov.au.

Councils must complete this Part B form with a relevant Part A form, also posted on our website. The relevant Part A form is either: Section 508(2) Special Variation Application Form 2014/15 – Part A for a

single percentage variation under section 508(2) or Section 508A Special Variation Application Form 2014/15 – Part A for

more than one percentage variation under section 508A.

The amount of information to be provided is a matter for judgement, but it should be sufficient for us to make an evidence-based assessment of the council’s application against each criterion. This form includes some questions that the application should address, and guidance on the information that we require. As a general rule, the higher the cumulative percentage increase requested, and the greater its complexity, the more detailed and extensive will be the information required.

1.1 Completing the application form

To complete this Part B form, insert the council’s response in the boxes and the area which is highlighted, following each section or sub-section.

Councils may submit additional supporting documents as attachments to the application. The attachments should be clearly identified in Part B and cross-referenced. We prefer to receive relevant extracts rather than complete publications, unless the complete publication is relevant to the criteria. Please provide details of how we can access the complete publication should this be necessary.

We may ask for additional information to assist us in making our assessment. If this is necessary, we will contact the nominated council officer.

2 IPART Special Variation Application Form – Part B

http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/

This application form consists of: Section 2 - Focus on Integrated Planning and Reporting Section 3 – Assessment criterion 1 Section 4–Assessment criterion 2 Section 5–Assessment criterion 3 Section 6 – Assessment criterion 4 Section 7–Assessment criterion 5 Section 8 - Other information Section 9 – Checklist of contents Section 10– Certification.

1.2 Submitting the application

IPART asks that all councils intending to apply for a special variation use the Council Portal on our website to register as an applicant council and to submit their application.

The Portal is at http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Industries/Local_Govt. A User Guide for the Portal will assist you with the registration and online submission process.

Councils intending to submit an application should notify us of their intention to apply by cob Friday 13 December 2013.

Councils should also submit their applications, both Part A and Part B and supporting documents, via the Portal. File size limits apply to each part of the application. For Part B the limit is 10MB. The limit for the supporting documents is 120MB in total, or 70MB for public documents and 50MB for confidential documents. These file limits should be sufficient for your application. Please contact us if they are not.

We also ask that councils also submit their application to us in hard copy (with a table of contents and appropriate cross referencing of attachments). Our address is:

Local Government TeamIndependent Pricing and Regulatory TribunalPO Box Q290QVB Post Office NSW 1230

Level 17, 1 Market Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

We must receive your application via the Council Portal and in hardcopy no later than cob Monday 24 February 2014.

We will post all applications (excluding confidential documents) on our website. Councils should also post their application on their own website for the community to read.


http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/files/948b8fb1-2e6e-4647-b9d3-a10000a2552a/Local_Government_-_Council_Portal_User_Guide_-_November_2012.pdf

http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Industries/Local_Govt

2 Focus on Integrated Planning and Reporting

How a council considers and consults and engages on a special variation as part of its Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) processes is fundamental to our assessment of the application for a special rate variation. Such a focus is clear from DLG’s September 2013 Guidelines.

The key relevant IP&R documents are the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Long Term Financial Plan and, where applicable, Asset Management Plan.

A council’s suite of IP&R documents may also include supplementary and/or background publications used within its IP&R processes. As appropriate, you should refer to these documents to support your application for a special variation.

Briefly outline how the council has incorporated the special variation into its IP&R processes. Include details of and dates for community consultation, key document revisions, exhibition period(s) and the date(s) that the council adopted the relevant IP&R documents.

In 2010, Burwood Council spoke with the community in order to determine its priorities for the future. Following 9 months of extensive consultation (January – September 2010), the community’s vision was incorporated into the Community Strategic Plan (CSP), Burwood2030 (Annexure 1), forming the blueprint for Council’s actions over the next twenty years. The CSP was placed on public exhibition from 20 August to 24 September 2010 and endorsed by Council on 7 December 2010. Overall, five broad themes were used as the basis of consultation with the community:

A Sense of Community Leadership Through Innovation A Sustainable Natural Environment Accessible Services and Facilities A Vibrant Economic Centre

One of the main priorities identified in this process was the need to improve and maintain local infrastructure such as roads, footpaths, kerbs and parks.

As part of the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) process, Council formulated a Resourcing Strategy which included a Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) (Annexure 3), Asset Management Plan (Annexure 4) and Workforce Plan. The Resourcing Strategy provides an assessment of Council’s current and forecasted capacity to ensure Council can sustainably carry out the community’s needs and desires. This strategy, with its three components was endorsed by Council on 19 April 2011.

Cascading from the long term CSP and Resourcing Strategy is the four year Delivery Program, which sets out the actions the community has identified as high priority. The Delivery Program, which was placed on public exhibition from 21 April to 18 May 2011 and adopted by Council in 28 June 2011, put forward to the community Council’s proposal to apply for a special variation (SV) under section 508A of the Local Government Act 1993 based on forecasts and assumptions made in the Resourcing Strategy.


Extract from the Delivery Program 2011-15 (Annexure 2b, pp. 1-2) informing the community on SVs

In 2013, Burwood2030 including the Delivery Program, was revised by the newly elected Council, to ensure that the priorities outlined in the Plan were still relevant. The revised Delivery Program included information on Council’s funding future and outlined the need for Council to apply for an SV in order to maintain the current level of service to infrastructure, in line with the community’s expectations.

Extract from revised Delivery Program 2013-17 (Annexure 2c, p. 1)

Following the release of NSW Treasury Corporation’s (TCorp) report on Local Government sustainability, the program was later revised to include Council’s intention to apply for an SV, projected forecast under three different funding scenarios, the impact an SV will have on residents and where the additional funding will be spent. The latest Delivery Program (2013-17) was placed on public exhibition from 19 November to 20 December 2013 and adopted by Council on 17 February 2014 (Annexure 10).


A section is dedicated to SVs in the current Delivery Program (Annexure 2, pp. 20-23)

In addition to the Program, Council reviewed the LTFP which determines the rates required to maintain long term financial sustainability. As a result, the Plan includes forecasts under three different funding models (including two options under a proposed SVs) and takes into consideration assumptions based on current and forecasted service levels over a ten year period. The Plan was adopted by Council on 10 December 2013.

From 13 November 2013 to 10 January 2014, Council undertook an extensive community consultation, in conjunction with the exhibition of its revised Delivery Program, to raise awareness and inform the community of Council’s proposal to apply for an SV. The outcomes of the community consultation were presented to Council in its Meeting of 17 February 2014, where Council unanimously endorsed an application to apply for an SV for a seven year period (with a rate increase of 5.5%, 6.5%, 7%, 7.5%, 7.5%, 7.5%, 7.5%) to fund infrastructure maintenance and renewal services (Annexure 9).

Council’s IP&R documentation is consistent with the Guidelines for the preparation of an application for a special variation to general income 2014/2015 presented by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).

3 Assessment criterion 1: Need for the variation

In the DLG Guidelines, criterion 1 is:

The need for and purpose of a different revenue path (as requested through the special variation) is clearly articulated and identified through the council’s IP&R documents, including its Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan. Evidence for this criterion could include evidence of community need/desire for service levels/project and limited council resourcing alternatives and the Council’s financial sustainability conducted by the NSW Treasury Corporation. In demonstrating this need councils must indicate the financial impact in their Long Term Financial Plan applying the following two scenarios:

Baseline scenario – revenue and expenditure forecasts which reflects the business as usual model, and exclude the special variation, and

Special variation scenario – the result of approving the special variation in full is shown and reflected in the revenue forecast with the additional expenditure levels intended to be funded by the special variation.

The response in this section should summarise the council’s case for the proposed special variation. It is necessary to show how the council has identified and considered its community’s needs, alternative funding options and the state of its financial sustainability.


The criterion states that all these aspects must be identified and articulated in the council’s IP&R documents.

At the highest level, please indicate the key purpose(s) of the special variation by marking one or more of the boxes below with an “x”.

Maintain existing services

Enhance financial sustainability

Environmental works

Infrastructure maintenance / renewal

Reduce infrastructure backlogs

New infrastructure investment

Other (specify)

Summarise below the council’s need for the special variation. Comment on how the need is captured in the IP&R documents, especially the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and the Delivery Program, and, where appropriate, the Asset Management Plan (AMP). Note that the LTFP is to include both a ‘baseline scenario’ and an ‘SV scenario’ as defined in the Guidelines.

While speaking with the community during the IP&R process it was identified that one of the key priorities residents had was the need to improve and upgrade local infrastructure including roads, footpaths, kerb and gutters and parks.

In 2012, Council undertook an extensive audit of all the roads, footpaths, kerbs and gutter in the LGA. Quad bikes and vans, fitted with state-of-the-art cameras, surveyed the area collecting vital data to help identify which infrastructure required the most urgent attention. Each footpath, road, kerb and gutter was given a category ranking from 1-5 based on their condition, forming the basis of Council’s long term capital works management strategy in order to meet the needs and desires of the community.


Quad bike fitted with monitoring equipment

Condition rating of footpaths(Red = 5, orange = 4, yellow = 3, light blue = 2, dark blue = 1)

Condition rating of roads(Red = poor condition, orange = medium, green = good)

Since then, Council has carried out a priority capital works program to address the backlog in infrastructure. However, due to the financial environment and rising costs associated with these services, Council is unable to continue delivering its capital works program at the current level.


Council has made a concentrated effort to improve financial sustainability throughout the past few years to continue delivering a high level of service the following ways:

Implemented an organisational restructure Instigated a large number of service reviews, improving efficiencies and

generating savings Implemented a property strategy Built strategies to tackle the infrastructure backlog Increased infrastructure renewal programs Implemented an internal audit committee and independent internal auditor Worked with neighbouring Councils through Southern Sydney Regional

Organisation of Councils on joint purchasing and procurement projects Invested with various financial institutions Joined the Metro Pool Mutual Insurance scheme to achieve insurance premium

savings Received $2 million in loans from the State Government in two rounds of the

Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS). In 2013, NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp) released Financial Sustainability of the New South Wales Local Government Sector. The report recognised the strategies indicated above which have improved Council’s efficiencies, giving Council a ‘positive’ financial outlook. However, included in the report was the Financial Assessment and Benchmarking Report. This report outlined the asset position of councils and identified Burwood Council as having a backlog in infrastructure of $168 million.

Included in the backlog in infrastructure, was the condition of Council’s stormwater assets. In order to establish a sustainable funding source for stormwater management services, Council implemented a Stormwater Management Service Charge in 2013 with a fee structure of $25 per residential lot. This will allow Council to progressively enhance its stormwater management services and update drainage which in some cases is over 100 years old.

Despite the efforts made to improve financial sustainability, Council is unable to address this backlog of $168m without compromising other services or receiving additional funding.

The graphs below demonstrate the overall decline in the condition of local roads, footpaths and kerbs over the next seven years if Council does not receive additional funding.


(Assetic Australia 2013)

Therefore, in conjunction with a comprehensive community consultation, Council revised its Delivery Program and LTFP and put forward three funding options to the community including two different special variations to general income under Section 508A of the Local Government Act. Below are the three different options as outlined in the LTFP:

Decline in Service:

Current service levels would be maintained in the short term, but later decline. Rates increase only by approved ‘rate peg’ amount. Council’s capital works program may likely be compromised and priority will be given to essential infrastructure projects.

Increase by approved ‘rate peg’ (estimated 3%) each year.

(Please note: The LTFP was devised prior to IPART’s announcement of the 2.3% rate peg for 2014/15 on 2 December 2014)

Maintain Service:

Maintain current service levels and priority infrastructure. Rates will increase progressively each year over seven years. Council’s capital works program may be compromised.


Progressive increase each year over 7 years (5.5%, 6.5%, 7%, 7.5%, 7.5%, 7.5%, 7.5%)

Improve Service:

Improved service levels, new capital projects, upgrading and maintenance of existing infrastructure. This is supported by a special variation each year over seven years commencing 2014/15.

7.5% variation each year over 7 years(Annexure 3, p. 17)

In addition to providing a forecast under each option over a ten year period, the LTFP also addresses why Council requires an SV. The following is an extract from the LTFP:

Council’s budget has faced significant pressures including:- An increasing burden as a result of cost shifting from other levels of

government, Greater competition in the allocation of external funding such as the

Financial Assistance Grants.

More recently, the effects of the global financial crisis, which heavily impacted Council’s investments portfolio, the housing (development) market, and the economy in general has also impacted on Council.

The above factors mean that, as with many Councils in NSW, Burwood is faced with an “Income Gap” with costs increasing at a greater rate than revenues. This Income Gap has been addressed by way of productivity gains and efficiency savings however service level reductions are likely to occur if this structural funding issue is not addressed.

(pp. 9-10)

This forecasted funding gap was outlined in the Asset Management Plan which stated the need for Council to provide additional funding in order to maintain or improve service levels:

Providing services in a sustainable manner will require matching of projected asset renewals to meet agreed service levels with planned capital works programs and available revenue.

The gap between projected asset renewals, planned asset renewals and funding indicates that further work is required to manage required service levels and funding to eliminate a funding gap.

(Annexure 4, p. 28)

The need for an SV was further articulated in the revised Delivery Program which includes TCorp’s assessment, three proposed funding models, impact on residents and how the additional funding will be spent. Below is a chart indicating the allocation of additional funding received from an SV.


Where the additional funding will be spent (Annexure 2, p. 23)

In addition, the Delivery Program outlines that Council will require an additional $6.1m over 7 years to maintain current service levels and priority infrastructure otherwise the following may occur:

Roads:Under the rate peg option, Council will be able to resheet 18,700 square metres of road over a seven year period. This will allow Council to upgrade Condition 5 roads but not maintain higher category roads, which will lead to a decline in road quality over seven years.

Footpaths:Without an SRV*, Council will only be able to reconstruct 18,000 square metres of footpath over seven years. This may result in short term solutions such as patch working being undertaken to fix damaged footpaths.

(Annexure 2, p. 23)

Council’s IP&R documents demonstrate that in order to maintain the current level of service and meet the needs of the community, Council will require an annual rate above the permissible ‘rate peg’ over the next seven year period.

*Please note: During the consultation special variations were referred to as Special Rate Variations (SRVs)

If the special variation seeks funding for contributions plan costs above the development contributions cap, refer to Box 3.1.1

1 See Planning Circular 10-025 dated 24 November 2010 at www.planning.nsw.gov.auand for the most recent Direction issued under section 94E of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. See also Planning Circular PS 10-022 dated 16 September 2010.


http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/

033Error! No text of specified style in document.031Special variations for development contributions plan costs above the developer cap

For costs above the cap in contributions plans, a council must provide: a copy of the council’s section 94 contributions plan a copy of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure’s response to IPART’s

review and details of how the council has subsequently amended the contributions plan

details of any other funding sources that the council is proposing to seek to use

any reference to the proposed contributions (which were previously to be funded by developers) in the council’s planning documents (eg, LTFP and Asset Management Plans (AMP)

any necessary revisions to financial projections contained in the LTFP and AMP to reflect the special variation.

If the special variation seeks funding for contributions plan costs above the development contributions cap, set out below: details explaining how the council has established the need for a

special variation to meet the shortfall in development contributions, and

how this is reflected in the council’s IP&R documents.

N/A

3.1 Community needs

Indicate how the council has identified and considered the community’s needs and desires in relation to matters such as levels of service delivery and asset maintenance and provision in deciding to apply for a special variation. The application should include extracts from, or references to, the IP&R document(s) that demonstrate how the council meets this criterion.

Over the past few years Council has undertaken a series of consultations to gauge the community’s needs and desires in relation to levels of service delivery and asset maintenance. This commenced in 2010 as part of Council’s IP&R process where residents and ratepayers identified infrastructure maintenance and renewal as one of their key priorities for the future of the area.

In February 2013, Council carried out a comprehensive community satisfaction survey to assess whether the Council’s IP&R documentations were still relevant. The phone survey, conducted by an independent agency, asked residents a series of questions including their level of satisfaction with Council services and the importance of providing these services to the community. A community workshop was held following the survey to expand on the main issues expressed by participants during the survey.


Overall, 500 residents participated in the phone survey, which provided a statistical snapshot of the community. In the survey 84 per cent of residents considered well maintained roads and footpaths an important priority for Council.

Level of importance of Council services

As indicated in section 2: Focus on Integrated Planning and Reporting, Council revised its Delivery Program in 2013. The responses from the survey were implemented into the revised IP&R documentation where appropriate to ensure that the community’s needs were considered.

In addition, Council undertook another phone survey through an independent agency in November 2013 (Annexure 7a). As part of the survey, 400 residents were asked about their priorities in addition to SVs. The survey revealed that 99 per cent of residents indicated that it is at least somewhat important for Council to implement programs that will provide better infrastructure and service.

Residents were asked how important it is for Council to implement programs that will provide better infrastructure and service


This survey formed part of a wider community consultation to raise awareness of Council’s proposal to apply for an SV. The consultation provided residents with many opportunities to give feedback through surveys, public information sessions, mail, online and social media.

One of the primary issues raised by residents during the consultation was the need to improve local infrastructure. Therefore, the two comprehensive phone surveys, in conjunction with wider consultation, confirmed the vision from Burwood2030 that maintaining local infrastructure is a top priority.

3.2 Alternative funding options

Explain how the decision to seek higher revenues was made after other options such as changing expenditure priorities or using alternative modes of service delivery were examined. Also explain the range of alternative revenue/financing options you considered and why the special variation is the most appropriate option. For example, typically these options would include introducing new or higher user charges and increase council borrowing, but may include private public partnerships or joint ventures.

Provide extracts from, or references to, the IP&R document(s) which show how the council considered the alternatives.

Prior to deciding to apply for an SV, Council had considered several funding options. These funding options are included in Council’s LTFP and are based on best estimates for growth in non-rating income.

External pressures have made it difficult for Council to continue delivering infrastructure services at the current level over the next few years without an alternative funding option. These pressures include cost increase above the Consumer Price Index (CPI), rate pegging, cost-shifting and community expectations.


To alleviate this financial pressure, Council has sought higher revenue by increasing fees and charges for all full cost recovery services provided. Council’s funding scenarios in the LTFP factor in this growth in line with the estimated CPI at 2.7% p.a. Council is currently updating the draft Fees and Charges Schedule for 2014/15 to reflect these increases.

In addition to obtaining additional funding through fees and charges, Council has also sought funding externally and will continue to do so. In recent years, Council has successfully obtained funding for many services and initiatives and has anticipated that grant funding will increase to 3% p.a., as indicated in the LTFP.

Council will continue to seek funding opportunities when possible to ease financial burden, reduce dependency on alternative income sources and potentially fast track the delivery of actions outlined in Council’s IP&R documents. However, grant funding cannot be considered a sustainable long term funding option for Council.

Another source of income came from Council’s Property Strategy which generated substantial revenue. However, the sale of community assets is not considered a viable long term option.

The main source of funding Council receives from external borrowing is through the Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS) to address the backlog in infrastructure. Council has adopted the policy of the LIRS which effectively increases the funds available for ordinary activities. This also allows Council the potential to use debt for significant infrastructure renewals to manage the backlog. In saying this, borrowing has not been considered as a funding source for Council’s LTFP. Due to budget constraints, if future LIRS opportunities arise, Council would consider taking up the offer and modify its LTFP accordingly.

An SV in rates will provide Council with greater financial flexibility to achieve the needs and desires of the community outlined in Council’s IP&R documents. If successful in its application, Council will continue to reduce costs and identify methods to improve productivity and efficiency.

However, without an SV, Council will be unable to fund its debt due to limited sustainable alternative funding options which will impact on Council’s funding to carry out its delivery program.

3.3 State of financial sustainability

The special variation may be intended to improve the council’s underlying financial position, or to fund specific projects or programs of expenditure, or a combination of the two. We will consider evidence about the council’s current and future financial sustainability.

The application should set out the council’s understanding of its current state of financial sustainability, as well as long-term projections based on alternative scenarios and assumptions about revenue and expenditure. Such evidence can be drawn from the LTFP and from any external assessment, eg by auditors or TCorp.

Explain the council’s view of its financial sustainability as it relates to the application for a special variation.

Council is aware of the pressures to maintain financial sustainability while carrying out services to address the needs and desires of the community incorporated in its IP&R documentation. Although Council has become a stronger, more efficient organisation over the past few years through an organisational restructure, service reviews and improved financial accountability, the external pressures outlined in 3.2 and funding


shortfall will impact on Council’s ability to achieve the goals identified in its CSP and Delivery Program.

The LTFP has forecasted the financial position of Council over the next ten years, based on realistic assumptions. As indicated in the ‘Option 1’ scenario (Annexure 3, pp. 19-22), under an annual increase in rates by the permissible rate peg, Council will be unable to continue to deliver its current infrastructure renewal and maintenance program without compromising other services.

Therefore, despite efforts to improve, Council views its financial sustainability as limited without obtaining additional funding, due to the need to prioritise its delivery of services to the community. Council’s view is supported by TCorp’s recent report on Council’s financial sustainability.

Explain how TCorp’s recent Report on the council’s financial sustainability is relevant in supporting the decision to apply for a special variation.

TCorp’s Financial Sustainability of the New South Wales Local Government Sector has further emphasised Council’s need to apply for an SV.

In the report, TCorp identified Council as ‘weak’ in financial sustainability. According to TCorp, Council does not have adequate capacity to meet its financial obligations in the short to medium term (being the next five years) (Annexure 5).

In addition to assessing Council’s financial sustainability, the report also included the Financial Assessment and Benchmarking Report 2012. This report outlined the asset position of councils and identified Burwood Council as having a backlog in infrastructure of $168 million.

Current asset position

Total Roads (km) 82Total Bridge Length (m) 12Total Assets 2013 (TCorp 000’s) $386,126Assets Per Capita $11,256Total Infrastructure Backlog 2012 (TCorp 000’s) $167,688Infrastructure Backlog per capita $4,888

Without an SV, Council will be unable to meet its financial obligations in the short term, while addressing the backlog in infrastructure identified in the report, meaning that Council will remain ‘weak’ in its financial sustainability.

As a result, Council would need to reduce costs and services including expenditure for infrastructure renewal and maintenance and amend its budgets. In saying this, Council has made a commitment to the community to improve local infrastructure. By reducing its infrastructure program, Council would not be fulfilling its obligation to the community outlined in its IP&R documentation.

Given efficiency gains already budgeted for in forward estimates as shown in the rate pegging scenario in the LTFP, Council would likely cut services and expenditure if unsuccessful in its application for an SV.

How will the special variation affect the council’s key financial indicators over the 10-year planning period? Key indicators may include: Operating balance ratio excluding capital items (ie, net operating result

before capital as percentage of operating revenue before capital grants and contributions)

Unrestricted current ratio (the unrestricted current assets divided by unrestricted current liabilities)


Rates and annual charges ratio (rates and annual charges divided by operating revenue)

Debt service ratio (net debt service cost divided by revenue from continuing operations)

Broad liabilities ratio (total debt plus cost to clear infrastructure backlogs (Special Schedule 7) divided by operating revenue)

Asset renewal ratio (asset renewals expenditure divided by depreciation, amortisation and impairment expenses).

The impact an SV will have on Council’s key financial indicators is outlined in the LTFP under both rate pegging and SV scenarios. The summary of these indicators is provided on the following page.


As indicated in the table, Council’s finances will deteriorate without the approval of an SV. However, with an SV, Council’s operating result, operating balance ratio and unrestricted current ratio remain stable or improve over the life of the LTFP.

Following the IP&R process, Council made a commitment to carry out the needs and desires of the community to address the backlog in infrastructure. Therefore, there is no difference in the building and infrastructure renewals ratio under the three funding options outlined in the LTFP, as Council endeavours to maintain the same level of expenditure for the maintenance and renewal of infrastructure with or without an SV through property sales funding. In saying this, Council has implemented short term strategies to provide additional resources for its infrastructure program for the next few years.

3.4 Capital expenditure review

Councils undertaking major capital projects are required to comply with the DLG’s Capital Expenditure Guidelines, as outlined in DLG Circular 10-34. A capital expenditure review is required for projects that are not exempt and cost in excess of 10% of council’s annual ordinary rates revenue or $1 million (GST exclusive), whichever is the greater. A capital expenditure review is a necessary part of a council’s capital budgeting process and as such should have been undertaken as part of the Integrated Planning and Reporting requirements in the preparation of the Community Strategic Plan and Resourcing Strategy.

Does the proposed special variation require you to do a capital expenditure review in accordance with DLG Circular to Councils, Circular No10-34 dated 20 December 2010? Yes No

If Yes, has a review been done and submitted to DLG? N/A

4 Assessment criterion 2: Community awareness and engagement


Evidence that the community is aware of the need for and extent of a rate rise. This must be clearly spelt out in IP&R documentation and the council must demonstrate an appropriate variety of engagement methods to ensure opportunity for community awareness/input. The IP&R documentation should canvas alternatives to a rate rise, the impact of any rises upon the community and the council’s consideration of the community’s capacity and willingness to pay rates. The relevant IP&R documents must be approved and adopted by the council before the council seeks IPART’s approval for a special variation to its general revenue.

To meet this criterion, councils must provide evidence from the IP&R documents2that the council has:2 The relevant documents are the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Long

Term Financial Plan and, where applicable, Asset Management PlanSpecial Variation Application Form – Part B IPART 21

Consulted and engaged the community about the special variation using a variety of engagement methods and that the community is aware of the need for, and extent of, the requested rate increases

considered and canvassed alternatives to the special variation provided opportunities for input and gathered input/feedback from the

community about the proposal considered the impact of rate rises on the community considered the community’s capacity and willingness to pay.

In assessing the evidence, we will consider how transparent the engagement with the community has been, especially in relation to explaining: the proposed cumulative rate increases including the rate peg

(including in both percentage and dollar terms) the annual increase in rates that will result if the special variation is

approved in full (and not just the increase in daily or weekly terms) the size of any expiring special variation (see Box 4.1 below) alternative rate levels that would apply without the special variation proposed increases in any other council charges (eg, waste

management, water and sewer), especially if these are likely to exceed the increase in the CPI.

044Error! No text of specified style in document.042 Where a council is renewing or replacing an expiring special variation

The council should have explained to its community: that there is a special variation due to expire at the end of this financial

year or during the period covered by the proposed special variation that, if the special variation were not approved so that only the rate peg

applied, the year-on-year change in rates would be lower, or that rates may fall

if applicable, that the expiring special variation is being continued (in full or in part), in the sense that it is being replaced with another that may be either temporary or permanent, or that the value is included in the percentage increase being requested in the following year.

More information about how community engagement might best be approached may be found in the DLG Guidelines, the IP&R manual, and our Fact Sheet Community Awareness and Engagement, September 2013.

4.1 The consultation strategy

Provide details of the consultation strategy undertaken, including the range of methods used to inform the community about the proposed


special variation and to engage with the community and obtain community input and feedback on it. The range of engagement activities could include media releases, mail outs, focus groups, random or opt-in surveys, online discussions, public meetings, newspaper advertisements and public exhibition of documents.

Please provide relevant extracts of the IP&R documents that explain the council’s engagement strategy and attach relevant samples of the council’s consultation material.

Council actively engages with the local community providing information in a timely, open and transparent nature, to ensure that residents and stakeholders remain well informed. This process is supported by a range of strategies which guide Council’s engagement within the community.

The Community Engagement Policy was adopted in 2012, forming the framework of Council’s community consultation practices. This policy outlines methods and the manner in which Council should conduct public consultation for key activities such as strategic and financial management plans, changing the basis of rating, policy development, major projects, facility development, changes in services, and community land classification and management.

In addition to this policy, the Multicultural Strategy was adopted in October 2013. This strategy guides Council’s work in planning, service delivery and community development for its culturally diverse community.

Consultation:

Key dates:

Launch of community consultation: Wednesday, 13 November 2013Notification to IPART: Tuesday, 26 November 2013 (W13/2239)End of community consultation: Friday, 10 January 2014Deadline for application to IPART: Monday, 24 February 2014

As part of the requirements determined by IPART, Council must fully communicate the full impact of the proposed increases to ratepayers and demonstrate an appropriate variety of engagement methods to ensure community awareness and input into the process.

In order to ensure that these requirements were met, Council devised an Engagement Strategy to form the basis of the consultation (Annexure 6).

The consultation was named Funding our Future, in reference to the need for additional funding to continue to carry out the community’s vision for the area, as outlined in the Burwood2030 Plan.

The consultation ran from 13 November 2013 to 10 January 2014, combining both traditional and innovative methods of communication. This strategy was implemented in order to reach both the ratepayer base and target key stakeholders such as residents, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD), aged care and disability groups/services, local Chambers of Commerce and local business.

Council presented three different options to the community which included two proposed SV models and a third option of rate increases only by the approved ‘rate peg’ amount. Furthermore, Council highlighted two key issues to the community during the consultation; the impact a proposed SV will have on ratepayers and how Council will use the additional funding from an SV.

In order to demonstrate the impact an SV will have on ratepayers, Council provided both a breakdown of the proposed options and the average annual rates over a seven year period under each option.


Figure 2.1 – Three options presented to the public

DECLINE IN SERVICE(Option 1)

Current service levels would be maintained in the short term, but later decline. Rates increase only by approved ‘rate peg’ amount. Council’s capital works program may be compromised and priority will be given to essential infrastructure projects.

MAINTAIN SERVICE(Option 2)

Maintain current service levels and priority infrastructure. Rates will increase progressively each year over seven years commencing 2014/15 at a lower rate than Option 3. Council’s capital works program may be compromised.

IMPROVE SERVICE(Option 3)

Improved service levels, new capital projects, upgrading and maintenance of existing infrastructure. This is supported by a special variation each year over seven years. The improvements are outlined in the attached newsletter and detailed on the website.

Figure 2.2 – Annual increase under each option over seven years

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Compounded increase

DECLINE IN SERVICE 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 17.3%MAINTAIN SERVICE 5.5% 6.5% 7% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 60.6%IMPROVE SERVICE 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 65.9%

Please note: The Decline in Service option was adjusted from the estimated 3% ‘rate peg’ to 2.3% following IPART’s announcement on 2 December 2013.

Figure 2.3 – Average rate increase under each option over seven years

2013/14 Avg. Rates

2014/15Avg. Rates

2015/16Avg. Rates

2016/17Avg. Rates

2017/18Avg. Rates

2018/19Avg. Rates

2019/20Avg. Rates

2020/21Avg. Rates

Additional payment at the end of 7 years

DECLINE IN SERVICE $1,043* $1,067 $1,091 $1,116 $1,142 $1,168 $1,195 $1,223 $180

MAINTAIN SERVICE $1,043* $1,100 $1,172 $1,254 $1,348 $1,449 $1,557 $1,674 $631

IMPROVE SERVICE $1,043* $1,121 $1,205 $1,295 $1,392 $1,497 $1,609 $1,730 $687

Please note: The Decline in Service average rates are calculated based on the 2.3% ‘rate peg’ announced IPART

The second key issue Council highlighted during the consultation was where the additional funding obtained from an SV will be invested. Across all the consultation material, Council emphasised that the funds from an SV will be used on improving and upgrading local amenity such as roads, footpaths, kerb and gutters and parks, in order to reduce the backlog in infrastructure.

Methods of Communication:


Council carried out numerous methods of communication during the consultation period to raise awareness in the community of Council’s intention to apply for an SV.

Overall, there were two different approaches, providing streamline information to all ratepayers, and targeted information delivered to key stakeholders. In addition, all material was branded under the Funding our Future theme to provide an effective and clear message to the public.

During the consultation, Council encouraged residents to join the conversation and provide feedback on the proposal.

Information kit to Councillors and Council staff

Timeframe:Distributed 12 November 2013

Action:An information kit was designed to inform staff and elected representatives on the application process and provide information on SVs, why Council is seeking to apply for an SV and how the additional funding would be used.

The kit was distributed to elected representatives and various Council departments including Customer Service, Finance, Community Service and Land, Environment, Infrastructure. Staff members were also briefed on the consultation and application process.

Outcome:This method ensured that staff and elected representatives were equipped to respond to any feedback or query from the community.

Phone Survey

Timeframe:Wednesday, 27 November – Saturday, 30 November

Action:The phone survey, conducted by independent firm Micromex was the most comprehensive method of engagement undertaken by Council during the consultation period.

Micromex undertook a random telephone survey with 400 residents aged 18 and over. The statistically valid sample size interviewed is an accurate and robust measure of the attitude of the entire Burwood community.

The survey outlined the three different options available, including alternatives to an SV. In addition to asking residents which option they preferred, the survey also asked residents for feedback on Council’s services.

Outcomes:In total, 99 per cent of respondents indicated that it is at least somewhat important for Council to implement programs that will provide for better infrastructure and service.

These results reaffirm the priorities identified by residents and ratepayers in prior consultations were still relevant and that infrastructure maintenance and renewal is considered highly important.

During the survey, an outline was given on each funding option and residents were asked how supportive they were for Council to proceed with the option. The results were as follows:


67% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Burwood Council proceeding with Option 2 – Maintain

Figure 3.7 – Most used phrases when commenting on Option 2

60% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Burwood Council proceeding with Option 3 – Improve



49% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Burwood Council proceeding with Option 1 – Decline


After providing their level of support for each option, residents were asked to list the funding options in order of preference.

Figure 3.10 – Preferences of funding options


Overall, a majority of residents were in favour of some form of SV to address Council’s back log in infrastructure and maintain the current level of service.

Website

Timeframe:13 November 2013 – 10 January 2014

Action:A dedicated Funding our Future webpage was officially launched on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 with clear links on Council’s homepage. The website served as the hub of information for the consultation and included the following pages:

Figure 3.1 – Funding our Future pages

PAGE INFORMATIONFunding our Future homepage Background information and links to pages

What you’ve asked for?Outline of priorities identified by residents during prior consultations

What is an SV?

Information on rate pegging and SVs, why Council is applying for an SV, what Council is currently spending, where the additional funding will go

How we’ve improvedEfficiencies made, NSW TCorp Report on LG Sustainability, infrastructure backlog

Our infrastructure

Actions undertaken to address the backlog in infrastructure including the 2012 infrastructure audit and a breakdown of capital works that can be carried out under each proposed option over a seven year period

How will this affect you?

Average rates per household under the three options over a seven year period. Council’s Rates and Charges Hardship Assistance Policy 2013 was also available in this section

What difference will an SV make?Conditions of roads, paths, kerb and gutter under each proposed option over a seven year period

Online Survey Online survey embedded on page

Have your sayInformation on how to provide feedback to Council including contact details


Outcome:During the consultation period, Council’s website received 122,698 views. Below is a breakdown of the Funding our Future section of the website during the period:

Figure 3.2 – Views on Funding our Future pages

PAGE VIEWSFunding our Future (home page) 369Have your say 262Funding our Future news item (Council’s home page) 239Online Survey page 239What have you asked for? 168What is an SV? 159How will it affect you? 154How we’ve improved 148Our infrastructure 143What will happen without an SV? 102Total page views for Funding our Future consultation 1,983

Mayoral Letter to ratepayers

Timeframe:Lodged 26 November 2013

Action:Mayoral letters were sent to all ratepayers informing them of Council’s proposal to apply for an SV and encouraging them to join the discussion.

The letter included the following information:

Three different funding options with an alternative to an SV Average yearly rates under each option over a seven year period Compounded increase under each model Information on how ratepayers could provide feedback and join the discussion A six page newsletter was attached with further information

Outcome:In total, 12,411 letters were sent to the 8 different rating category groups:

Residential Town Centre – Residential Town Centre – Business Business Business B Business C Business D Mixed Development

Special Newsletter

Timeframe:Lodged 26 November 2013 (included in Mayoral letter mail out to residents). Also available at Council facilities and online from 26 November 2013 to 10 January 2014


Burwood Update: Special Edition

Action:Council distributed a six page newsletter to ratepayers to expand on the information provided in the Mayoral letter.

The newsletter was made available the following ways:

Distributed as part of the Mayoral letter to all 12,411 ratepayers On display at Council Chambers, Burwood Library and Enfield Aquatic Centre Distributed to Local Chambers of Commerce Made available electronically online and on social media Sent to CALD, aged care, seniors and disability groups online

The newsletter included the following information:

Figure 3.3 – Content in Newsletter

TITLE INFORMATION

Mayor's MessageMayor's message to residents/ratepayers on why Council is proposing an SV

What is a Special Rate Variation? Frequently Asked Questions on rate pegging and SVsLocal infrastructure Background on Council's infrastructure audit and backlogWhat are we currently spending? Breakdown of Capital Works budget from 2012/2013

What you've asked for?Feedback from residents from previous community consultations undertaken

How we've improvedOutline of efficiencies made by Council over the past few years to improve services

How will it affect you?Average annual rates for ratepayers in Burwood under each scenario over the next seven years

Where will the money go?Breakdown on where the additional funding received from SVs will go

RoadsConditions of roads under each scenario over the next seven years

FootpathsConditions of footpaths under each scenario over the next seven years

Kerb and guttersConditions of kerb and gutters under each scenario over the next seven years

ParksUpgrades to parks that can be carried out under the proposed SV

Have your sayInformation on how residents can provide feedback and join the discussion

TranslationsTranslation assistance in Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Greek and Italian

Councillors & Contacts Contact information for Council and elected representatives

Outcomes:The electronic version of the Newsletter was viewed 53 times online.

Media Releases

Timeframe:13 November – 10 December

Action:

A series of media releases were distributed to local media outlets. In total three media releases were distributed:

Figure 3.4 – Media releases distributed during consultation

Date Title Description


Article published in Burwood Scene

13/11/2013 Funding our Future: It's time to have your say Launch of campaign

22/11/2013

Find out all you need to know about Special Rate Variations (SVs)

Promotion of public information sessions

10/12/2013

Take part in a live Twitter session with Burwood Council

Promotion of live Twitter session

Outcome:The media releases generated coverage in the Burwood Scene in both print and online editions.

Email to e-news subscribers

Timeframe:27 November 2013

Action:Emails were distributed to subscribers of Council’s e-news service with information on SVs which linked to the Funding our Future home page.

Outcome:In total, 83 people received the correspondence.

Email to survey focus groups

Timeframe:26 November 2013

Action:Emails were distributed to Council’s focus group which consists of 20 members. The group was established in March 2013 following Council’s customer satisfaction survey.

Outcome:The recipients were given information on SVs and were personally invited to attend one of the public information sessions.

Letters to Chambers of Commerce

Timeframe:2 December 2013

Action:The Burwood LGA comprises four town centres: Burwood, Strathfield, Croydon and Croydon Park which play a large role in the local economy.

Letters were sent to presidents of the local Chambers of Commerce, encouraging them to notify their members of Council’s proposed application for an SV. The six page newsletter was included with the letter.

Outcome:The following Chambers of Commerce received the letter:

Burwood Business Chamber Croydon Park Chamber of Commerce Strathfield Chamber of Commerce

Emails to community groups



Action:Emails were sent to local community groups, including aged care, welfare, CALD, seniors and disability groups, informing them of Council’s proposal and encouraging them to share the important information with their clients and members.

Community organisations were chosen in consultation with Council’s Community Service department in order to provide information to members of the public who may have difficultly accessing or understanding the information.

The email included an electronic copy of the newsletter and Council’s Rates and Charges Hardship Assistance Policy 2013.

Outcome:The email was sent to the following community groups:

Figure 3.5 – Local community groups

Community Organisation Service providedAustralian Korean Welfare Association (AKWA)

Federally funded non-government organization which provides settlement services to the Korean community

Burwood Community Welfare

Provides support to disadvantaged, vulnerable and at risk members of the community. Primarily for people dealing with poverty, distress or misfortune

Chinese Australian Services Society (CASS)

Provides welfare services and assistance to Chinese-speaking people to settle and integrate into Australian society

Co.As.It SydneyCo.As.It provides a wide range of services to the Italian-Australian community including aged care, youth and family, mental health and problem gambling

Greek Orthodox Community of NSW

One of Australia's oldest Greek organisations providing a wide range of migrant related social services

Navitas Burwood English language service providers offering tuition and settlement services to migrants and refuges

Local paper advertising

Timeframe:13 November – 11 December 2013

Action:Council carried out a series of advertisements in the local publication Burwood Scene. The ads included an outline of Council’s proposal, why an SV is needed, contact details and information on how people could provide input into the discussion.

The following advertisements were published:

1 x half page advertisement – 13 November 2013 1 x half page advertisement – 27 November 2013 1 x quarter page advertisement – 11 December 2013


Example of advertisement in Burwood Scene

CALD media advertising

Timeframe:25-29 December 2013

Action:Council advertised in CALD media publications in order to provide language specific information to members of the community. Overall, Council carried out advertisements in Arabic, Chinese, Italian and Greek publications. The decision was based on the highest represented cultures in the local area.

Ancestry in Burwood Council area (based on Census 2011):

Chinese – 25.2% Italian – 9.3% Lebanese – 4.9% Greek – 3.9%

Outcome:The advertisements ran the week of 25 November 2013 in the following publications:

El Telegraph – Arabic (approximate circulation: 34,000) La Fiamma – Italian (approximate circulation: 30,000) Noes Kosmos – Greek (approximate circulation: N/A) Sing Tao – Chinese (approximate circulation: 25,000)

Public Information Sessions

Timeframe:Wednesday, 4 December 2013 – 11am – 12.30pmThursday, 5 December 2013 – 6pm – 7.30pm

Action:Council held two public information sessions in order to expand on the information circulated in the community and to address questions raised by ratepayers/residents.

There were two sessions, a morning session and an evening session to allow all members of the community an opportunity to attend.

The session was conducted by an independent facilitator in conjunction with Council staff.

The following information was discussed during the information sessions:

Background on Council’s previous community consultations Current state of local infrastructure TCorp Report findings on Local Government sustainability and infrastructure

backlog IPART application process and Council’s proposed options Condition of local infrastructure over seven years roads under each option


Advertisements in CALD publications

Information sessions were held to provide additional information

Next steps Council will undertake

The public sessions were promoted in the Mayoral letter to all ratepayers, newsletter, advertisements in Burwood Scene, signage at Council Chambers, Burwood Library and Enfield Aquatic Centre, social media and Council’s website.

Outcome:

In total, 33 people attended the information sessions:

Wednesday session – 16 in attendance Thursday session – 17 in attendance

During the sessions, attendees were given the opportunity to provide comments and raise questions regarding Council’s proposal. In addition, attendees were given a survey form to provide further feedback. The primary issues raised by residents during the information sessions were:

Over development in Burwood Increase in developments should generate more income for Council Poor conditions of current infrastructure Traffic and parking Council inefficiencies Option for Council to improve efficiencies without an SV

In the second meeting, 14 attendees voted against an SV in favour of Council identifying ways to become more efficient.

Overall, a majority of the attendees were in favour of no SV (Decline option). Article in Burwood Update Newsletter


Action:The Burwood Update Newsletter is distributed quarterly to 14,000 households and businesses in the Burwood LGA and includes the latest Council news and information.

The Summer 2013 Burwood Update was distributed on the week commencing 9 December 2013. The back page of the newsletter included information on Council’s application for an SV with further information on how to provide input.

Online advertising

Timeframe:Ongoing

Action:Council undertook an advertising campaign on the Burwood Scene website with 4 ads in total visible on the site’s homepage and other pages. The ads linked back to the Funding our Future homepage on Council’s website.

Social Media

Timeframe:Ongoing


Back page of Burwood Update – Summer 2013

Example of online advertisement in Burwood

Scene

Action:Burwood Council has one of the largest social media audiences of councils in the Inner West of Sydney, with more than 1,000 users engaging with Council’s accounts. Over the past few years, Council has used social media to effectively communicate with members of the public aged 13-34 who do not engage with Council as frequently as older age groups.

For the Funding our Future consultation, Council carried out an extensive Social Media campaign on Facebook and Twitter in order to engage with the community.

Outcome:During the Funding our Future consultation content associated with Council’s Facebook page reached 14,493 unique users.

This was achieved through a mixture of posts and advertising, which allowed Council to directly target residents in Burwood, Strathfield and Croydon areas based on the information provided on their profile.

Below is a breakdown of each post relating to the consultation and the views received:

Figure 3.6 – Views of Social Media posts associated with Funding our Future

DATE TOPIC VIEWS20/11/2013 Launch 106421/11/2013 What residents asked for 13521/11/2013 Cover photo 2925/11/2013 Information letter and have your say 6826/11/2013 Burwood Update Special Newsletter 6127/11/2013 Online survey 55910/12/2013 Live Twitter session 85217/12/2013 Live Twitter session 13810/01/2014 Consultation conclusion 47

Total view of Funding our Future related posts 2953

Static Displays

Timeframe:Ongoing

Action:Information signage was on display at the following Council facilities:

Council Chambers Burwood Library Enfield Aquatic Centre

These facilities receive a high level of traffic throughout the day. In particular, during the past financial year, Council received an average of 1,000 visitors to Council Chambers per month.


Council’s Facebook profile during the consultation

Signage on display at Council facilities

Online Survey

Timeframe:Ongoing

Action:Council offered an opt-in online survey for ratepayers and residents who did not participate in the comprehensive phone survey.

The online survey was modelled around the phone survey and was made available from 13 November 2013 to 10 January 2014.

Outcome:A total of 115 residents participated in the survey.

The results were as follows:

49.6 per cent of respondents were in favour of the decline option 31.6 per cent of respondents were in favour of an SV

Respondents were also given the opportunity to provide comments. Below is a ‘word tag’ of the most used phrases by respondents; the larger the size, the more frequent the phrase was used.

Figure 3.11 – ‘Word tag’ from online survey

Live Twitter Session


Action:‘Live Twitter session’ is a term used to refer to an allocated time period in which a user makes themselves available to respond to tweets posted by other users. Essentially, these sessions are a live forum/Q&A which uses Twitter as the facilitator.

A half hour Q&A session was held on Twitter on 17 December 2013 from 12.30pm – 1.00pm. The intention of the session was to provide residents with an opportunity to ask questions relating to Special Rate Variations and receive an immediate response in an informal setting.

Outcome:Council was able to respond to questions put forward during the allocated time.

Mayoral Column36 IPART Special Variation Application Form – Part B

Timeframe:26-27 November 2013

Action:Council carries out a full-page advertisement in local publications on a fortnightly basis, which includes a Mayoral Column and the latest news and information.

Information on Council’s proposed application was included in the Mayor’s message and as a separate news item in the advertisement on the week commencing 25 November 2013.

The information included why Council is proposing an SV, where the additional funding will go and how people could provide input in the discussion.

Outcome:The Mayoral column was published in the following local publications:

Burwood Scene (approximate circulation: 50,000) Inner West Courier (approximate circulation: 100,000)

4.2 Alternatives to the special variation

Indicate the range of alternatives to the requested special variation that the council considered and how you engaged your community about the various options.

Council considered the following range of alternatives to the requested SV to generate savings:

Reduced opening hours or possible closure of facilities including the Enfield Aquatic Centre and Library

Reduced maintenance of sporting facilities, parks and gardens Reduced maintenance of roads, footpaths, cycleways and drains Reduced environmental programs (e.g. weed removal and native vegetation

programs) Longer processing times for customer requests, applications and permits Fewer community events Less funds for community sponsorship and economic development Large increases in user fees and charges

These alternatives to an SV were included in the consultation material provided to the community, in particular, the comprehensive phone survey and opt-in survey.


Mayoral Column

4.3 Feedback from the community consultations

Summarise the outcomes of, and feedback from, your community engagement activities. Such outcomes could include the number of attendees at events and participants in online forums, as well as evidence of media reports and other indicators of public awareness of the council’s intentions. Where applicable, provide evidence of responses to surveys, particularly the level of support for specific programs or projects, levels and types of services, investment in assets, as well as the options proposed for funding them by rate increases.

Where the council has received submissions from the community relevant to the special variation during the engagement process, the application should set out the views expressed in those submissions. It should also identify and document any action the council has taken, or will take, to address issues of common concern.

During the consultation Council actively encouraged ratepayers and residents to join the discussion and provide feedback on each of the funding options presented to the community.

Ratepayers and residents could provide input and feedback the following ways:

Email Fax Telephone Mail In person Social Media Online survey Public information session and survey

Dedicated ‘have your say’ sections were included on all consultation material, where possible, to encourage residents to engage in the process.

Following the consultation, Council reviewed all the feedback and submissions received. The phone survey was the most comprehensive method of engagement undertaken by Council and therefore perceived to be the most accurate reflection of the community’s needs and desires.

Overall, 400 residents were surveyed on their preferred funding option and the results were as follows:

67% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Burwood Council proceeding with Option 2 – Maintain (SV increase of 5.5%, 6.5%, 7%, 7.5%, 7.5%, 7.5%, 7.5% over seven years)

60% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Burwood Council proceeding with Option 3 – Improve (SV increase of 7.5% over a seven year period)

49% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Burwood Council proceeding with Option 1 – Decline (no SV)

Of the residents surveyed, 99 per cent of respondents indicated that it was somewhat important for Council to implement programs that will provide for better infrastructure and service.


In addition to the phone survey, Council received submissions from ratepayers and residents which have been incorporated in Annexure 6. The majority of views expressed by those who provided feedback were about the current state of infrastructure, the perceived overdevelopment and the need for Council to upgrade and improve local roads and footpaths.

Below is a breakdown of all the feedback received by Council during the consultation.

Feedback received during Funding our Future consultation

Method Total Decline (1) Maintain (2) Improve (3) Did not specify

Information request or comment

Other Council matters

Phone survey 400 128 168 104 N/A N/A N/AOnline survey 112 59 25 12 16 N/A N/A

Email 35 9 N/A 1 N/A 25 5Fax 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Phone 5 2 1 N/A N/A 2 N/AMail 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Information session survey 17 12 2 2 1 N/A 3

Petition (56 households with 64 signatures)

64 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 636 269 196 119 17 27 9

4.4 Considering the impact on ratepayers

Indicate how the council assessed the impact of the special variation on ratepayers, and where this was addressed within the community awareness and engagement processes. Where the impact will vary across different categories and/or sub-categories of ratepayers, the council should consider the circumstances of the various different groups.

When assessing the impact on ratepayers, Council considered an SV that would assist in tackling Council’s infrastructure backlog but also be affordable for ratepayers. That is why Council proposed two different SV options to residents, an incremental rise over a seven year period and a fixed increase over a seven year period.


MAINTAIN SERVICE 5.5% 6.5% 7% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 60.6%IMPROVE SERVICE 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 65.9%

The two SV options took into consideration affordability and ratepayer’s capacity to pay through data obtained from various sources such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics,


economy.id, SEIFA Index and Census 2011. This information provided an economic profile of the area to assist in determining an affordable special variation. Council also ensured that it had policies and procedures in place, such as the Rates and Charges Hardship Assistance Policy to support ratepayers who would be significantly impacted by an SV.

During the consultation, all ratepayers received information on the impact an SV will have. The graph below was made available during the consultation and could be accessed through the Funding our Future webpage and six page newsletters which was distributed to all ratepayers and made available at Council facilities. In addition, all ratepayers received a letter from Council with the annual rate increase for their individual ratepayer category.

Ratepayers in Burwood LGA

Ratepayer Category Number of ratepayersResidential 9,347Town Centre – Residential 2,176Business 442Business B 45Business C 31Business D 14Town Centre – Minor Business 327Mixed Development 29Non-rateable 34Total 12,411

The information provided residents with an annual breakdown of the rate increase under the proposed SV scenarios and also provided the total additional payment that ratepayers would pay during the seven year period. The rate increase as outlined in the table (next page) shows the 3% estimate prior to IPART’s determination of 2.3% on 2 December 2013.

DECLINE2013/2014*

(3%)2014/2015

(3%)2015/2016

(3%) 2016/2017

(3%)2017/2018

(3%)2018/2019

(3%)2019/2020

(3%)2020/2021

Additional payment at the end of 7 years (23%

compounded increase)

Residential: $1,043 $1,074 $1,106 $1,139 $1,174 $1,209 $1,245 $1,282 $239

Town Centre - Residential: $918 $946 $974 $1,003 $1,033 $1,064 $1,096 $1,129 $211

Business: $2,643 $2,722 $2,804 $2,888 $2,975 $3,064 $3,156 $3,250 $607

Business B: $10,643 $10,962 $11,291 $11,630 $11,978 $12,338 $12,708 $13,089 $2,446

Business C: $9,898 $10,194 $10,500 $10,815 $11,140 $11,474 $11,818 $12,173 $2,275

Business D:$101,34

6 $104,387 $107,518 $110,744$114,06

6 $117,488 $121,013$124,64

3 $23,297

Town Centre - Minor Business: $3,598 $3,706 $3,817 $3,932 $4,050 $4,171 $4,296 $4,425 $827

MAINTAIN2013/2014*

(5.5%)2014/2015

(6.5%)2015/2016

(7%)2016/2017

(7.5%)2017/2018

(7.5%)2018/2019

(7.5%)2019/2020

(7.5%)2020/2021

Additional payment at the end of 7 years (60.6%


Residential: $1,043 $1,100 $1,172 $1,254 $1,348 $1,449 $1,557 $1,674 $631

Town Centre - Residential: $918 $969 $1,032 $1,104 $1,187 $1,276 $1,371 $1,474 $556

Business: $2,643 $2,788 $2,969 $3,177 $3,416 $3,672 $3,947 $4,243 $1,600

Business B: $10,643 $11,228 $11,958 $12,795 $13,755 $14,786 $15,895 $17,087 $6,444

Business C: $9,898 $10,442 $11,121 $11,899 $12,791 $13,751 $14,782 $15,891 $5,993

Business D:$101,34

6 $106,920 $113,870 $121,841$130,97

9 $140,802 $151,363$162,71

5 $61,369

Town Centre - Minor Business: $3,598 $3,796 $4,043 $4,326 $4,650 $4,999 $5,374 $5,777 $2,179

IMPROVE2013/2014*

(7.5%)2014/2015

(7.5%)2015/2016

(7.5%)2016/2017

(7.5%)2017/2018

(7.5%)2018/2019

(7.5%)2019/2020

(7.5%)2020/2021

Additional payment at the end of 7 years (65.9%


Residential: $1,043 $1,121 $1,205 $1,295 $1,392 $1,497 $1,609 $1,730 $687


Town Centre - Residential: $918 $987 $1,061 $1,141 $1,226 $1,318 $1,417 $1,523 $605

Business: $2,643 $2,841 $3,054 $3,283 $3,530 $3,794 $4,079 $4,385 $1,742

Business B: $10,643 $11,441 $12,299 $13,221 $14,213 $15,279 $16,425 $17,657 $7,014

Business C: $9,898 $10,640 $11,438 $12,296 $13,218 $14,209 $15,275 $16,420 $6,522

Business D:$101,34

6 $108,947 $117,118 $125,902$135,34

5 $145,495 $156,408$168,13

8 $66,792

Town Centre - Minor Business: $3,598 $3,868 $4,158 $4,470 $4,805 $5,166 $5,553 $5,969 $2,371

4.5 Considering the community’s capacity and willingness to pay

Indicate how the council has assessed the community’s capacity to pay for the rate increases being proposed, and also assessed its willingness to pay.

Evidence on capacity to pay could include a discussion of such indicators as SEIFA rankings, land values, average rates, disposable incomes, the outstanding rates ratio and rates as a proportion of household/business/farmland income and expenditure, and how these measures relate to those in comparable council areas. As many of these measures are highly aggregated, it may also be useful to discuss other factors that could better explain the impact on ratepayers affected by the proposed rate increases, particularly if the impact varies across different categories of ratepayers.

Prior to developing various funding options to put forward to the community, Council assessed the community’s capacity to pay for an SV above the estimated rate peg. In its assessment, Council considered SEIFA rankings, land values, average rates and household income to ensure that the increase was equitable.

Burwood has been identified by the NSW Government as a major centre, and is set to grow significantly in the next 20 years building on a strong local economy.

The area’s strong local economy is reflected by Burwood’s SEIFA ranking. The SEIFA Index of Disadvantage is used to illustrate the level of socio-economic disadvantage. It is calculated from Census data such as income, education, employment levels and skilled work. The higher the score is the lower the disadvantage in the area.

Burwood has a SEIFA index of 1022.45. This demonstrates that the Burwood LGA is less disadvantaged than both the national (958.60) and state (974.97) average.

The median weekly income for households is $1,310 with 20.4% of households earning $2,500 or more per week. 35.5% of households are currently renting, 24.7% of households currently have a mortgage and 32.5% fully own their property.

According to the Census 2011, Burwood LGA has an employment rate of 93.2% with 39.9% of residents having some form of tertiary qualification. The data also states that there are more professionals in Burwood Council area than any other occupation (28%).

Council has compared its residential and business rates against the neighbouring four councils and other group 2 councils through information obtained from the Division of Local Government.


Overall, more than 54% of residents indicated that they were in favour of some form of SV, demonstrating their willingness to pay for the rate increase to carry out the community’s priorities outlined in Council’s IP&R documentation.

Therefore, when incorporated with the SEIFA index of disadvantage and other key indicators, Council has considered that the proposed rate rise is affordable for the community and affected ratepayers have both the capacity and willingness to pay the higher rate levels.

5 Assessment criterion 3: Impact on ratepayers


The impact on affected ratepayers must be reasonable, having regard to both the current rate levels, existing ratepayer base and the proposed purpose of the variation. Council’s IP&R process should also establish that the proposed rate increases are affordable having regard to the local community’s capacity to pay.

We are required to assess whether the impact on ratepayers of the council’s proposed special variation is reasonable. To do this, we are required to take into account current rate levels, the existing ratepayer base and the purpose of the special variation. We must also assess whether the council’s IP&R process established that the community could afford the proposed rate rises.

5.1 Impact on rates

Much of the quantitative information we need on the impact of the special variation on rate levels will already be contained in Worksheet 5 of Part A of the application.

To assist us further, the application should set out the rating structure under the proposed special variation, and how this differs from the current rating structure, which would apply if the special variation is not approved.

We recognise that a council may choose to apply an increase differentially among categories of ratepayers. However, you should explain the rationale for applying the increase differentially among different categories and/or subcategories of ratepayers, particularly in light of the purpose of the special variation. This will be relevant to our assessment of the reasonableness of the impact on ratepayers.

As Council is not proposing to change its rating structure, the impact of the proposed increases will be spread evenly across all ratepayers. The following proposed increases are the percentage increases required:

5.5% in 2014/15 6.5% in 2015/16


7% in 2016/17 7.5% in 2017/18 7.5% in 2018/19 7.5% in 2019/20 7.5% in 2020/21

The cumulative increase over the seven year period of the SV, inclusive of any rate-pegging increases equates to 60.62%.

Based on the information supplied to IPART in part A of the application form the cumulative increase, over the seven year period of the proposed SV application for rate pegging only would be 38.40%. If the subject SV application is unsuccessful the approved increase for 2014/15 would remain at 2.3%.

Council’s future estimates have used 3% as the rate pegging increase estimate for future years. The cumulative increase of the 2.3% effective increase in 2014/15 and 3% for years two, three, four, five, six and seven would be 22.15%

The cumulative increases are distributed evenly across all rating categories. The current average residential rates are:

Residential: $1,045 Residential – Town Centre: $952.

This would rise to $1,677 and $1,529 respectively in the seventh year of the SV if the application is successful. This would equate to an increase of $632 and $577 respectively over the seven year period.

If unsuccessful, the cumulative rate peg increases would apply and be estimated to be an additional amount of the following over the seven year period:

Residential: $231 Residential – Town Centre: $221

The following table shows what the average business rate would be if the SV application was successful and the increase over the seven year period.

Sub-category Current AverageBusiness Rate

Current Average Business Rate after 7 Years with the SV

Difference

Business A $2,536 $4,071 $1,535Business B $10,643 $17,087 $6,444Business C $9,898 $15,891 $5,993Business D $101,346 $162,715 $61,369Town CentreMinor Business

$3,127 $5,020 $1,893

The following table shows what the average business rate for the seven years would be if the SV application was unsuccessful and the increase over the seven year period with rate pegging assumed at 3% per year.

Sub-category Current Average Rate

Current Average Business Rate after 7 Years with Rate Pegging

Difference

Business A $2,536 $3,097 $561Business B $10,643 $13,000 $2,357Business C $9,898 $12,090 $2,192Business D $101,346 $123,796 $22,450Town Centre Minor Business

$3,127 $3,819 $692


The cumulative impact for residential and business ratepayers was demonstrated in Council’s Delivery Program (Annexure 2, p. 22). These tables provide a breakdown with or without the SV over the seven years of the proposed SV.

General Revaluation

Council will be applying new land values supplied by the NSW Valuer General (base date 2013) commencing in the 2014/15 rating year (Year 1). The rate burden within categories will be redistributed compared to Year 0. This is unavoidable.

This will occur again in Year 4 and Year 7 as Burwood Council is a one in three (3) year land revaluation cycle.

5.1.1 Minimum Rates

The special variation may affect ordinary rates, special rates and minimum rates.

Does the council have minimum rates? Yes No

If Yes, explain how the proposed special variation will apply to the minimum rate of any ordinary and special rate, and any change to the proportion of ratepayers on the minimum rate for all relevant categories that will occur as a result.

So that we can assess the reasonableness of the impact on minimum ratepayers, briefly explain the types of ratepayers that are on minimum rates, and the rationale for the proposed impact of the special variation on minimum rate levels.

The increases in minimum rates will be at the same percentage as the SV percentage applied for each of the seven years. The impact on minimum ratepayers will be the same as all other rate payers as the increases have been distributed evenly across all rating categories.

The current minimum rate for the rating categories are:

Residential: $705 Residential – Town Centre: $899 Business A, Business B and Business C: $771 Business D and Town Centre – Minor Business: $986

If the SV is successful the minimum rates would increase to the following by year seven of the SV period:

Residential $1128 Residential – Town Centre $1,438 Business A, Business B and Business C is $1,234 Business D and Town Centre – Minor Business is $1,579

This equates to a cumulative increase in minimum rates of the following over a seven year period:

Residential $423 Residential – Town Centre $539 Business A, Business B and Business C $463


Business D and Town Centre – Minor Business $593

If the SV application is unsuccessful, it is estimated that minimum rates across all the categories would increase each year in-line with the estimated rate peg, a cumulative increase of the following over the seven years:

Residential $152 Residential – Town Centre $195 Business A, Business B and Business C $167 Business D and Town Centre – Minor Business $217

5.2 Affordability and community capacity to pay

Show how your IP&R processes have established that the proposed rate rises are affordable for your community, and that affected ratepayers have the capacity to pay the higher rate levels. (Indicators considered in this context may be similar to those cited under criterion 2.)

Council has incorporated economic data from the Census 2011 and Australian Bureau of Statistics in its Delivery Program (Annexure 2, p. 9) which demonstrate the community’s capacity to pay for an SV. This information includes employment, household and income data.

The average rates and increase over a seven year period were incorporated into the Delivery Program, LTFP and Council’s SV consultation to demonstrate the impact an SV would have on ratepayers.

As outlined in section 4.5 the Burwood LGA has a SEIFA index of 1022.45 which is above the national (958.60) and state average (974.97). Furthermore, the median weekly income for households of $1,310 is anticipated to increase over the next ten years.

The median weekly income for households in the Burwood LGA is $1,310 with 20.4% of households earning $2,500 or more per week. 35.5% of households are currently renting while 24.7% of households currently have a mortgage.

According to the Census 2011, Burwood LGA has an employment rate of 93.2% with 39.9% of residents having some form of tertiary qualification. The data also states that there are more professionals in Burwood Council area than any other occupation (28%).

Under the proposed SV, the additional annual increase above the rate peg would be the following over the seven year period:

$26 in 2014/15 $66 in 2015/16 $115 in 2016/17 $174 in 2017/18 $240 in 2018/19 $312 in 2019/20 $392 in 2020/21

This would be a weekly increase of the following over the seven year period:

50c in 2014/15 $1.30 in 2015/16


$2.20 in 2016/17 $3.35 in 2017/18 $4.60 in 2018/19 $6.00 in 2019/20 $7.55 in 2020/21

Council’s IP&R documentation, in conjunction with the information provided in this section and section 4.5 demonstrate the affordability and the community’s capacity to pay the higher rate levels proposed by Council.

5.3 Other factors in considering reasonable impact

In assessing whether the overall impact of the rate increases is reasonable we may use some of the same indicators that you cite in section 5.2 above. In general, we will consider indicators such as the local government area’s SEIFA index rankings, average income, and current rate levels as they relate to those in comparable councils. We may also consider how the council’s hardship policy might reduce the impact on ratepayers.

5.3.1 Addressing hardship

In addition to the statutory requirement for pensioner rebates, most councils have a policy, formal or otherwise.

Doe the council have a Hardship Policy? Yes No

If Yes, is it identified in the council’s IP&R documents? Yes No

Annexure 2, p. 22

Please attach a copy of the Policy and explain who the potential beneficiaries are and how they are addressed. See Annexure 8

Does the council propose to introduce any measures to limit the impact of the proposed special variation on various groups? Yes No

Provide details of the measures to be adopted, or alternatively, explain why no measures are proposed.

Council’s Rates and Charges Hardship Assistance Policy (Annexure 8) provides a framework for determining assistance for ratepayers of Residential Rating Categories who are suffering genuine hardship with the payment of rates and charges, including pensioners. Ratepayers may also enter into a payment arrangement with Council in order to pay any outstanding rate balances.

This policy is identified in Council’s Delivery Program:

Council recognises that ratepayers may experience hardship in some circumstances in paying rates and annual charges. Ratepayers may apply for assistance under the Rates and Charges Hardship Assistance Policy.

(Annexure 2, p. 22)


In addition to its hardship policy, Council’s Debt Recovery Policy and Debt Recovery Procedures (Annexure 8) provide further support to those who are unable to pay their rates. In particular, this policy ensures that any rating debts that are owed to Council by eligible pensioners will not be pursued through legal action.

6 Assessment criterion 4: Assumptions in Delivery Program and LTFP

The DLG Guidelines state this criterion as follows:

The proposed Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan must show evidence of realistic assumptions.

Summarise below the key assumptions adopted by the council and indicate where they are set out in your Delivery Plan and LTFP. We will need to assess whether the assumptions are realistic. For your information, we will consider such matters as: the proposed scope and level of service delivery given the council’s

financial outlook and the community’s priorities estimates of specific program or project costs projections of the various revenue and cost components.

To also assist us, identify any in-house feasibility work, industry benchmarks or independent reviews that have been used to develop assumptions in the Delivery Program and LTFP if these are not stated in those documents.

The LTFP highlights the factors/assumptions most likely to affect the Plan. The following key assumptions are set out in the LTFP (Annexure 3, pp. 11-16) and Delivery Program (Annexure 2, p. 71):

Council’s revenue assumptions o Rateso Financial assistance grantso Operating grantso Capital grantso Fees and chargeso Interest and investment revenueo Section 94 contributionso Fineso Capital revenueo Other revenue

Expenditure assumptionso Salaries, wages and employee costso Materials and supplieso Contractso Insuranceo Legal feeso Other expenseso Depreciationo Interest on overdrafto Borrowing costs


o Rento Overheads

Capital expenditure program Balance sheet/cash assumptions

o Reserveso Current assets and liabilities

The Plan includes three different scenario models, which take into consideration these assumptions based on current and forecasted service levels (Annexure 3, pp. 18-32). The annual rate increase without an SV has been forecast at 3% p.a. for 2014/15 onwards. This is based on the IPART historical assumptions that the annual rate increase will be set at a level that will incorporate a “discount” to ensure Councils seek ongoing efficiency gains in service delivery.

These assumptions have also been considered in the three different scenario models presented in the four year Budget which forms part of Council’s Delivery Program (Annexure 2, pp. 70-83).

Council’s financial information is also prepared in an external format which is compliant with the Code of Local Government Accounting Practices and applicable Accounting Standards.

The major difference is the treatment of result on disposal of assets as an operating item in the external reporting format. Also under external reporting formats depreciation is treated as an expense and there is no adjustment for this non cash transaction.

For internal reporting purposes Council identifies and reports on disposal of assets as a Capital item, the proceeds of which should be used to provide for new assets or revenue generating assets (p. 71).

In addition, a recent review undertaken by the IPART into the Revenue Framework for Local Government identified a number of performance indicators which measure Council’s financial performance and position. The indicators measure both recurrent operations and capital sustainability.

Council will continue to review its LTFP against these indicators as part of assessing the long term financial health of the organisation and its capacity to fund any proposed Delivery Program.

7 Assessment criterion 5: Productivity improvements and cost containment strategies

The DLG Guidelines state this criterion as follows:

An explanation of the productivity improvements and cost containment strategies the council has realised in past years, and plans to realise over the proposed special variation period.

In this section, provide details of any productivity improvements and cost containment strategies that you have implemented in the last 2 years (or longer) and any plans for productivity improvements and cost containment during the period of the special variation. These plans, capital or recurrent in nature, must be aimed at reducing costs. Please


also indicate any initiatives to increase revenue eg, user charges. Identify how and where the proposed initiatives have been factored into the council’s resourcing strategy (eg, LTFP and AMP).

Where possible, quantify in dollar terms the past and future productivity improvements and savings.

You may also use indicators of efficiency, either over time or in comparison to other relevant councils. We will make similar comparisons using various indicators and the DLG Group data provided to us.

Over the past few years Council has concentrated on becoming stronger, more efficient and more strategic.

This has been achieved through a number of ways:

Implemented an organisational restructure, which saved approximately $380,000 Reduced utilization of contractors and temporary staff, saving approximately

$750,000 Implement a property strategy, generating additional income Implemented new procurement and contract management policies and corporate

practices, generating substantial savings and increasing accountability (for example, Council’s legal costs reduced from $1.37 million per annum to approximately $600,000p.a.)

Negotiated new contracts, such as insurance contracts, achieving savings of $400,000

Council’s workers compensation premium has also reduced from $1 million to $590,000

Instigated a large number of service reviews, making Council more efficient Introduced an Audit Committee and an independent internal auditor Reviewed major projects such as the former Civic Precinct, identifying

substantial savings while delivering outcomes Developed a LTFP and CSP in conjunction with the community

Over the last four years, it is estimated Council generated savings in the order of $5 million.

These achievements were recognised in TCorp’s report on Local Government sustainability, which identified Burwood as one of only 5 councils in NSW with a financially positive outlook.

Despite maximising efficiencies to better align service delivery with community expectations, these actions are not considered enough to continue to address the backlog in infrastructure without compromising other services.

In addition, Council was successful in obtaining a loan of $2 million from the State Government in two rounds of the Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS).

8 Other information

8.1 Previous Instruments of Approval

If you have a special variation which is due to expire at the end of this financial year or during the period of the proposed special variation, when was it approved and what was its purpose?


Please attach a copy of the Instrument of Approval that has been signed by the Minister or IPART Chairman.

N/A

8.2 Reporting to your community

The Guidelines set out reporting mechanisms that show your accountability to your community. Please tell us how you will go about transparently reporting to the community on the proposed special variation, should it be approved. Also indicate the performance measures you will use to demonstrate how you have used the additional funds (above the rate peg) generated by the special variation.

Council has established reporting mechanisms for it is Delivery Program (Annexure 2, p. 18) to inform the community of the Council’s progress and provide a performance measure against its IP&R documentation. This includes an Annual Report and Quarterly Review which report on the actions outlined in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

The Annual Report offers an update on Council’s performance, financial position, achievements and future plans. Stemming from the Annual Report is the Quarterly Review which reports on each of the strategic actions and indicates whether each action is on track.

If successful in receiving an SV, Council will include updates on how the additional funds were used, current expenditure and a schedule of completed works and future works that will be undertaken in the Annual Report and Quarterly Review.

In addition to reporting on the proposed SV, Council will to engage with the community following the submission of the application to IPART. Council will notify residents once the submission has been made and will then inform the community once a decision has been made by IPART.

Council will continue to provide updates to the community on a quarterly and annual basis through the following ways:

Council’s website Social media Media releases Special newsletter updating Council on its capital works Information on Council’s quarterly newsletter

A copy of the consultation outcomes has been made public on Council’s website and a copy of the application will be published online once submitted.

8.3 Council resolution to apply to IPART

The Guidelines require the council to have resolved to apply for a special variation. Please attach a copy of the council’s resolution to make a special variation application. Our assessment of the application cannot commence without it.


Council unanimously resolved to apply for a special variation under Section 508A of the Local Government Act 1993 in its Meeting of 17 February 2014. Below is an extract from the resolution to apply to IPART (Annexure 9).

RESOLVED (Carried Unanimously)1. That the information contained in this report be received and noted.

2. That Council adopt Option 2 Maintain Service as follows:

Annual increase under each option over seven years


MAINTAIN SERVICE 5.5% 6.5% 7% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 60.6%

3. That in accordance with Section 508A of the Local Government Act 1993, Council forward to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal an application for a special rate variation in line with the Maintain option detailed in this report over seven years, commencing 2014/15.

4. That a further report be provided to Council upon receipt of advice from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, following their review of the application.

(Moved Deputy Mayor Tony Doueihi/Seconded Councillor George Mannah)


Checklist of contents

The following is a checklist of the supporting documents to include with your Part B application:

Item Included?Relevant extracts from the Community Strategic Plan (Annexure 1)

Delivery Program (Annexure 2a)Extract from Delivery Program 2011-2015 (2b)Extract from previous Delivery Program (2c)Operational Plan (2d)

Long Term Financial Plan (Annexure 3)

Relevant extracts from the Asset Management Plan (Annexure 4)

TCorp report on financial sustainability (Annexure 5)

Contributions Plan documents (if applicable)

Media releases, public meeting notices, newspaper articles, fact sheets relating to the rate increase and special variation (Annexure 6)

Community feedback (including surveys and results if applicable) (Annexure 7)

Hardship Policy (Annexure 8)

Past Instruments of Approval (if applicable)

Resolution to apply for the special variation (Annexure 9)

Resolution to adopt the Delivery Program (Annexure 10)


9 Certification

APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL RATE VARIATION

To be completed by General Manager and Responsible Accounting Officer

Name of council: Burwood Council

We certify that to the best of our knowledge the information provided in this application is correct and complete.

General Manager (name): Michael McMahon

Signature and Date:

Responsible Accounting Officer (name): Wayne Armitage

Signature and Date:

Once completed, please scan the signed certification and attach it to the Part B form before submitting your application online via the Council Portal on our website.


· web viewthe information provided residents with an annual breakdown of the rate increase...

Documents