A Strong Independent PittwaterWhen I first came to the Council as General Manager six years ago, I was soon made aware of Pittwater's history and how it came into being. As the only independently formed Council in New South Wales for more than 100 years, we occupy a unique position in local government history. The Council was born of a deep desire by residents to control their own destiny and decide for themselves how ratepayers money should be spent in the local area. On the down side, Pittwater inherited aging and poorly maintained infrastructure as well as difficult environmental issues. Nearly 20 years on from that momentous day in 1992 when Pittwater was proclaimed a new council area, we've come a long way. Two thirds of residents stated in a customer satisfaction survey late last year that they are 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the quality of Council services. Staff and Councillors work collaboratively together to resolve problems and act on the community's wishes. The issue for Pittwater now is to retain our independence and strength as a local Council so we can continue to provide the services and facilities our community have told us they want. This is why we're consulting with ratepayers on a proposed rate increase over a three-year period, between July 2011 and July 2014. Last year's delivery program foreshadowed the Council's intention to seek a rate increase to replace the 5% environmental infrastructure levy, plus a further two year increase. At this week's Council meeting, Councillors considered a detailed report outlining why Pittwater should apply to the state government for a special rate variation. The Councillors have voted unanimously to adopt the draft report and seek community comment. If you're a Pittwater ratepayer, what we're seeking from you is agreement for a rate increase of 5% in the first year, 4% in the second year and 3% in the third year, excluding the annual CPI increase which is current running at between 2.6% and 2.8%. For the average residential ratepayer, this would add $38 a year to your rates from July 2011 to June 2012; $79 in 2012-2013 and $75 in 2013-2014. In return, we have a fully-costed program worth $38 million of infrastructure and works planned for the next ten years. The first year of the three-year rate increase would replace the current environmental infrastructure levy of 5%, which expires in June 2012. This levy has been instrumental in providing key infrastructure and capital works projects for Pittwater. Its expenditure and spending priorities have been monitored by local residents through a community committee and regular reporting. In addition, a community contract has set clear undertakings for the Council to meet. We believe that the special rate variation should be managed in the same way, if our application is approved by the state government. We recognise our community is already facing increases in mortgage rates and utility bills so we're not taking this step lightly. But we believe for us to remain strong and independent as a local community, and for the Council to continue to improve its current levels of service, the best course of action is to apply for a special rate variation. I'm keen to hear your views. Read the full details of the proposed rate increase and have your say. Or leave a comment here on my blog. Posted 8 February 2011 |
Would you like to comment?
TERMS & CONDITIONS - This blog is authored by Mark Ferguson, General Manager of Pittwater Council. Views expressed in the blog are not necessarily the views of Pittwater Council. All comments will be reviewed before posting and any defamatory, discriminatory or unrelated comment/s removed. Comments will be posted on the next available business day and should relate to the blog topic.
All unrelated enquiries should be redirected to Pittwater Council Customer Service or submit a Customer Request Form
The cost to ratepayers does not seem to add up. The highest % increase is 5% for 2011-2102 but Mark Ferguson quotes the extra rates fro that year to average $38, the lowest yearly rate of 3% is quoted as $75 average increase in rates. Perhaps I am missing something?
Posted by Christine Hopton of Avalon Beach - 16 Feb 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Thank you for your question.
As a rate payer you have been paying a 5% environmental infrastructure levy each year for the past 6 years. 2011/2012 is the final year of this levy. Council is proposing to replace the final year of the environmental infrastructure levy with the first year of the Special Rate Variation. This new Special Rate Variation would also start at 5%. In the following two years the proposed increase is 4% and 3%. It should be noted that the proposed increase over three years of 5%, 4% and 3% is above the projected CPI of 2.8% each year.
In my blog I was highlighting the actual increase you would see in your rates notice in the first year. The existing environmental infrastructure levy of 5% will be replaced by a new special rate variation of 5%, so as a resident you would only see a CPI increase in Year 1. This equates to approx $38 (based on the average land value in Pittwater of $750,000) on your rates notice. The following 2 years the increase would be $79 & $75 respectively, these figures include both CPI (2.8%) and the proposed increase of 4% and 3% respectively.
Please also refer to our website for further information at www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/rates
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 17 Feb 2011
Although I agree with the $38 million being spent on much needed infrastructure items, I do feel it could be funded in a more equitable way. We (the ratepayers of Pittwater) already pay one of the highest rates in NSW. The existing monies could be re-directed from other areas (i.e. the litigation of developers as a matter of course, a situation in which the council generally loses when it goes to court) to fund these neccessary infrastucture initiatives.
Posted by Mark Wadsworth of Mona Vale - 23 Feb 2011
Can the General Manager demonstrate any efficiency/productivity gains achieved to date? Will Mr Ferguson provide the number of Appeals to Court against decisions of Council? Please provide the total salary and wages cost to ratepayers for each of the last 5 financial years.
Posted by Peter Hansman of Clareville - 27 Feb 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
In terms of productivity and efficiency gains, the Council has created approximately $1.6million worth of recurrent productivity gains across the business in the last three years. Council has forecast a further $300,000 worth of savings in the 2011/2012 financial year.
The number of court appeals is reported each year in our annual report, under the section called Legal Proceedings - Statutory Statements. Annual reports are stored on our website, currently going back to the year 2005.
Staff costs are budgeted each year in the annual Delivery Program (formerly known as the Management Plan), under Section 3 - Financials. This is the Council's annual operational plan adopted by June of each year. The Council also reports on this quarterly.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 28 Feb 2011
I was one who opposed the separation from Warringah because the outcome was as I feared, one of the highest rates in NSW. Mark we cannot all afford an increse in rates. Not all of us drive mercs or BMWs. We have to make to with what Council receives. I am behind in my paymenst alredy and am paying by instalments. I want to remain in Pittwater. I am a third generation resident. Anyway the rangers seem to be raking in the money especially from us school parenst and they are eager to serve working just within what the law allows. Council is infelexibile in dealing with parking fines and many other complaints and you know full well that most of us don't have the time or money to defend ourselves. My wife was one such victim and that fine came directly out of money that could have brought our rates up to date. I will be attending the meeting on 2 March to voice my opinion.
Posted by Mark Horton of Mona Vale - 28 Feb 2011
Before I can agree to a further rate increase I would like to know why there is a need after the valuations on Pittwater properties have increased the money to council significantly from July 2010. In my case my rates in money terms to council went up over 60%. When I have asked previously I was told the council was only obeying the law and to complain to the state government. Now you are asking for more money. I believe you need to acknowledge this publicly before trying to increase rates
Posted by Geoff Giblin of Bayview - 1 March 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Council is required to use land values as the basis for assessing rates. We are provided with new land values every three years, however increases in land values does not necessarily equate to increases in rates. The Minister for Local Government limits (or pegs) rate increases each year. This year rate increases were pegged at 2.6%. Accordingly, when moving from one set of land values to another, some owners rates go up, some remain the same, and some go down; but council's overall rate increase for 2010/11 was just 2.6%.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 1 March 2011
1. This proposed increased impost on ratepayers arises because the Council and the "General Manager"(sic) have by lost over ONE MILLION DOLLARS of ratepayers monies in financial contracts they clearly did not understand. The eventual loss will likely exceed TWO MILLION DOLLARS. There should be no rate increase. 2.Pittwater Council administration has labour costs out of proportion to the task. For example:- the number of "personal assistants". There needs to be a major reduction in labour costs. Many positions have no measurable outcomes? The three Councils could achieve a cost benefit from a shared service and call centre. There are many opportunities to avoid rate increases -a proper cost reduction is necessary.There should be no rate increase. 3. As evidenced by the "special edition" of the mailed out circular Coucil is inefficient and wasteful in expending ratepayers ( & grants) monies. There should be no rate increase.
Posted by Kevin Howes of Bayview - 1 March 2011
Why do the increases have to be based on a percentage increase of the rateable value. This seems rather inequitable for this kind of impost which improves the quality of life for all people equally. Higher rated properties will pick up more of the increase than lower. It would seem fairer to average the increase over all ratepayers, as the GM did to give us a flavour of the extent of the increase.
Posted by Paul Davison of Avalon - 1 March 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
In 2007 the Council considered a proposal to change the way rates were calculated. Council resolved to keep the same rating structure, this was, to keep an advalorum subject to a minimum. Council's current minimum rate is approximately $700.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 1 March 2011
I could not find sufficient detail in the spreadsheet posted on the website to understand the programme of proposed works. I see nothing obvious for either the ecology, environment, or sustainability of Careel Bay. Additionally, where is the programme for improving the public wharf on GEORGE St Avalon, and the section of the bay, foreshore, and road west of the Careel Bay BOATSHED. I understood plans were established to improve this area.
Posted by Paul Davison of Avalon - 1 March 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Works are planned for the Careel Bay area as part of the $10.5 million program 'Valuing & Caring for our Natural Environment'. There will be estuarine and coastline rehabilitation work in the vicinity of Careel Bay playing fields and the wetlands. Under the $2.7 million program 'Leading an Effective & Collaborative Council' pollution of Careel Creek will be targeted at its entry points.
The Council is planning to upgrade all of Pittwater's 27 public wharves to comply with the federal government's direction for all public wharves to have disabled access by the year 2020. This will be a staged program over several years.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 1 March 2011
I would like to voice my total opposition to the proposed rate increase. The council, like everybody else, has to learn to live within its means. Households are under increasing pressure from rising mortgage rates (and therefore rental costs for those renting), increasing medical insurance costs, proposed QLD disaster levy, carbon tax, increasing fuel costs, increasing food bills, astronomical increases in electricity costs....the list goes on. Having read all the relevant literature on the council website and also the printed brochure sent out, there is a worrying lack of detail. Headline bullet points relating to initiatives for cost cutting do nothing to explain what is actually being done to save our money. Similarly, information is sadly lacking when it comes to the phone survey carried out. It is encumbent on council to divulge full information if we are to make an informed decision: How were questions phrased and what were the responses?
Posted by Martin O'Connell from Mona Vale - 2 March 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
We have a question and answer section on the website with common questions from ratepayers and responses from the Council. This is being updated regularly. You can access it here http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/council/specialratevariation/questions
There is also a question and answer sheet available at the 'further information' section at the bottom of each web page regarding the special rate.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 3 March 2011
At the meeting Council employment costs were shown as 58%. The figures for Warringah are 38.02% and in Kuringgai 29.30% Based on this very simple process the real beneficiaries from any Special Rate Variation will be Council staff not ratepayers. Please comment.
Posted by Peter Hansman from Clareville - 2 March 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
To clarify the issue and using Warringah as a comparative example.
The figure of 58% quoted by a resident was in reference to Pittwater Council's employee costs of $23.045m divided by the Council's rates and annual charges of $39.691m.
When the same calculation is applied to Warringah Council, employee costs of $51.535m divided by Warringah's rates and annual charges of $76.958m give a 67% result . (Source: Warringah Council annual report 2009-2010).
The comparative figure of 38% for Warringah that you state divides their employee costs of $51.535m by their total income of $135.522m.
The same calculation applied to Pittwater results in a 37% figure. That is, employee costs of $23.045m divided by the Council's total income of $62,988m.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 3 March 2011
1)I have looked at the list of 40+ projects totaling $38M over ten years. What differentiates these from the myriad of other projects that Council are working on over that time. I had thought that all projects under the levy should be new (not maintenance) with clear definitions and outputs. This does not appear to be the case. 2)Where are the funds to improve pedestrian safety on Hudson Pde between Hilltop Rd and Delecta Avenue. Many submissions have been made to Council re this dangerous situation. Indeed funds were allocated in the current Infrastructure Levy but were them mysteriously allocated to another project. When will this situation be fixed once and for all.
Posted by David Owen from Clareville - 5 March 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
In response to your question, the 10-year works program is a mixture of major upgrades as well as ongoing strategic maintenance of existing infrastructure. This is to ensure we are able to maintain acceptable levels of service for Council facilities. The special rate program is in addition to our annual budgets of approximately $5-$7 million for capital improvement projects that are carried out annually. Pedestrian safety is included in both the annual capital works program and the special rate program.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 7 March 2011
So long as the funding is used properly and with full accountability I am greatly in favour of increasing the rates by a reasonable amount. Our rates bill is very small compared to what we spend on electricity, or petrol, for example. Pittwater is a lovely area and it has excellent amenities, such as the parks, the community centres and the libraries. In general, our rates seem well spent. We should continue to improve our local area and look after our own citizens.
Posted by Andrew Greig of Avalon Beach - 5 March 2011
I am not convinced that Pittwater Council is justified in asking for an increase in rates, be it a special three year levy or general increase. Due to the NSW Valuer General’s ludicrous assessment of my land as at 1/7/2009, my council rates increased in August 2010 from $982.25 to $1,389.78. That is an increase of 41.5%. If my rates have increased this much, I can only assume that thousands of other Pittwater ratepayers have experienced similar increases. If this is the case, what has Council done with this windfall? Surely these funds could be used to finance Council’s plans. Since my rates have increased I have not seen one extra service provided by Council. I am also concerned that this special levy will continue indefinitely. Council needs to better manage its budget and resources (including staff) and provide more efficient and appropriate services for the whole community without hiking up rates to cover financial losses through poor investments or inadequate management practices.
Posted by Heidi Murphy of Elanora Heights - 7 March 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
To clarify the Council's position regarding land valuations; we are required to use land values as the basis for assessing rates. We are provided with new land values every three years, however increases in land values does not necessarily equate to increases in rates. The Minister for Local Government limits (or pegs) rate increases each year. This year rate increases were pegged at 2.6%. Accordingly, when moving from one set of land values to another, some owners rates go up, some remain the same, and some go down; but council's overall rate increase for 2010/11 was just 2.6%.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 7 March 2011
Could you clarify the rate increase please? Is it 2.6% increase in total dollar amount of rates levied by council, or is it 2.6% increase in the rate ? E G: if the rate for 2010 was say 10% charged on the VG would the rate for 2011 be 10.26% charged on the latest VG?
Posted by Peter Hansman of Clareville - 4 March 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
The 2.6% figure refers to the CPI increase in the current financial year 2010-2011. The next financial year the CPI increase is predicted to be 2.8%, and the two years after that. This may be subject to change.
Therefore, the CPI increase and the special rate is predicted to be 5% plus 2.8% in the first year; 4% plus 2.8% in the second year and 3% plus 2.8% in the third year.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 7 March 2011
Cutting Section 94 contributions to an across the board figure does not take into consideration that the State Govt is cramming ever more residents into all Council areas regardless of the current level of local infrastructure or local hazards. The State Govt has long, shifted unpopular revenue raising initiatives to Local Councils. I recall a rep from a Govt Dept saying how great the new Clean Waters Act was because now Councils (rather than the State Govt) could fine people for polluting the waterways. This serves to make Councils even more unpopular with local residents. This could be a long term tactic to make Local Councils really unpopular, so that IF the day ever comes to vote to have only 2 levels of Govt, Local Govt will be done away with as it is seen to be the money pinching, bad manager of the rates it scavenges from its community. As law makers the State can manipulate laws, Acts, etc to keep the heat off themselves and look good at the same time.
Posted by Lynne Czinner of Warriewood - 11 March 2011
Pittwater Council rates per residential property are the second highest in NSW. The proposed increase will merely ensure that Pittwater becomes the council which levies the highest rates per residential property! Is this an ego trip?
Posted by Peter Hansman of Clareville - 21 March 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Council is required to use land values as the basis for assessing rates. We are provided with new land values every three years, however increases in land values does not necessarily equate to increases in rates. The Minister for Local Government limits (or pegs) rate increases each year. This year rate increases were pegged at 2.6%. Accordingly, when moving from one set of land values to another, some owners rates go up, some remain the same, and some go down; but council's overall rate increase for 2010/11 was just 2.6%.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 24 March 2011
One of the things Pittwtaer Council could do to remain a financially viable Council is to increase the number of rateable properties, rather than slugging the current land owners for an increase.
Posted by Lynne Czinner of Warriewood - 3 June 2011
Can you please explain what the 0.4% increase mentionned below relates to and does it mean rates will increase 3.2% next year, or the widely publicised 2.8%? If both levies are 5% where does this 0.4% come from? Taken from your Q&A webpage: "As 2011/2012 would be the last year of the 5% environmental infrastructure levy, the impact to ratepayers in Year 1 of the special rate would only be the annual CPI increase of 2.8% and a very small adjustment of 0.4% that picks up the mathematical difference between removing the environmental infrastructure levy and implementing the new special rate. In Year 2 and Year 3 rates will increase by 4% and 3% (exclusive of the annual CPI increase) respectively.
Posted by Russell Wolfe of Warriewood - 12 June 2011
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
As indicated rates will increase on average by 3.2% next year. The levy that will end on 30 June this year was a 5% increase on rates income in 2004/05 and was subsequently increased by the annual permissible rate increase for each of the following years. This equates to $1.432M.
The new 5% increase is on 2010/11 rates income and equates to approximately $1.532M. In addition to this, Council can recoup rates income reduced this year for reductions made to assessments following objections to land values. The combination of the above equated to an approximate differential of 0.4% between the two levies.
Response by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 14 June 2011
No results were found