ftf community consultation outcomes report cover · sample media briefing notes 3.8. ... council of...

Funding the future 2010–22

December 2010

Report on the outcomes of community consultation

Waverley Council Cnr Paul Street & Bondi RoadBondi JunctionPO Box 9Bondi Junction NSW 1355DX 12006 Bondi JunctionEmail [email protected] www.waverley.nsw.gov.au

Telephone enquiriesGeneral business 9369 8000General fax 9387 1820TTY for hearing impaired 9389 9827After hours emergencies 9369 8000

Your call will be directed to the appropriate area.

(i)

Waverley Council

Funding the future 2010-22 Report on the outcomes of community consultation December 2010

We are united by a common passion for our beautiful home between the city and the sea

What we did 1. Consulting the community

1.1. Introduction 1.2. Key elements of the consultation program

1.2.1. Communications program 1.2.2. Media circulation and audience impact 1.2.3. Community survey

1.3. Funding the Future consultation program results 1.3.1. Community survey - Hunter Valley Research Foundation 1.3.2. Open consultation feedback

1.3.2.1. Bang The Table 1.3.2.2. Emails and letters 1.3.2.3. Wentworth Courier and StreetCorner blogs 1.3.2.4. Precinct meetings 1.3.2.5. General public forums 1.3.2.6. Overall participation and results

1.4. Themes emerging from the feedback 1.5. Other issues and perceptions

How we did it 2. Survey of residents and ratepayers on funding options

Survey of residents and ratepayers on funding options for Waverley Together 2

3. Broader engagement strategy

3.1. Community engagement plan 3.2. Timetable of key deliverables 3.3. Social media

3.3.1. Bang the Table online forum 3.3.2. Facebook and Twitter

(ii)

We are united by a common passion for our beautiful home between the city and the sea

3.4. Precinct meetings 3.4.1. Meeting presentation 3.4.2. Sample invitation and agenda

3.5. Staff focus groups 3.6. Public forums

3.6.1. ‘Have a Say’ days – publicity and logistics 3.6.2. ‘Have a Say’ days and information forum – photographs 3.6.3. Information forum presentation

3.7. Sample media briefing notes 3.8. Presentation to MP for Coogee 3.9. Telephone ‘on hold’ messages

4. Information resources

4.1. Have your say! brochure 4.2. Waverley in Focus newsletter features 4.3. Media releases and posts on StreetCorner 4.4. Business Buzz and child care centre newsletters features 4.5. Frequently Asked Questions 4.6. The 11 fact sheets plus What is Waverley Together 2? 4.7. Posters

What people said 5. Community feedback

5.1. Log of written feedback 5.2. Emails 5.3. Letters and feedback forms

6. Media coverage

6.1. Core media articles 6.2. Related media articles

Section 1

Consulting the community

Funding the future 2010-22

1. Consulting the Community

1.1 Introduction

In August 2010 the Council of Waverley considered a landmark report on the future funding of the services it provides to the local community. Of particular concern was the emerging gap between projected income and revenue streams; a gap that was serious and expected to grow steadily if no action was taken. Before making a decision on future funding the Council voted to seek community feedback on the issue and the implications it had for delivering against the community plan Waverley Together 2. This report captures community feedback in response to the community consultation program commissioned by Council. Like Waverley Together 2 it focused on a strategic time frame that extended to the year 2022. Branded Funding the future, the consultation program commenced on 21 July 2010 and formally concluded on 30 October 2010. Core terms of reference were drawn from the preamble to the Waverley Council Review of Financial Structure 2010 to 2022 as follows:

Councillors of Waverley know that it is not possible to promise services into the future with the current income structure. But they want to know whether the community’s support for these services, so clearly displayed in surveys to date, will diminish or prevail when told the cost of each choice – the cost in terms of a rate rise, in terms of the long run, and in terms of service loss.

The consultation relied on two quite distinct but complimentary consultation approaches:

1. An open social media and face-to-face consultation engaging with a self-selected group of well over 1000 participants, of which 179 provided 336 written comments

2. A randomly selected group of 534 residents and ratepayers who agreed to read a

package of background material and then complete a detailed telephone survey conducted by Hunter Valley Research Foundation

Accordingly, a consultation and survey program was designed to provide the community with a comprehensive range of accessible information and to ask a series of questions framed around 3 main choices about future service mix and levels i.e.

• reducing services, or • maintaining services at existing levels, or • enhancing services

Respondents who preferred to maintain or enhance services were asked to consider choices about how to provide these services while simultaneously maintaining the future financial sustainability of Council. They were specifically asked whether they wished to fund future services by:

• increasing rates, or • increasing other forms of income, or • increasing income from a combination of sources

Respondents who preferred not to increase income were encouraged to express preferences for service cuts or savings.

Section 1 - page 1 of 19

1.2 Key Elements of the Consultation Program 1.2.1 Communications Program A communications strategy aimed at maximizing reach into the community led to the delivery of a broad based communications program including: distribution of the Funding the future: Have your say! brochure to 34,000 premises in

Waverley and to 3669 non-resident ratepayers. The brochure was also available on line and at many forums, events and Council premises during the consultation

an open web forum, Bang the Table, supported by a library of digital information, fact sheets and Frequently Asked Questions

comments by visitors to Bang the Table were asked for responding to 5 key questions about:

o the importance of the vision of Waverley Together 2 o the importance of Council’s services o preferences for increasing income versus cutting

services o preferences for raising variable income o preferences for raising rates

other web-based dialogue on Facebook, Twitter and local media blogs such as StreetCorner and the online version of the Wentworth Courier

[email protected] - a dedicated consultation email address with all incoming emails recorded, tracked and responded to

distribution of Waverley in Focus [Spring 2010 edition] to all Waverley households which included a major feature on Funding the Future

a feature in Business Buzz newsletter distributed to local business establishments

features in various newsletters produced for child care facilities operated by Council

a briefing to a breakfast forum of the Bondi and Districts Chamber of Commerce

tailored ‘on hold’ messages on Council’s telephone system

displays in Council’s Customer Service Centre

a directional banner on the home page of Council’s website

posters in local bus shelters, information cubes and Council premises

cross promotion at other scheduled community events and meetings

media interviews which explaining pros and cons of each option in a balanced way and which encouraged blogging

a full briefing of the local NSW Member of Parliament for Coogee

a full briefing to all Council staff, with particular focus on frontline customer service staff

two community open days - one at Bondi Beach on 10 October 2010 and the other at Bondi Junction on 16 October 2010

an open information evening at Council Chambers on 20 October 2010

detailed presentations by senior staff to every community Precinct committee (except one which opted to attend the information evening instead)

1.2.2 Media: Circulation and Audience Impact


Media coverage of the program was quite wide and was characterized great depth which is rather unusual for an issue of this type:

Print and Online Media Coverage Publication Circulation Readership

Wentworth Courier 47,554 69,000 StreetCorner n/a 50,000 views The Beast Magazine 61,000 n/a Bondi View 25,000 53,000 The Daily Telegraph 374, 395 847,000 The Sunday Telegraph 638, 550 1,512,000 Australian Jewish News n/a 129,000 Waverley in Focus newsletter 34,000 n/a The Business Buzz newsletter 2000 4000 Bang The Table articles 140,000

Other Communications Channels

Communications Channel Potential Reach (unique visitors)

Precinct Meetings x 12 Approx 200 attendees Brochure 34,000(residents) + 3669(non residents) Have a Say Days 167 face-to-face conversations Information Session 15 attendees Council Website 109,348 viewers Bang the Table visitors 1075 Formal Representative Survey 534 participants The Funding the future story was published as the full front page item in the Wentworth Courier with 4 extra pages of detailed commentary from key stakeholders. • The Wentworth Courier is read by more than 75% of

Waverley residents. Commentators published follow up opinion pieces and

letters in the Wentworth Courier which were variously supportive and not supportive of a rate rise.

A major article in the Sunday Telegraph appeared under the large banner headline of “Rates to rise by 120%”.

Several articles and blogs appeared on StreetCorner, again variously supportive and not supportive of a rate rise.

1.2.3 Community Survey

Council also commissioned the Hunter Valley Research Foundation [HVRF] to conduct a statistically valid community survey. It drew on a randomly selected group of 534 residents and ratepayers that reflected the demographic profile of Waverley particularly with respect to age, gender, rental tenancy status, property ownership (residential and business) and rate payment brackets they occupied. The survey was independently conducted and involved distribution of factual pre-interview reading material prepared by HVRF to ensure that the telephone survey would yield information based on an adequately informed population.


While it is not known to what degree the self-selected group of respondents read information in the public domain, it is clear that those participating in the HVRF survey would have found it difficult to participate without reference to the package of information provided to them.

1.3 Funding the Future Consultation Program Results 1.3.1 Community Survey - Hunter Valley Research Foundation The results of the statistically valid survey conducted by HVRF indicate that support for the community’s strategic plan - Waverley Together 2 - and the funding required to deliver that plan does not diminish when people are told the future cost of maintaining or enhancing services. Those costs were made clear in terms of a rate rise for them personally, in terms of the long run cost, and in terms of service loss. In the survey residents and ratepayers were asked to rate the importance of Council’s services on a scale of 1 to 5 where:

1 = very unimportant 2 = unimportant 3 = neither important nor unimportant 4 = important 5 = very important

The results of the 2010 survey aligned closely with the previous statistically valid survey conducted by the HVRF in 2009 on the importance of services. (The earlier survey was conducted as part of preparation of Waverley Together 2.) In the 2010 survey the Waverley community still rated all services as important or very important, giving all but one a score of more than 4 out of 5. Support for services in the 2010 survey increased on the whole. This was despite the fact that people in this survey were told what it would cost them more personally to maintain existing services and enhance them. In all but the lowest ranked services (even the most lowly ranked were all ranked as important or very important), the scores for importance either stayed the same or actually rose a little in comparison to the 2009 analysis. This is quite remarkable given that the 2009 survey did not alert people to the possibility that they may have needed to pay additional rates to maintain services.


Hunter Valley Research Foundation Comparison of 2009 and 2010 Surveys on Importance of Waverley Council’s Services1

0 1 2 3 4 5

Roads, etcBeaches

Dumped rubbish Playgrounds

ParksLocal traffic

Recreational facilities Transport planning

Services for older peopleControl of building

Services for childrenServices for disabilities

Neighbourhood streetscape Residential developmentNeighbourhood amenity

Natural environment Community involvement

Services for the young Library services

Sporting facilitiesMeeting places

Long term planning Council information

Arts & entertainment

2010 2009

It was important that the 2010 survey was conducted as one of informed residents and ratepayers. It was underpinned by a holistic “first principles” approach to gathering opinions, and was handled in a way that was consistent with the integrated planning approach to community engagement mandated by local government legislation. Survey participants were asked:

whether the vision of Waverley Together 2 reflected their ideal of life in Waverley

how important Council is in making the vision a reality, compared to other partners (i.e. other levels of Government, local businesses and the community itself)

how optimistic they were that these partners can work together to achieve the vision

how important Council’s current services are to achievement of the vision

how important enhancements to services may be in terms of achieving the vision

whether they thought the information provided made it clear that if the community did not want to pay for services immediately, it would cost more in the long run

whether they thought, based on the information provided, that Council had done everything it could to identify alternative sources of income and cost savings

whether proposed rate rises (for them personally) for existing services were a reasonable price to pay

whether proposed rate rises (for them personally) for existing and enhanced services were a reasonable price to pay and were affordable2

1 HVRF suggests that scores for some service in the 2010 survey, compared to 2009, are affected by the fact that the 2010 survey included a larger sample of older people. This has negatively affected results for long term planning and the environment, but positively affected results for services for the aged. 2 The 2010 survey covered both renters and ratepayers. Renters were included because they are entitled to use services and currently pay towards their cost via user charges. When participating in the survey, renters were asked to assume that rate increases would be passed on to them in full by landlords.


whether raising the necessary funds from other sources would be acceptable, i.e. from parking fees and fines

whether they would prefer to raise rates over 5, 7 or 10 years

whether they would prefer to have rates rising at even dollar amounts each year or start smaller and get larger (i.e. uniform dollar increases versus uniform % increases)

whether service cuts in their view would result in a reduced quality of life

whether if Council’s services had to be cut, they were confident that the other partners would step in to fill the gap in capacity to achieve the vision

A number of other questions about attitudes to Council were also asked including:

whether they were surprised by the information on Waverley’s rates compared to other local councils

whether, as a result of the engagement and survey process, they were more positive or not about:

o the importance of Council’s services o the importance of Council’s role in delivering a better lifestyle for the

community o Council as a trusted partner with the community in delivering a better lifestyle o the value for money of Council’s services o Council’s performance in long term planning

Results to all of the above are summarised as follows: Preferences for Funding the future Summary of Results – Hunter Valley Research Foundation survey 2010

Question Response Whether the vision of Waverley Together 2 reflects their ideal of life in Waverley

Yes it does – majority agreement

87.8%

How important Council is in making the vision a reality, compared to other partners (other levels of Government, local businesses and the community itself)

Council is the most important partner

88.8%

How optimistic they are that these partners can work together to achieve the vision

Optimistic Not optimistic

55.4% 26.0%

How important Council’s current services are to achievement of the vision

Important or very important: average across services

82.3%

Range of importance of services Ranking scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = very unimportant and 5 = very important

All services except one are important or very important3

Mean score of 4 or more out of 5 for all except one

How important enhancements to services may be in terms of achieving the vision

Important or very important: average across enhancements

66.7%

Whether they think the information provided means that if the community doesn’t want to pay for services now, it will cost more in the long run

Strong majority agreement

74.5%

Whether they think, based on the information provided, that Agreement 45.3%

3 The only service with an average rating of less than 4 out of 5 was “facilities for management of arts, entertainment and cultural events”. This achieved a mean score of 3.7 out of 5. Nevertheless 64.5% of respondents still rated this service as important or very important, giving it scores of 4 or more out of 5.


Preferences for Funding the future Summary of Results – Hunter Valley Research Foundation survey 2010

Question Response Council has done everything it can to identify alternative sources of income and cost savings

Disagreement 41.0%

Whether proposed rate rises (for them personally) for existing services are a reasonable price to pay

Majority agreement Disagreement

63.3% 28.1%

Whether proposed rate rises (for them personally) for existing and enhanced services are a reasonable price to pay


52.3% 35.4%

Whether proposed rate rises (for them personally) for existing and enhanced services are affordable


54.1% 32.3%

Whether raising the necessary funds from other sources would be acceptable, i.e., from parking fees and fines

Majority disagreement Agreement

52.8% 35.3%

Whether they would prefer to raise rates over 5, 7 or 10 years Over 10 years Over 7 years Over 5 years

63.3% 21.3% 12.3%

Whether they would prefer to have rates rising at even $ amounts each year or start smaller and get bigger (i.e., uniform $ increases versus uniform % increases)

Strong majority for even $ amounts

70.0%

Whether service cuts in their view would result in a reduced quality of life

Same quality of life Worse quality of life Better quality of life

50.6% 45.7% 2.5%

Whether if Council’s services had to be cut, they were confident that the other partners would step in to fill the gap in community capacity to achieve the vision

Not confident Confident Unable to decide

37.4% 34.1% 27.7%

Whether they were surprised by the information on Waverley’s rates compared to other councils

Surprised by low rates Not surprised

57.3% 36.1%

Whether, as a result of the engagement and survey process, they were more positive or not about:

the importance of Council’s services

More positive Same More negative

51.3% 40.6% 7.6%

the importance of Council’s role in delivering a better lifestyle for the community


51.0% 39.1% 9.6%

Council as a trusted partner with the community in delivering a better lifestyle


45.7% 39.7% 13.3%

the value for money of Council’s services More positive Same More negative

42.5% 43.4% 12.5%

Council’s performance in long term planning More positive Same More negative

54.0% 31.5% 12.9%

The 2010 statistically valid survey independently conducted by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation: a) reinforced the views that had emerged in the 2009 survey and consultation program4

about the importance of services – in other words all Council’s services were still considered to be important or very important by the vast majority of residents and ratepayers and several services actually increased in importance (see above table)

4 HVRF also conducted the statistically valid survey in 2009 to assess the importance of and satisfaction with Council services. This survey was a major part of the consultation program undertaken in 2009 to develop Waverley Together 2.


b) showed strong support for the adopted vision of Waverley in Waverley Together 2, as a

whole (87.8% agreement) c) showed strong support for the 14 individual elements of the vision, in that a majority of

respondents in every case rated each aspect of the vision as important or very important i.e. a majority in every case gave the 14 aspects of the vision a score of more than 4 out of 5

Importance of Vision elements

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

We are safeBeauty of beaches

Vital services are accessibleCompassionate society

ArchitectureScrarce resources are shared

Welcoming positive participationEconomic opportunity for all

Confident in our leadersCan express ourselves

Environmental leadershipFamily connections

Inspired and renewed wellbeingIndigenous reconciliation

Mean score

d) identified Council as the most important provider of services capable of making the

vision a reality, over and above other players including State Government, Federal Government, businesses and the community itself

HVRF 2010 SurveyWho's most important in delivering quality of life?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WaverleyCouncil

WaverleyCommunity

StateGovernment

LocalBusiness

FederalGovernment


e) demonstrated strong majority support for enhanced service levels

HVRF 2010 SurveyHow important is it to enhance services?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Partnering with a more engaged community activelyinvolved in decision making

More sustainable environment with increased protectionfrom global warming and preservation of ecosystems

More inviting streetscapes & restful localneighbourhoods

More cleaning & greening of spaces we share

More & safer access to public places, transport & vitalservices

More recreation, health, wellbeing & artistic culturalexpression

Unimportant or Very Unimportant Important or Very Important

f) demonstrated near-majority (45.7%) support for the view that service cuts would lead to

a worse quality of life in Waverley, with 50.2% holding the view that life would stay the same and very few (2.5%) saying it would get better

HVRF 2010 SurveyQuality of life if Council services are cut

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Will get worse Will stay the same Will get better

g) showed majority support for funding shortfalls for both existing services and enhanced

services via a rate increase – in the sense that the rate rises necessary to fund the entirety of the shortfalls for both existing and enhanced services were considered by the majority of respondents to be both a reasonable price to pay and affordable


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Current valuefor money

Reasonableprice to

maintain

Reasonableprice to

maintainAND enhance

Affordable tomaintain

AND enhance

Agree Disagree

% of respondents

Reactions to current and proposed rates

h) showed that a rate increase was on balance preferable to raising income by other

means such as by raising parking fees and fines.

HVRF 2010 SurveyAre increased parking charges preferred to rate rises?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Charging more for residents'annual beach parking passes

Charging more for residentialparking permits

Charging more for on-streetmetered parking

Charging more for off-streetparking in commercial centres

Increasing parking fines

Preferred Not preferred

There is an especially salient point in this detail that is relevant to decision making on a rate rise and which is not summarised above i.e. there is a statistically significant difference between the support shown for a rate rise by those currently paying higher rates compared to those currently paying lower rates. “Higher rates” in Waverley are not as high as “higher rates” in some other local government areas for similarly high land values. Ratepayers on high land values in Randwick, for instance, are paying between $600 and $1600 more per annum than ratepayers on similarly high land values in Waverley. Notwithstanding the comparatively lower rates for all land values in Waverley, those currently paying higher rates are, unsurprisingly, less supportive of higher rate increases than those currently paying average or lower rates.


1.3.2 Open consultation feedback The open consultation program for funding the future was a very widely publicised program utilising social media, the web and face to face opportunities to discuss the community’s vision for Waverley and Council’s financial constraints and future funding strategy. Despite this, only a small number of respondents were galvanised by the issue sufficiently to submit responses. The discussion about future rate increases generated far less reaction than more localised issues had recently generated. It is not known why such a widely publicised program, which ran for over 3 months and got more intense local publicity as time passed, did not result in a larger response. Anecdotal feedback suggests that possible rate rises simply weren’t a big enough concern to cause people to rally in larger numbers, despite the perception that this would be a contentious issue. Careful monitoring of responses across all feedback channels occurred throughout the consultation period. The number of site visits made by respondents and their comments and feedback were constantly monitored, including tracking and recording of face-to-face contacts and social networking sites hosted by Council and independent media operators. Figures indicate that while some thousands of people visited the web site, blogs and Bang The Table to access information and read the comments made by other contributors, only a small number of these visitors took advantage of the opportunity to express their opinions either for or against a possible rate increase. While well over 5000 visits were made to just one of the feedback channels - Bang The Table - by 1075 individual visitors, across all channels written comments were received from only 179 people and of these115 chose to make direct comment one way or another on a rate rise. In summary, of the 179 people who commented:

57 supported a rate rise, 28 of whom supported it for existing services and 29 of whom supported it for enhanced services

58 didn’t support a rate rise 64 made no direct comment either way on a rate rise but chose to raise other

Council related matters 1.3.2.1 Bang The Table Over 1000 community members viewed the Funding the future information package via Bang The Table, which was re-branded as Council’s Have your Say website. 5339 visits were made to the Bang the Table forum with visitors viewing 16,556 pages and spending an average of 3 minutes on the site per visit. As is typical with online commentary, the vocally active community on Council’s online Bang The Table forum was far smaller than the broader viewing audience who used the channel to observe or gather information. The site attracted 173 posts from 40 people, many making multiple comments and using the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with other participants. Visitors to Bang The Table were provided with a number of topical fact sheets and encouraged to provide feedback, prompted by the following five questions:


1. How important are Council’s existing services? 2. Should Council cut back on services instead of increasing income from rates and/or

other charges? 3. Should variable income be increased [user charges, fines and fees] to fund future

services? 4. Should rates be increased to cover the cost of future services? 5. How important is it to fund the Waverley Together 2 vision?

Question 1 – How important are Council’s existing services? While this first question received 55 separate comments from 27 individual respondents, only 18 people addressed the question. Of those, 13 did not think that Council services were important or they noted specific services that were not important relative to others. Affordable Housing, Aged Care, Community Transport and Childcare were most frequently identified as not important. 5 people thought that Council services were important to extremely important. Generally however there was a view that services could be trimmed and there was support for increasing efficiency and involving the private sector in service delivery.

Question 2 - Increase income or cut services? Of the 36 responses to Question 2, 17 were from people who had responded to Question 1 and 3 were from new respondents. In total 16 respondents ‘voted’, with 10 of these supporting lower service levels and 6 people opting for an increase in rates. 11 respondents thought that Council could be more efficient and 2 felt that the private sector could fund some services.

Question 3 – Raise variable income? Twelve people responded to Question 3, one of whom was a

uestion 4 – Raise Rates? the most significant in terms of

is question, through 41

new respondent. 8 of the 12 believed that variable income should be increased to cover the cost of providing services. Ideas for increased charges included a hotel bed tax and raising more revenue from parking fines. QThis question was probablygaining feedback on funding services through an increase in

rates. 25 people commented on thseparate posts. 10 people were not in favour of increasing rates, 9 supported a rate increase and the remaining 6 did not indicate their preference. Comments to this question included questions about how rates are apportioned and whether more densely populated councils should be more efficient than less densely populated ones. One respondent expressed amazement at how low rates in Waverley are compared to other Local Government areas. Those who did not support a rate increase also mentioned service cuts, efficiency gains and user charges as alternatives to rate increases.


Question 5 - Importance of funding Waverley Together 2 Vision? Thirty comments were received from 21 respondents, including responses from 2 new people. 15 people said that the vision in the community plan - Waverley Together 2 - was not important while 6 thought that it was. However, most of the commentary did not speak directly to the question. Many took the opportunity to reinforce earlier comments, with a strong preference for a ‘roads, rates and rubbish’ council. Other levels of Government were identified as rightful ‘owners’ of some elements of the community vision.


1.3.2.2 Emails and letters Council received a steady flow of emails to the dedicated ‘Have your Say’ email address. 82 individuals chose to provide their feedback via emails or letters. In total 84 pieces of correspondence were received in this form. 80 people who emailed or wrote letters did not provide feedback using any other medium; a distinctly different group of people to those using Bang The Table or other blogging forums. This correspondence tended to be more constructive and more considered than the online forum comments. This is interesting given that those emailing or writing did not have the structure of the five Bang The Table questions to lead them logically through the issue. They also did not have the social media interaction with others making comments on the same site. That interaction proved to be an important influence on the way people responded on Bang The Table with many respondents building their feedback on previous comments, creating a sort of open dialogue. It was interesting to track particular respondents and to watch their ideas evolve as more information became available and as comments by other emerged. The content of the letters and emails ranged over a wide number of topics, including amalgamation of councils, numerous thank you comments, support for an enhanced service package and some specific issues not directly related to the subject matter of the consultation. Of the 82 who responded via email or letter, 25 people supported a rate increase to fund existing and / or enhanced services, while 28 did not want to see a rate rise. Again there was a strong preference for Council to continue to identify efficiency measures and to cut services if needed. 1.3.2.3 Wentworth Courier and StreetCorner Blogs Both the Wentworth Courier and StreetCorner encouraged people to provide online feedback. Each posed a series of questions in relation to a possible rate increase. Editorial features and the questions that followed were often intentionally provocative and constructed in a way to maximize feedback. 57 individuals contributed 73 comments to the blogs. 55 of these were people who did not respond elsewhere to the discussion; again another distinctly different group of people. Many comments were random thoughts loosely related to the topic, others asked questions about the process and many used the opportunity to raise specific concerns about Council services. The particular slant of a media article or editorial, particularly those soliciting feedback, could influence responses. For example, there were a substantial number of comments about the size of the projected shortfall in future funding after a StreetCorner article claiming that Council had hidden the true size of the ‘black hole’. Overall 10 bloggers indicated their preference for a rate increase, or at least preparedness to pay more in order to retain and enhance services, while 19 did not support an increase in rates. 1.3.2.4 Precinct Meetings Over the three plus months of consultation, 12 of the local 13 precincts were given detailed presentations about the options for funding future services and encouraged to provide feedback. The executive of the other Precinct committee opted to attend the public information forum held at Council Chambers.


Precincts responded differently depending on location, the chairperson of the meeting and the number of people attending. Some precincts indicated strong support for continuing and enhancing services, even when they understood the financial consequence would be an increase in rates. Other Precinct groups simply used the opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification. Precinct members were encouraged to provide individual feedback via the various channels open to them, and indeed some took the opportunity to write and email their views on the topic often using a comment made or question asked at one of the Precinct presentations as a point of reference in their letters. General feedback from Precinct meetings mirror issues flagged via other engagement channels. Most notably precincts were:

• concerned about the future burden caused by delays in investment in infrastructure

• surprised at the growth in Council services

• not understanding the way rates are calculated

• concerned about the cost of tourists and visitors on Waverley residents

• interested in greater efficiency

• interested in the role of State and Federal Governments

• keen to understand if Council amalgamations would lead to cost effectiveness

• supportive of raising income from parking fees and fines

• concerned for pensioners and self funded retirees, the asset rich/cash poor 1.3.2.5 General public forums Two weekend “Have your Say’ days were held during the consultation, one at Bondi Beach on 10 October 2010 and the other at Bondi Junction in the Oxford Street Mall on 16 October 2010. An evening information forum was also held on 20 October at Council Chambers. Active participation at each event was disappointing, despite vigorous efforts to promote all of them. Approximately 167 people attended the ‘Have your Say’ days in unseasonably cold and windy conditions. However at each event the key messages were highly visible and people were encouraged to take a brochure, were referred to the web site and asked to respond to the issue via one of the available communication channels.

Overall participation during the open community consultation Total Written Comments [all forms] 336 Total Bang the Table posts 173 Total blog comments 73 Total emails & letters 84 Feedback forms 6 Attendance at Meetings/Workshops 380 Precinct Meetings [12 meetings] 200 (approx) Have a Say Days [ x 2] 167 Community Information Session 13


1.3.2.6 Overall participation and results Unlike the information gathered by HVRF, feedback received during the open community consultation was not a statistically valid indication of community sentiment. However it provided interesting insights into the concerns of those who variously supported, rejected or responded to questions on future funding of Council services. Whilst Council canvassed views on a range of revenue raising options during the engagement process, the key focus in the feedback was in response to a potential rate rise via a special rate

variation, or the idea of raising rates by between 70 – 120% across a 7 year period. All comments received were recorded and counted in a comprehensive tally of results, sorted by communication channel and specific question. The final count of data was ‘cleansed’ to ensure that each person or separate sign-on identity was accorded no more than one vote. This was important to the integrity of the analysis because those that supported a rate rise tended to only speak once and those that were strongly against a rate increase were also the ‘noisiest’ by actively seeking to engage with other contributors.and writing multiple comments.

Total number of individual respondents 179 Support a special rates variation

for existing services 28

Support a special rates variation

for enhanced services 29 Against a special rate variation 54

View unclear or not stated 64

Overall support for and against the increase in rates was evenly divided, with approximately 32% for a rate increase and 32% against. One third of respondents did not state a preference. More than half of those in favour of raising rates supported an increase that would fund the enhanced services package. The 32%, who preferred to delete services instead of raising rates, were somewhat at variance with each other as to which services they preferred to delete. Most suggested cutting services, which because of their funding source would not save a great deal of money. As it happens, the services people seemed to value less tended to be the services


that do not cost very much to provide or are funded not by rates but by other means and charges. Therefore cutting those services does not resolve the shortfall. Other suggestions for ‘handing back’ services to the Federal or State Government or out- sourcing to private enterprise were made with little supporting comment. Most of the ideas showed no evidence of any research or understanding of the realities of these improbable notions. 1.3 Themes emerging from the feedback The consultation on funding future services provided many opportunities to raise awareness about Council’s suite of services and the financial challenges faced in providing these services to the community. The open consultation focused on getting views from the Waverley community on three fundamental questions – should Council:

• raise revenue to maintain existing services? • raise revenue further to provide enhanced services? • reduce services?

However, a challenge during this process was the general lack of knowledge about what local government is actually responsible for and how the role of local government has changed over the past decade. Many inter-related questions and issues were put forward by the community during this feedback process which often became tangential to the discussion. Council attempted to respond to these questions as quickly and as openly as possible during the course of the consultation process. To provide clarity in these areas, Council made a set of frequently asked questions available. (These questions were updated throughout the consultation period.) Many individuals used Council’s ‘Have your Say’ channels as an opportunity to comment on Council issues or concerns that were broader than the future funding strategy. As a consequence, the majority of comments received via these channels did not specifically address the funding options put forward by Council. Of those who did comment specifically on the funding issue and / or a potential rate rise, a general theme was that Council had moved beyond its core service responsibilities and needs to cut back the number of services it provides. These core services are variously defined by the community but often excluded ‘social’ services such as childcare and affordable housing. Some claimed Council should not subsidise visitor services. Many participants expressed surprise that Council provides a large number of services beyond “roads, rates, rubbish”. There was a sense amongst some in the community that the private sector and other levels of government should be taking responsibility for many of the services Council currently provides. Parking was another common concern and one that was characterised by highly divided opinion as to whether Council should increase or decrease parking revenue. While some expressed a desire to see parking fine and fee income increase, others were very concerned about the current level of financial dependence on this funding source. One respondent went so far as to challenge the morality of a council that relied on fines and non-compliant behaviours to fund essential services. Despite the very wide reach of the communication program, the response from the community was extremely modest and measured. The lack of response was telling,


particularly given that the community is well known to rally against issues with great speed and reach when sufficiently concerned. The level and content of the overall response to the Funding the future consultation suggests that the community as a whole continues to have high expectations of Council and remains committed to its vision expressed in Waverley Together 2. The community seems largely prepared to pay to ensure that the vision is delivered. However it is also clear that some minority groups will struggle to increase their financial contribution to the community’s vision, therefore appropriate hardship measures will need to be put in place to protect the vulnerable. 1.4 Other issues and perceptions The design of this consultation process included the capacity to model future consultations on understandings and learning gained from this experience, particularly information about community engagement using open social media. Amongst a range of new understandings, Council has gained a greater appreciation of general perceptions and misinformation about the role of local government and its ability to raise revenue. Throughout the consultation factual information was updated to respond to some of these ‘urban myths’ and questions.

• The perception Council has recently had a big rate rise Recent rate rises due to land revaluations created some concern and confusion about general rate rises. Comments indicated that many ratepayers do not necessarily understand Council’s current rates structure and they may be unaware that Council’s rates are capped to a maximum each year. (In 2010 the cap factored in conjunction with land revaluations was set at 2.6%.)

• The perception that Council can ‘hand back’ some of its responsibilities to the

State Government or other levels of government There is confusion around the fact that most services delivered by Waverley Council are consistent with its charter of responsibilities under the NSW Local Government Act.

• The perception that Council can control how rates are allocated to various areas and individual properties There was confusion around the connection between rates and land value. There were also failures to understand that land value is determined by the NSW Valuer General and not Council. People frequently did not realise that councils are required by legislation to apportion rates based on a ratepayer's share of the total land value in the local government area. Each state has a different approach to capping rates and making sure councils are as efficient as possible. Responses to feedback often explained that it is not possible for councils in NSW to have the flexibility that is available to councils in other States in relation to raising rates.

• The perception that Council can easily outsource more services to the private sector There appeared to be little awareness of the fact that the private sector already participates in Council service provision when opportunities for profit are seen. There was little awareness of the negligible financial benefits to Council by trying increase emphasis on private sector participation in service areas such as affordable housing and childcare. People clearly did not realise that Council’s Affordable Housing Program is funded very successfully by the private sector via developer contributions. Similarly, many were not aware that Council’s childcare centres are


funded by a combination of private sector participation, state government grants and parents’ fees.

• The perception that people who use fewer Council services are unfairly disadvantaged There was evidence of resistance amongst some in the community to the idea that councils should provide services to the community as a whole and that to do otherwise tends to be impractical or inefficient. (This focus on wider ‘community good’ is consistent with the way other spheres of government operate in Australia.)

The consultation on Funding the future has provided useful insights about some of the key messages the Council needs to continue bringing to the attention of to the community. Continuing the dialogue with the community will be essential to successful implementation of a rate variation, or any other means of responsibly securing the financial future of Waverley Council.


ftf community consultation outcomes report cover · sample media briefing notes 3.8. ... council of...

Documents