Survey and Response

1. Survey and Response

2. Survey Results • 168 survey responses • 99 from the initial survey • 28 from the Happynings Survey • 41 from web survey • 17 letters • 55 from previous consultations • 130 who had not attended. • Sample size of response below optimal

3. Services Reduction V More Rates

4. Acceptable Increase

5. Who is willing to Cut What $144,000 $602,000

6. Comparison to Gap Rates: $1.65

7. Main Options Considered • Continue to underfund all services • Gradually provide worse and worse services. • Provide what services we can properly • Allocate funding until resources are all allocated. • Balance of services not undertaken • Provide reduced services in some areas • Most services seen as important, may have to sacrifice some service level to keep range of other lower important service to some extent. • Provide reduced services but also increase rates to allow for services considered required. • Select the level of funding that will provide the services the councillors believe should be provided. • Base on available today or available after loans paid out with no new loans

8. Funding – 2009/2010 Increase of $2 Provides $1.487 million Increase of $5 Provides $3.045 million

9. What funding is required • $15.8 million available to allocate (General Rates & Grants) • 13.6% attributed to administration (leaves $13.3 million) • Start at regulatory requirements • Councillors: $278,000 • Planning: $350,000 • Building: $65,000 • Regulatory Enforcement: $200,000 • Noxious Weed Control: $157,000 • Emergency Services Levies/Costs: $265,000 • Cost $1.3 million (Leaves $12 million) • Commitment to loan repayments: $3,820,000 • Leaves Discretionary Funds of $8.2 million • Following Table shows net cost of various services = $18.572 million • Each $1 per week contribution equates to $740,000 of services.

10. Services that can be provided properly

11. Services that can be provided properly

12. Impact on Average Ratepayer Still working on whether can apply as flat rate * Based on 20MM service and 200Kl usage.

13. Next Steps • Council has resolved to delay impacts of increase by 12 months, but still has to progress approval process. • Council has to consider rescission motion: Second vote on the matter. • Developing Integrated Plan. (Now to May) • Clear actions and projects for 4 years • Develop ten year listing over next twelve months • Ten year financial plan with scenario options • Linked to asset management and workforce plans • Application to be lodged with IPART. (May) • IPART will assess and make recommendation to Minister. • Minister will need to consider recommendation.

14. Road Funding - Sealed

15. Sealed Roads Target Area

16. Unsealed Roads Target Area

17. Asset Management Targets

18. Samples of Road Assessments

19. Target Works • >15,000 vehicles per day (VPD) • Armidale Rd: • Smith – Kemp ($96,000 – Heavy Volumes Poor Road) • Belgrave St: Post bypass • 5,000 – 10,000 • Armidale Rd • Leith – Old Greenhills Ferry ($545,000 – Heavy Volumes Poor Road) • Thomas Hennessey – Polwood ($194,000 – Heavy Volumes Poor Road) • Forest – Sherwood ($280,000 – Heavy Volumes Poor Road) • Tozer – Thomas Hennessey ($194,000 – Heavy Volumes Poor Road)

20. Target Works • 5,000 – 10,000 • South West Rocks Rd • Spencers Creek – Frank Cooper (Unfunded in Delivery Plan) • Frank Cooper – Memorial Ave ($214,000 – Just in time Seal) • Forth St • Gladstone – York ($96,000 – Just in time seal) • Nance Rd ($56,000 – Just in time seal) • Stuart St • Belgrave – Smith ($89,000 – Just in time seal)

21. Target Works • 1,000 – 5,000 • Sherwood Rd • Armidale – Link ($25,000 – Heavy traffic volumes poor road) • Armidale Rd • Sherwood – Link ($545,000 – Heavy traffic volumes, poor road) • Link – Corangula (Unfunded in Delivery Plan) • Second Lane ($223,000 - – Heavy traffic volumes, poor road) • Gladstone – York ($96,000 – Just in time seal) • Plummers Lane • Rainbow Reach – Suez ($380,000)

22. What we heard 2010 Consultations • Council doing what we said would do • Council doing things properly the first time • Council inefficiency – operational / administrative resources • Do we get our fair share ? • Transparency • Economic Development - employment opportunities / investment • Caravan parks • Council applying for grants • How will projects be prioritised • Impacts on pensioners • User pays fees • Everyone should get charged equally.

23. Questions • If we have to pay more rates can we be given a guarantee that no more money will be wasted on projects having to be repeated before getting in right. I.e. safety steps on stairs. Prince of Wales footpath, plus numerous road repairs. • If Council obtains approval for the rate increase of $5 per week per assessment for expenditure on essential infrastructure. What guarantee do ratepayers have that money raised will not be spent on non essential services by a future Council.   • Kerbside removal of unwanted household items, has Kempsey Council considered providing such a service? • How much rates are collected from South West Rocks and surrounding areas per year? • How much is spent by council back in the area?

24. Questions • Would council agree that it has mismanaged funds and put themselves in this situation prompting them to considered drastically slashing services and or hiking rates by an incredible amount? • How can Council justify themselves in ignoring a resident who has had communications by phone, email and letters for over 14 months? • Can you tell me what I get for my rates that a non paying rate resident does not get? • Why is it that Council’s annual total income continues to increase which does not result in any improvement in the debt service ratio as disclosed in the sect.418(3) presentation of the financial reports?

25. Thank you