Protect Pittwater has responded to the Council’s 4 options regarding rate rises, with its own option - Option 5: reinstate a strong independent Pittwater Council.
They are approaching 5,000 signatures on a petition to take to the NSW Minister for Local Government with a Business Case.
Secretary of Protect Pittwater, Anna Maria Monticelli, explained Saturday evening;
‘’PP had a stall on Saturday in Mona Vale outside the Memorial Hall and next to NBC tent - The 3 Pittwater councillors were there with the CEO and other council staff. I could see people getting very worked up in the council tent. We at the PP table collected hundreds of signatures from people fed up with council’s lack of understanding with Pittwater’s fragile environment - endangered wildlife and our tree canopy disappearing quickly. Now with rates going up there was even more anger as they were promised millions of savings if we amalgamated.
‘’Some staff expenses from a PP angle and comparing it before amalgamation in 2016 to the latest 2024 figure in order to expose the amalgamation failure and the need to break it:
- In FY 2016 the 3 former councils had a total staff expenses of $105.9m 10.5 months (due to amalgamation the books end 12 May 2016), which extrapolated to 12 months represent $121m (compared to $119.9m for 12 months reporting in FY 2015).
- Indeed in FY 2024 the NBC had staff expenses of $159.3m
- This represents a compounded average growth rate of circa 3.5%, above the circa 3% inflation rate for the same period.
Not only did the amalgamation not deliver any staff savings and productivity gains as the government and KPMG claimed at the time during their reform propaganda, but the staff expenses actually grew faster than inflation!'' Anna Maria said
''This became worse when considering that the NBC has increased outsourcing during the last 8 years, which is supposed to replace in house resources, that is staff: material and contracted services have all increased by an even higher average compounded average growth rate of circa 6.8%than between 2024 and 2016!’’
Protect Pittwater have also applied to have a meeting with the Minister for Local Government, The Hon. Ron Hoenig, but have received no reply as yet.
Worth noting from an Extraordinary Meeting called by Pittwater Council on June 29 2015 (when being bullied into submitting countless ‘fit for the future’ narratives) is a passage that was not sent in after being discussed at an extraordinary meeting called:
In relation to IPART’s invitation for alternative options, …. [and] ask the government to demonstrate and provide proof to the community of Pittwater how such an option will result in an overall reduction in rates in the long term, improve local infrastructure and council services, enhance the environmental management and most important of all, how it will advance the democratic and community interest of Pittwater residents.”
The Business Case outlined how well Pittwater was doing.
Even into 2016 Pittwater Council's then General Manager, Mark Ferguson, stated all of Pittwater Council’s financial indicators demonstrate that it exceeds the Local Government industry benchmarks.
“Council’s budget forecast for the period 2016-2017 is projecting an operating profit of $1.8M for the coming financial year, excluding any capital investments.
“This demonstrates Council’s ability to undertake major infrastructure programs within a financially sustainable budget framework,” Mr Ferguson said.
The proposed budget for the 2016-17 year involved a major works program of $43.848M with $31.588M on capital works and $12.260M on recurrent maintenance programs.
The permanent Rates Variation proposal for Pittwater is worth delving into just to gauge what may occur.
In the 2021 Census (latest available) Pittwater had 25, 311 private (rateable) dwellings.
Compare this to Manly 2021 Census - All private dwellings; 8,649
At $780 per year variation by year 3 (Option 4 – council’s preferred choice) that equals $19,742,580 extra being derived from Pittwater residents/dwellings.
The proposed increases represent a permanent increase in rates income.
Over the 3 years following that this equates to $59,227,740 in extra dollars, atop the rate peg rises that will also occur, coming out of Pittwater.
Council has stated these funds would be allocated to a gap between what is coming in and what is being spent, and this being impacted by inflations.
No specific details on what projects these extra funds would be allocated to is provided - apart from a $20+ million surf club at Manly and a brand new Warringah Aquatic Centre. Funds to keep shifting sand from Narrabeen Lagoon to in front of the Collaroy seawall Pittwater had to pay for must be part of the 'support environmental and natural risk reduction programs' listed.
What would be spent in Pittwater is not mentioned.
Specific projects the extra money required would be allocated to have formed part of the documents submitted to IPART by other councils.
However, a general overview forms part of the options 1-4 documents.
The council’s ‘Asset Management Plan 2024-2034’ identified an additional investment is needed of $15.1 million per year to renew and maintain existing assets along with an additional $10.4 million per year to invest in service uplifts and new assets.
The Annual rate peg is the maximum percentage a Council can increase its rates income by each year (unless a Special Variation is approved).
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) have set the 2025/26 rate peg at 3.8%.
Option 1 estimates the rate peg as 3.4% in 2026/27 and 3.1% in 2027/28.
Council sates the 2024/25 average residential rate is $1,698, based on residential rates income divided by residential properties – equivalent of rates based on a land value of $1.63 million.
However, most in Pittwater are paying around $2400 per year at present, including the water/waste charges - an increase of close to $800 since Pittwater Council was abolished and the former LGA forcibly amalgamated in May 2016.
Council estimates the 2024/25 average business rate is $4,066 based on business (general) rates income divided by properties within the category – equivalent of rates based on land value of $1.15million (Excluding Manly CBD, Warriewood Square, Warringah Mall, strata storage unit facilities and special rates).
If anyone has bought a business property in the villages of Pittwater with a land value of $1.15 million, it was some years ago.
Any increase here would be passed on to those who lease premises; the fundamental and number 1 reason local businesses go broke and we see rows of empty shops and empty villages.
As the council meeting which brought this to the seeking feedback stage spoke of Options 3 and 4 being the ones most sought, the details on these are:
Option 3 - to Improve service
Under this option, Council is seeking a Special Variation to increase rates income by 8.3% in addition to the rate peg each year for 2 years and 8.4% in year 3. The cumulative increase from the Special Variation will amount to 39.6% over 3 years.
Council states that:
Under this option, Council will be able to generate surpluses averaging $33.5m in the 10 years to 2033/34. This surplus will allow Council to continue all existing services, address the asset renewal and maintenance gap and support environmental and natural risk reduction programs (Option 2 Maintain Service), as well as provide the opportunity to accumulate funds to deliver larger renewal projects in future years such as the renewal of the Warringah Aquatic Centre.
Advantages + Option 3 An additional $17m per annum by year 3 for investing in larger projects for sportsfields, aquatic centre, surf lifesaving buildings, town centres and environmental restoration.
Existing services maintained. Asset maintenance and renewal funding gap closed. Improve roads and expand footpath programs. Invest in natural risk reduction programs such as stormwater works, bushfire protection and beach nourishment. Enhance environmental projects including bushland and invasive species management. Establish a fund for natural disaster recovery.
Disadvantages Rates will increase at a level higher than the IPART rate peg.
Council's Average Cumulative impact above 2024/25 rates are:
Year 1:$205
year 2: $428
Year 3: $673
For business ratepayers:
Cumulative impact above 2024/25 rates
Year 1 $492
Year 2 $1,025
Year 3 $1,611
Option 4
Under this option, Council is seeking a Special Variation to increase rates income by 10% in addition to the rate peg, each year for 3 years. The cumulative increase from the Special Variation will amount to 46% over 3 years (which is 35.3% higher than Option 1 – the rate peg only – over the same period).
The average rate increases under Option 4 per Council's maths are:
Cumulative impact above 2024/25 rates
Year 1 $234
Year 2 $493
Year 3 $780
For business ratepayers:
Cumulative impact above 2024/25 rates
Year 1 $561
Year 2 $1,181
Year 3 $1,869
Council's documentation for option 4 explains:
Under Option 4, Council will be able to generate surpluses averaging $43m per year in the 10 years to 2033/34. This surplus will allow Council to continue all existing services, address the asset renewal and maintenance gap and support environmental and natural risk reduction programs, build up a major renewal fund for future works (Option 3 Improve Services), as well as provide the opportunity to accelerate the delivery of infrastructure and increase services.
In 2022 the ‘rates harmonisation’ undertaken by the council saw an increase, on average, in what was paid by Pittwater ratepayers of $200. Business ratepayers saw a much larger increase in what they were required to pay.
Atop that there was another rate increase applied.
The asset renewal and maintenance gap mentioned is already being experienced by Pittwater.
Public infrastructure that has not been maintained to the point where wharves collapse and pools can no longer be used, has gone on since 2016, despite a grant from the state government for the same in 2015/2016.
An increase in the council itself removing tree canopy, a raid of $5million on the Mona Vale Cemetery Reserves fund to support a computer system, council supporting developments not in keeping with the zones and no response since 2016 to at least one reported incident of ongoing pollution, means people are lining up to sign the petition to reinstate Pittwater Council so what is raised in Pittwater can be used looking after Pittwater.
Two more reports the news service was asked to run this week provide further insights into why so many may prefer PP's Option 5:
Bayview Public Wharf Gone; Bayview Public Baths still not netted - Salt Pan Public Wharf Going
Bayview Pollution runoff persists: Resident states raw sewerage is being washed into the estuary
The Council's consultation on the Special Variation to Rates closes Sunday January 12, 2025.
The consultation webpage is available at: https://yoursay.northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au/funding-our-future
