SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING 1 OCTOBER 2013

ATTACHMENTS 1 to 5 TO ITEM 7.1

1. Plan of two Councils in the . 2. Aerial Plan of boundary change with . 3. Plan of Northern and Southern Western suburbs demonstrating the natural green belt divide. 4. Table of Key Stakeholders. 5. Two Council Model - Survey Response.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM - CAMBRIDGE/SUBIACO BOUNDARY PROPOSAL

Subiaco

Claremont

Stirling Hwy

Legend Non residential area made up of open space, sporting, government, institutional, commercial and industry Major Town Centres

Stirling Highway TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE BOUNDARY PROPOSAL FINANCIAL MODEL - Draft 27 September 2013

Cambridge Subiaco Transfer From Transfer To South Council Combined Stirling Nedlands Cambridge Subiaco Total Key Statistics Population 27,277 19,196 11,891 1,325 (264) (2,828) 56,597 Electors 17,388 11,519 7,130 795 (166) (1,109) 35,557 Residential Properties (Rateable) 10,502 8,487 360 (97) 19,252 Commercial Properties (Rateable) 450 1,246 20 1,716 Properties (Rateable) 10,952 9,733 8,105 380 (97) (1,651) 27,422 Employees (FTE) 192 212 39 4 446.5 Area (Square Km) 22 7 9 4 (0.3) (1.4) 40.6 Road/Lane Length (Km) 194 117 70 10 (2.5) (6.0) 382.3 Irrigated Parks (Hectares) 186 67 32 2 (0.2) (5.1) 281.5 Parks/Sportsgrounds Area (Hectares) 483 67 40 2 (0.2) (5.1) 585.9 Building Value (estimated Original Cost) 66,200,000 25,450,000 1,437,500 875,000 $93,962,500

OPERATING STATEMENT

Operating Revenue Rates 20,879,900 19,923,800 8,765,500 832,700 (240,600) (1,730,900) $48,430,400 Waste Charges 2,059,000 4,602,100 2,253,200 118,000 (14,900) (657,300) $8,360,100 Fees and Charges 12,552,300 14,114,600 580,000 36,000 (20,000) $27,262,900 Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions 2,315,100 1,745,800 420,000 40,000 $4,520,900 Interest Earnings 1,259,000 1,722,500 300,000 30,000 (10,000) $3,301,500 Other revenue/income 345,500 708,100 80,000 10,000 $1,143,600 39,410,800 42,816,900 12,398,700 1,066,700 (285,500) (2,388,200) $93,019,400 Operating Expenditure Employee Costs 16,775,300 20,914,800 3,180,000 300,000 $41,170,100 Materials and Contracts 12,139,300 13,455,200 3,010,000 240,000 (30,000) $28,814,500 Depreciation 5,955,500 4,191,200 1,280,000 160,000 (30,000) $11,556,700 Utilities 2,665,000 952,800 280,000 40,000 (10,000) $3,927,800 Interest expenses 758,200 471,000 $1,229,200 Insurance expenses 404,400 600,000 50,000 $1,054,400 Other expenditure 857,000 1,667,300 160,000 10,000 $2,694,300 39,554,700 42,252,300 7,960,000 750,000 (70,000) 0 $90,447,000 Net Result (143,900) 564,600 4,438,700 316,700 (215,500) (2,388,200) $2,572,400

Note: Cambridge and Subiaco Operating Statement based on 2013/14 Budget Figures excluding contributions for the development of assets, asset disposals and underground power expenditure funded by loans. Stirling rates and waste charges provided by . Cambridge Alternative Two Council Model in the Western Suburbs Survey – September 2013

Survey Responses – Other Comments Positive?

1. 1.. Happy as it was. 2.. Acknowledge that State Govt WILL reduce number of Local Auth 3.. Yes Your alternative, as a compromise, from T of C view looks spot on 4.. It would also be great for Subiaco to get what they haven't already - a great Golf Course & other sporting facilities plus first class beaches; without having to merge with 5 others. 5..Need to keep Local Govt LOCAL; otherwise there is no point in having any of you.

2. As a Wembley resident I already strongly identify with Subiaco as our town centre. For Yes example my children are all in the 1st Subiaco Scout Group. We do most of our shopping there. The artifical barrier of the railway has been removed. So I think that the proposal to amalgamate Subiaco and Cambridge makes a lot of sense and I strongly support it. We have nothing in common with the Claremont/Cottesloe/Peppermint Grove/Mosman Park area.

3. As now prersented, the proposal makes very good sense. So much so, that even the Yes extremely stubborn clowns in the State Government should understand the clear logic behind it. A very strong, cohesive sell is what is needed now - in all of the areas and suburbs that are potential inclusions. Very clearly identifying the benefits offered, as opposed to the alternative(s), is key to the success of such a selling effort. Good Luck!

4. Being one large local government defies the whole of idea of 'local' government, I think the Yes only reason the idea has been put forward is to streamline much of the process of building applications which I think, serves a small, rich, component of the community and the whole reform is not being done for the better of the WHOLE community. I also think taking away our right to vote on amalgamations is denying citizens of W.A. their democratic right to have input into the political process.

5. Cambridge, Subiaco and bits of Stirling will still be too small a local government to have No anywhere near the financial capacity required.

6. Don't resist change, go with the flow. If doesn't work, change again. No

7. I agree we need to put forward an alternative to Barnett's idiotic proposal. Another alternative Yes is for Cambridge to merge with Vincent, which was separated from us in the original breakup of the City Council by a previous Coalition government. If I remember rightly Barnett was the minister involved.

8. I have been most impressed by Simon Withers and the Cambridge Council's efforts in this Yes regard, and the City of Subiaco and the Town of Cambridge would have a natural and practical fit together.

9. I like the natural divide. It is an improvement on the previous proposal of 3 western suburbs. I Yes like to commend the town of Cambridge to take these initiatives. The only one with positive alternatives of of seven western councils. Keep up the good work. Hopefully because of the Town's positive feedback we get a better reception with the state government.

10. I would like to see a merged name not just called Subiaco. EG City of Subiaco Cambridge or Yes Cambridge Subiaco or Subiaco Cambridge. DO NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF CAMBRIDGE NAME GOING -- NOT ON Saw what happened in the good old days when we were part of PCC not again I have made it very clear to J Bishop and our NEW Churchlands member recently that if they continue in this line of forcing and not listen to the electors they will have a very clear view by next election in my opinion.

11. It is time to address the historical structure of local government to better match 21st century No context. The Perth metropolitan area is a city and the delivery of services etc should be able to be managed at that scale. The input of 'local' interests and accommodating differences can be dealt with through process and robust representation models that includes cooperative, considerate and community responsive leadership at the elected representative level - all the same (ideals) except at a larger scale (as is State and Federal)...structure by itself is not a solution - people and their behaviour is the key, regardless of structure.

12. Leave as is. No

1 | P a g e

Survey Responses – Other Comments Positive?

13. Successful communities are usually fairly homogenous with people of similar circumstances Yes living happily together. Experience shows that where there are groups who have a different view on life or enjoy different life circumstances friction is created that leads to disharmony. As has been pointed out in the Town's proposal, there are clearly different different environmental features between the Northern and Southern halves of the "Western Suburbs" and this leads to different needs and management styles to manage properly. Community representatives will be hard pressed to feel comfortable making decisions on yachting pens and lakeside reserves and beach fishing and surf clubs and railway lines and Stirling Highway so it makes good sense to compartmentalise the various issues in this way. The State Government has pushed on with doctrinaire ideas that do little to enhance the lives of a our communities - a bit like the Communist or Fascist states that we have fought since about 1930. When the state government broke up the , we were told it was going to make more efficient Local Governments with lower Rates. Now we are asked to belief that bigger Local Governments will provide efficiencies and lower Rates. What is the real reason for this change?

14. The alternate proposal to combine with Subiaco would make a substantial size council but Yes would still have a sense of local community. Subiaco is in close proximity to Cambridge with many planning issues in common. As a businessman with many years dealing with local government my observations have been the larger the council the less internal accountability in expenditure of ratepayers money. Smaller councils tend to have higher quality management more often with greater work loads but nonetheless they are efficient due to their broader knowledge base and are not smothered down with bureaucracy. I am therefore strongly opposed to the big council is better idea.

15. The Cambridge council proposal is a significant improvement over the State Government's Yes stated plan, as it has an underlying rationale. I strongly oppose the moves by the State government to weaken the powers of local government and to reduce the voice of local residents. Cambridge council is excellent and has significantly improved the amenities and services available to ratepayers. Congratulations on an excellent job - it is outrageous that this should be rewarded with forced council mergers.

16. The council needs economy of scale. I have dealt with the Town of Cambridge a few times No and find it operating at a poor level. It needs reform.

17. The locally proposed merger, into a larger Subiaco, defined by an obvious set of existing Yes natural boundaries, seems logical and far more effective for the participating Towns and Councils. As a long time resident, I am very much in favour of this alternative. I want to continue a feeling of belonging to my council. If we were to proceed with the State Governments proposal, to which I strongly disagree, we would be in danger of losing touch with our community-council relations. You have my support! Sincerely, James Carter

18. The merger with Subiaco seems a good plan. It adds a city centre to Cambridge. Existing Yes infrastructure does support this as well, e.g. cycle path.

19. The points made in your submission seem valid. Yes

20. The residents of the river suburbs are not only geographically disconnected but hold very Yes different views about town planning. I enjoy cycling to work but one of the few areas I deem definitely bike unfriendly is Mosman Park.

21. The West Leederville and Subiaco areas are a natural fit as older, inner city suburbs. Yes Whether the link with Floreat, City Beach, Wembley Downs and Churchlands is similarly compatible is debatable, but it is a better option that the monolith Western Suburbs council proposed. I just hope this new council pays more attention to the inner city areas and doesn't ignore us as the current council does.

22. This proposal has some merit. Presumably the number of wards would increase to cater for Yes representing different parts of the new council. I think obliging people to give their name is unreasonable results in a reduced response rate which you surely don't want. Lack of anonymity is not the usual practice with surveys.

2 | P a g e

Survey Responses – Other Comments Positive?

23. Too many councils, too many councilors, too much duplication and too little professionalism. No

24. We feel that the larger mergers would be unmanageable, and strongly support the Town of Yes Cambridge proposal for Subiaco/Cambridge.

25. Yes - a much better option that the current state govt proposal – Yes

26. Your proposal to create 2 suburbs, Subiaco and Claremont is EXCELLENT ! It is logical, Yes natural and sensible. The sooner it is adopted and executed the better it will be. Your advertisement is well designed. It is important to get agreement of at least 80% of the inhabitants, to ensure acceptance by the State Government. Letter drop offs, simple and clearly laid out, is one way to communicate to people affected by your proposal. In spite of your efforts there will always be a small minority saying, no change. That's too bad. I remember the days people didn't want to change work practices at the Midland Workshops. The State Government had to close the facility. It closed! Best wishes and success with your efforts. September 8, 2013

27. As residents of the suburb of Churchlands we feel we do not belong in the City of Stirling. We Yes use all the facilities of the town of Cambridge such as the Cambridge library, Bold Park Pool, and the beautiful Floreat Beach and yet we pay rates to the City of Stirling. We would like to be included in the new Subiaco council as proposed by the town of Cambridge or if this is not an option to be included in the G7 Western Suburbs Council.

28. I would be more than happy to leave the City of Stirling even if it means going into the Greater Yes Western Suburbs council but a smaller combined council with Subiaco would be better as in proposal two. Wembley Downs should have been in the Town of Cambridge years ago anyway.

29. Our family don't use any services or venues that belong to Stirling other than rubbish. Yes

30. The Town of Cambridge combining with the City of Subiaco does not meet one of the State No Government's key criteria - LGA's totalling 100,000 residents even when combined with peeling strips of neighbouring LGA - City of Stirling. The suburbs of Churchlands, Wembley Downs and Woodlands are harmonious communities of similar interests and currently enjoy the excellent facilities, amenities and more importantly, lower rates than any merger prospect of the G2 as proposed by Cambridge. Additionally, the Woodlands community are firm in their belief and wish that they do NOT want to be split in two as proposed by the Town of Cambridge. Stirling has economies of scale that even a G7 can't aspire to or compete with. Thank your for the opportunity to offer my input. I appreciate your consideration of my comments.

31. We have lived in Moondine Drive Wembley for over 13 years. During that time we have had Yes no sense of community with Stirling, being separated from that area by the Herdsman Lakes. All our activities are either within Cambridge(e.g. shopping, banking, medical centre, post office, library, petrol station etc) or Subiaco. Being pensioners we have a subsidised cleaning service which is administered by Cambridge and not Stirling. The Joan Watters Community Centre is in walking distance of our home. The proposed boundaries, in so far as Moondine Drive is concerned, is only logical and should have been done long ago.

32. We haved resided at Jenkins Place in Wembley Downs for 29 years and have not been happy Yes with Stirling Council Looking forward to a change in council

33. Where is the evidence demonstrating that this is good for the constituents? How has the State Yes Gov shown that we have had a balanced decision process?

34. Yes, lots of comments...! I fully support the Town of Cambridge’s proposal for a new Yes “Subiaco” Council, which incorporates the suburbs of Wembley Downs and Churchlands. If this proposal is not successful, then I still support the inclusion of Wembley Downs into the new “Western Suburbs” Council. I have lived most of my lifetime in the suburbs of Floreat (26 years) and Subiaco (12 years) and now reside in Wembley Downs (5 years). We in Wembley Downs need to be in the Council that manages the facilities that we utilise regularly. These include: - Cambridge Library, Floreat - Bold Park swimming pool - Wembley Golf Course, Wembley Downs - The beaches at Floreat and City Beach - Bent Park and Beecroft Park (including annual movies in the Park ), City Beach - Perry Lakes Reserve, Floreat -

3 | P a g e

Survey Responses – Other Comments Positive?

Lawler Park tennis courts, Floreat - Lake Jualbup, Shenton Park - Lake Monger, Wembley...and so on... To provide context, those facilities that we regularly utilise that are managed by the City of Stirling are: NONE!! Furthermore, I have made submissions regarding important local issues (such as the 2012 revision to the Dog Exercise Areas in the Town of Cambridge), only to have my submission recorded, in some cases, as 'non ratepayer'. This particular issue directly affected all the local parks that we visit on a daily basis. We need to move Wembley Downs from the City of Stirling so that our voice on our local issues may be heard....as a 'ratepayer'! Our sense of community here in Wembley Downs is tied strongly with Floreat and City Beach, but also the whole area to Subiaco. Wembley Downs (and Floreat/City Beach) residents often exercise, shop and eat out in Subiaco and conversely many Subiaco residents utilise the parks and beaches within the Town of Cambridge. Most of my immediate family live in Subiaco and they regularly shop at the Floreat Forum, swim at Bold Park pool and we often meet at Perry Lakes Reserve, and the beaches at City Beach and Floreat. Some people through this Local Government review process have voiced their concern regarding the possible splitting of suburbs. Well now it is time for Wembley Downs to be reunited with the third of the suburb that is the Wembley golf course! The only possibly valid concern that has been raised is that Wembley Downs would be “forgotten” in a new Western Suburbs (G7) Council, and that focus would be concentrated on Peppermint Grove/Cottesloe. The two Western Suburbs Council model proposed by the Town substantially alleviates this concern. I am concerned that the City of Stirling is reporting that over 90% of respondents to their “survey” want to “Stay in Stirling”. I do not believe that this is a valid representation of the majority view in Wembley Downs/Churchlands. From reading the minutes from Stirling Council meetings, and from following media coverage, it seems that the majority of the campaigning, and voting to “Stay in Stirling” is coming from residents to the east in Mount Lawley and surrounds (and possibly to a lesser extent in Woodlands). The Stirling campaign is strongly geared to encourage voting to “Stay in Stirling”. I believe that many people in Wembley Downs and Churchlands will not have voted, as they are actually happy with the proposed move to a new Council. My opinion is backed by chatting with my neighbours and with Wembley Downs parents at Kapinara Primary School. All welcomed the announcement that we would be moving to a new Council. We often laugh at how crazy it is that we receive free passes to Inglewood swimming pool, when we can walk to Bold Park pool!! Lastly.....please be aware that in recent months our copy of the Cambridge “overflow” edition of the Post newspaper has not been delivered to our area of Wembley Downs. The majority of residents in the area will be unaware of the Town’s excellent proposal and will also be unaware of this survey. (I have spoken to my immediate neighbours who knew nothing of the Town’s plan, or this survey.) At the same time we are being bombarded with propaganda from the City of Stirling through letterbox mail outs ... Please consider advertising your proposal to the residents of Wembley Downs and Churchlands, as that may not have received the Post Newspaper.

35. Cambridge's proposal is a more logical physical amalgamation whilst retaining some of the Yes community spirit that currently exists. The governments macro approach can only lead to more bureaucracy, higher costs and disenfranchising of the community.

36. I am an ex Shire President, and Councillor for 15yrs in a country Shire, and realise that Yes mergers are in some cases overdue. However consultation between Shires and Towns was underway, though ever so slowly that they have been given a hurry - up, and to good effect. Your proposal seems very logical, and was one we discussed ourselves over the dinner table. We can even see the benefit of joining the two areas, namely Subiaco and Claremont as you plan into one as a fall back position. The plan of seven councils into one mega merger is too much. Cottesloe and South are best to go it alone, and is also quite feasible. They seem to be in the same time warp, not nearly as progressive as Cambridge, Claremont, and at last, Subiaco, of Nedlands I hear little. Congratulations on taking the initiative in offering an alternative.

37. I strongly support a merger of the two councils which I believe will deliver the cost savings and Yes efficiences the state government are seeking whilst at the same time maintaining a focus on local issues which will be lost with the proposed supercouncil

38. It may be self-serving but the combination of the other five councils will be very expensive and Yes logistically difficult. We must avoid being involved. Cambridge/Subiaco is a good fit and capable of synergies in reducing costs. We have far too many councillors even now. Single departments for health and safety, animal management, weights and measures, parks and gardens, building approvals, publicity and many others can be combined. Let us not waste

4 | P a g e

Survey Responses – Other Comments Positive?

time but get our proposal approved so that we can get on with a solution that is right for us. Thank you for suggesting the Subiaco city name. Cambridge will live on as a suburb regardless.

39. As I work in the Town of Cambridge I have grown quite attached as it where to our community Yes and the feeling of warmth and friendliness that we have, and I am a little afraid of losing that if the State Government's plans for a seven council merger were to go ahead. I am very pleased that the Town is standing up and offering another option, but I would like to see that a public vote or competition was held about the new name for any new council. By opening the naming of a new council up to its residents I think it could spark community spirit and invite unity and help create a sense of belonging that will come with a new council. Thank you also for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

40. I own property in the Town of Cambridge and support the Cambridge Council alternate Yes proposal to merge Town of Cambridge and City of Subiaco I also do not support the State Governments boundary changes

5 | P a g e