SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING 1 OCTOBER 2013 ATTACHMENTS 1 to 5 TO ITEM 7.1 1. Plan of two Councils in the Western Suburbs. 2. Aerial Plan of Town of Cambridge boundary change with City of Subiaco. 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 City of Stirling. 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 Perth 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 City of Perth, 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.