The South Australian Political Landscape

[bennymacca]

Ah so it’s a preference for small government. I do get where you’re coming from at least

[morell]

Me too. And I personally agree.

My overarching point that I'm clearly struggling to get across

In my experience, what I want as a middle class dude with no kids is very different to what the broader community is after. The consultations I've been involved with always suprise me as to what people value.

So it's fine to say "get back to the basics and simple services" but it's not so simple to actually define that.

[morell]

haha Unley is a perfect example of where rate capping, whether it happens or not, has caused a change in public thinking by some councilors who I haven't noticed were worried too much in the past about fairly steep rate rises. Now all of a sudden it is cough, cough, what can we do differently...

Unley's rate increase rose from 2.2% in 16/17 to 2.9% in 17/18

But cool story

Again, the proposed Rate Capping policy will have next to no impact on actual budgets. And in turn peoples rates notices.

Through the first half of this decade Unley's 5 year average was 4.93%. This was during a time of very low CPI and wages growth.

Don't let the fact that they split how they report their figures fool you either.

The 2.9% rate rise this year isn't the full picture. They have a further 0.5% in what they are referring to as 'growth'. As such, their rates income is actually increasing by 3.4%.

Huh?? All of their rates in the dollar decreased.

The 0.5% growth is how much extra money they'll be collecting due to Urban infill and the like. An existing rate payer will have their rates increase by 2.9%

See "Rates Context" page 19 of their ABP

[Dogwatcher]

Let us know how you go with the footpath that granny wants fixed, Morrell.

[morell]

Let us know how you go with the footpath that granny wants fixed, Morrell.

Hahaha wtf!?

Built one connecting their village to the river. They were most impressed.

[Trader]

Unley's rate increase rose from 2.2% in 16/17 to 2.9% in 17/18

Through the first half of this decade Unley's 5 year average was 4.93%. This was during a time of very low CPI and wages growth.

Don't let the fact that they split how they report their figures fool you either.

The 2.9% rate rise this year isn't the full picture. They have a further 0.5% in what they are referring to as 'growth'. As such, their rates income is actually increasing by 3.4%.

Huh?? All of their rates in the dollar decreased.

The 0.5% growth is how much extra money they'll be collecting due to Urban infill and the like. An existing rate payer will have their rates increase by 2.9%

See "Rates Context" page 19 of their ABP

Growth also includes "property improvements", not just infill.

However they want to split it, the bottom line is they will receive 3.4% more money from rates in 17/18 than they did in 16/17.

[morell]

Through the first half of this decade Unley's 5 year average was 4.93%. This was during a time of very low CPI and wages growth.

Don't let the fact that they split how they report their figures fool you either.

The 2.9% rate rise this year isn't the full picture. They have a further 0.5% in what they are referring to as 'growth'. As such, their rates income is actually increasing by 3.4%.

Huh?? All of their rates in the dollar decreased.

The 0.5% growth is how much extra money they'll be collecting due to Urban infill and the like. An existing rate payer will have their rates increase by 2.9%

See "Rates Context" page 19 of their ABP

Growth also includes "property improvements", not just infill.

However they want to split it, the bottom line is they will receive 3.4% more money from rates in 17/18 than they did in 16/17.

Yeah agreed, which is why I said "and the like". 3.4% is not what your average rate payer will fork out and it would be disengenuous to suggest so. As long as you don't hammerhead your block or add an extra story, you'll be paying 2.9%.

Rate revenue up by 3.4%
Actual rate increase for residential properties 2.9% (up from 2.2% despite this magical spectre of rate capping)

Captial values are also set by the valuer general, so that growth figure is pretty much out of Council's control.

[Trader]

While Growth is out of the Council's control, it is also close to free money for the Council.
With full scale subdivisions, like say at Playford, I'd agree it should be recorded differently, however with a simple 1 into 2, there is bugger all extra for the Council to do. No additional roads or footpaths to maintain. No change to drainage, etc. It's an additional rateable property with no added assets for the Council to maintain.
You could argue there is 1 more bin to pick up and an extra family at the public pool 2 days a year, but that's about it.

The Growth from renovating a kitchen or bathroom is even better for the Council. Genuinely no change to service provisions and more cash coming in that they "hide" from the reported figure!!!

[Dogwatcher]

Let us know how you go with the footpath that granny wants fixed, Morrell.

Hahaha wtf!?

Built one connecting their village to the river. They were most impressed.

Spies everywhere

[morell]

While Growth is out of the Council's control, it is also close to free money for the Council.
With full scale subdivisions, like say at Playford, I'd agree it should be recorded differently, however with a simple 1 into 2, there is bugger all extra for the Council to do. No additional roads or footpaths to maintain. No change to drainage, etc. It's an additional rateable property with no added assets for the Council to maintain.
You could argue there is 1 more bin to pick up and an extra family at the public pool 2 days a year, but that's about it.

The Growth from renovating a kitchen or bathroom is even better for the Council. Genuinely no change to service provisions and more cash coming in that they "hide" from the reported figure!!!

It's not free money!

If there is a subdivision, even a small 1 into 2, that would've taken planning approval and analysis. Would've taken an engineer to review the plans. Likely a development officer to inspect and ensure the construction is to standard and no Council infrastructure is damaged. Depending on policies that would definitely mean new assets - kerbing, stormwater and for us down here a connection into the wastewater scheme. Maybe even a nice tree out the front!

It also means extra vehicles on the roads. Extra people using the library. Extra people using the playground. Do enough 1 into 2s and you can add a massive burden on Council.

As for doing up a bathroom. Are you drinking? Might be an idea to familiarise yourself with the captial valuation process. It's number of bedrooms, land size, average for the area etc. No-one is going to come in and look at your new kitchen and raise your rates FFS!

Maybe go and talk to some other departments big fella.

[morell]

Let us know how you go with the footpath that granny wants fixed, Morrell.

Hahaha wtf!?

Built one connecting their village to the river. They were most impressed.

Spies everywhere

Gee whizz kinda creepy but ok haha

[cracka]

While Growth is out of the Council's control, it is also close to free money for the Council.
With full scale subdivisions, like say at Playford, I'd agree it should be recorded differently, however with a simple 1 into 2, there is bugger all extra for the Council to do. No additional roads or footpaths to maintain. No change to drainage, etc. It's an additional rateable property with no added assets for the Council to maintain.
You could argue there is 1 more bin to pick up and an extra family at the public pool 2 days a year, but that's about it.

The Growth from renovating a kitchen or bathroom is even better for the Council. Genuinely no change to service provisions and more cash coming in that they "hide" from the reported figure!!!

It's not free money!

If there is a subdivision, even a small 1 into 2, that would've taken planning approval and analysis. Would've taken an engineer to review the plans. Likely a development officer to inspect and ensure the construction is to standard and no Council infrastructure is damaged. Depending on policies that would definitely mean new assets - kerbing, stormwater and for us down here a connection into the wastewater scheme. Maybe even a nice tree out the front!

It also means extra vehicles on the roads. Extra people using the library. Extra people using the playground. Do enough 1 into 2s and you can add a massive burden on Council.

As for doing up a bathroom. Are you drinking? Might be an idea to familiarise yourself with the captial valuation process. It's number of bedrooms, land size, average for the area etc. No-one is going to come in and look at your new kitchen and raise your rates FFS!

Maybe go and talk to some other departments big fella.

So if someone demolishes a run down house & rebuilds exactly the same house, the rates wont change?

[Trader]

While Growth is out of the Council's control, it is also close to free money for the Council.
With full scale subdivisions, like say at Playford, I'd agree it should be recorded differently, however with a simple 1 into 2, there is bugger all extra for the Council to do. No additional roads or footpaths to maintain. No change to drainage, etc. It's an additional rateable property with no added assets for the Council to maintain.
You could argue there is 1 more bin to pick up and an extra family at the public pool 2 days a year, but that's about it.

The Growth from renovating a kitchen or bathroom is even better for the Council. Genuinely no change to service provisions and more cash coming in that they "hide" from the reported figure!!!

It's not free money!

If there is a subdivision, even a small 1 into 2, that would've taken planning approval and analysis. Would've taken an engineer to review the plans. Likely a development officer to inspect and ensure the construction is to standard and no Council infrastructure is damaged. Depending on policies that would definitely mean new assets - kerbing, stormwater and for us down here a connection into the wastewater scheme. Maybe even a nice tree out the front!

It also means extra vehicles on the roads. Extra people using the library. Extra people using the playground. Do enough 1 into 2s and you can add a massive burden on Council.

As for doing up a bathroom. Are you drinking? Might be an idea to familiarise yourself with the captial valuation process. It's number of bedrooms, land size, average for the area etc. No-one is going to come in and look at your new kitchen and raise your rates FFS!

Maybe go and talk to some other departments big fella.

The new infrastructure clearly applies to expansion in previously undeveloped areas, I acknowledged that already. For Unley (you know, the example we have been talking about for the last two pages) that is not the case.

The cost to review the development application and do a couple of inspections during the construction pales into insignificance vs the next 100 years of rates.

I mentioned an additional family using the pool occasionally, this was meant to be representative of the existing services but if you want to break it down further so be it.
The library, safe to say they are massively under capacity at the moment. In fact the city of unley recently did a study on how to get people back to the library.
The playgrounds? Pfft, Unley doesn't bother supplying them. According to their recent CEO, they have the lowest % green space of all metropolitan Council's AUSTRALIA wide.

As for your last point, I recon Cracka has that covered.

[morell]

While Growth is out of the Council's control, it is also close to free money for the Council.
With full scale subdivisions, like say at Playford, I'd agree it should be recorded differently, however with a simple 1 into 2, there is bugger all extra for the Council to do. No additional roads or footpaths to maintain. No change to drainage, etc. It's an additional rateable property with no added assets for the Council to maintain.
You could argue there is 1 more bin to pick up and an extra family at the public pool 2 days a year, but that's about it.

The Growth from renovating a kitchen or bathroom is even better for the Council. Genuinely no change to service provisions and more cash coming in that they "hide" from the reported figure!!!

It's not free money!

If there is a subdivision, even a small 1 into 2, that would've taken planning approval and analysis. Would've taken an engineer to review the plans. Likely a development officer to inspect and ensure the construction is to standard and no Council infrastructure is damaged. Depending on policies that would definitely mean new assets - kerbing, stormwater and for us down here a connection into the wastewater scheme. Maybe even a nice tree out the front!

It also means extra vehicles on the roads. Extra people using the library. Extra people using the playground. Do enough 1 into 2s and you can add a massive burden on Council.

As for doing up a bathroom. Are you drinking? Might be an idea to familiarise yourself with the captial valuation process. It's number of bedrooms, land size, average for the area etc. No-one is going to come in and look at your new kitchen and raise your rates FFS!

Maybe go and talk to some other departments big fella.

So if someone demolishes a run down house & rebuilds exactly the same house, the rates wont change?

Would require a development application, which would trigger a reval. The age of the house would be updated and therefore likely go up in value.

That process needs to be managed by local government staff. Are we expecting that those staff members volunteer their time now?

And Trader and I both know, that vast majority of growth comes from either gifted developments or urban infill.

[morell]

The new infrastructure clearly applies to expansion in previously undeveloped areas, I acknowledged that already. For Unley (you know, the example we have been talking about for the last two pages) that is not the case.

What are you on about dude. When there is a sub division, any and all of the following could and most often are required in Unley:

Is a concrete cross over a new asset?
Is an additional SEP a new asset?
Does the increase require a capacity upgrade?
Is their new/adjusted kerbing?
Is the new pram ramp and tactile a new asset?
New tree?
New wastewater?

Get out of your project engineering bubble and go talk to Chris and Vince

The cost to review the development application and do a couple of inspections during the construction pales into insignificance vs the next 100 years of rates.

Are those next 100 years being lived in a magical fairy land where they don't consume or use any local services?

I mentioned an additional family using the pool occasionally, this was meant to be representative of the existing services but if you want to break it down further so be it.

There are a myriad of services they'd use that their rates need to cover. Again, this is all coming back to your specific predilection to not value some services.

Which is fair enough, but it really is blinkering your views.

The library, safe to say they are massively under capacity at the moment. In fact the city of unley recently did a study on how to get people back to the library.
The playgrounds? Pfft, Unley doesn't bother supplying them. According to their recent CEO, they have the lowest % green space of all metropolitan Council's AUSTRALIA wide.

Youth Development
Sporting facilities
Economic development

Etc etc etc

As for your last point, I recon Cracka has that covered.

Ehhh not really.

[Trader]

Unley is fully developed. They don't get subdivisions. They get 1 into 2s. These have no new assets.

So looking at 1s into 2s, Morell, can you please explain to me what happens when a section of upright kerb is replaced with a new driveway crossover?

My view on it is you have an old section of kerb, replaced with a brand new invert.
1) no capital cost to Council.
2) upgraded asset means the maintenance is deferred.
3) no net change to length of kerbing/invert on Council's asset register.

As for the impact on the stormwater network, the Council should have a policy relating to onsite retention that means there isn't an impact to the network.

No new pram ramp, the street hasn't changed.

No new street tree, if anything, there is possibly one removed for the second driveway (at the developers cost).

Wastewater not a consideration in unley. that's SA Water's problem, not the council.

I am still keen to hear how you think the change from 150 high barrier kerb to a driveway crossover costs the Council.

[cracka]

While Growth is out of the Council's control, it is also close to free money for the Council.
With full scale subdivisions, like say at Playford, I'd agree it should be recorded differently, however with a simple 1 into 2, there is bugger all extra for the Council to do. No additional roads or footpaths to maintain. No change to drainage, etc. It's an additional rateable property with no added assets for the Council to maintain.
You could argue there is 1 more bin to pick up and an extra family at the public pool 2 days a year, but that's about it.

The Growth from renovating a kitchen or bathroom is even better for the Council. Genuinely no change to service provisions and more cash coming in that they "hide" from the reported figure!!!

It's not free money!

If there is a subdivision, even a small 1 into 2, that would've taken planning approval and analysis. Would've taken an engineer to review the plans. Likely a development officer to inspect and ensure the construction is to standard and no Council infrastructure is damaged. Depending on policies that would definitely mean new assets - kerbing, stormwater and for us down here a connection into the wastewater scheme. Maybe even a nice tree out the front!

It also means extra vehicles on the roads. Extra people using the library. Extra people using the playground. Do enough 1 into 2s and you can add a massive burden on Council.

As for doing up a bathroom. Are you drinking? Might be an idea to familiarise yourself with the captial valuation process. It's number of bedrooms, land size, average for the area etc. No-one is going to come in and look at your new kitchen and raise your rates FFS!

Maybe go and talk to some other departments big fella.

So if someone demolishes a run down house & rebuilds exactly the same house, the rates wont change?

Would require a development application, which would trigger a reval. The age of the house would be updated and therefore likely go up in value.

That process needs to be managed by local government staff. Are we expecting that those staff members volunteer their time now?

And Trader and I both know, that vast majority of growth comes from either gifted developments or urban infill.

What about a complete renovation of an old house. Wouldn't the council see that its now worth more & raise the rates.

[bennymacca]

Nope, not unless you needed council approval

[morell]

Unley is fully developed. They don't get subdivisions. They get 1 into 2s. These have no new assets.

So looking at 1s into 2s, Morell, can you please explain to me what happens when a section of upright kerb is replaced with a new driveway crossover?

My view on it is you have an old section of kerb, replaced with a brand new invert.
1) no capital cost to Council.
2) upgraded asset means the maintenance is deferred.
3) no net change to length of kerbing/invert on Council's asset register.

As for the impact on the stormwater network, the Council should have a policy relating to onsite retention that means there isn't an impact to the network.

No new pram ramp, the street hasn't changed.

No new street tree, if anything, there is possibly one removed for the second driveway (at the developers cost).

Wastewater not a consideration in unley. that's SA Water's problem, not the council.

I am still keen to hear how you think the change from 150 high barrier kerb to a driveway crossover costs the Council.

That's a perfect world scenario, in my experience, there is always something. Even for 2 to 1s. The things I raised were just examples that I've had to deal with. Not meant for a specific checklist.

Even in that perfectly "clean" scenario, the cost to Council is ensuring diligence for that process so that everything is constructed to standard. Might be checking the cross over for it's gradient. Might be ensuring the SEP wasn't run over and had its lid crushed. Might be making sure they put in a Callistemon Salignus and not a Viminalis. That all takes staff time and is essential for ensuring a quality infrastructure ecosystem. So again, unless we're expecting people to volunteer to do all of that, that cost is a burden on Council. Especially for areas of high infill where keeping track of a myriad of rogue developers and their builders can get out of hand very quickly.

And besides that, there is still all of the other services they'd be using, that sure, you and I don't value, but nonetheless are greatly appreciated and required by the rest of the community.

[Dogwatcher]

Unley is fully developed. They don't get subdivisions. They get 1 into 2s. These have no new assets.

So looking at 1s into 2s, Morell, can you please explain to me what happens when a section of upright kerb is replaced with a new driveway crossover?

My view on it is you have an old section of kerb, replaced with a brand new invert.
1) no capital cost to Council.
2) upgraded asset means the maintenance is deferred.
3) no net change to length of kerbing/invert on Council's asset register.

As for the impact on the stormwater network, the Council should have a policy relating to onsite retention that means there isn't an impact to the network.

No new pram ramp, the street hasn't changed.

No new street tree, if anything, there is possibly one removed for the second driveway (at the developers cost).

Wastewater not a consideration in unley. that's SA Water's problem, not the council.

I am still keen to hear how you think the change from 150 high barrier kerb to a driveway crossover costs the Council.

Increased traffic on council-owned roads leading to that property, increased demand on services - parks, pools, ovals etc (which are expected, even if not used), additional bin pick up, administration on approving design and construction of property. Those would be some costs.