1. PROPOSED LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMALGAMATIONS COMMUNITY FORUM WEDNESDAY 20 th FEBRUARY 2013

2.  Provide an overview of significant changes planned as part of the State Government’s Local Government Reform process;  Seek community feedback on the proposed changes; and  Inform the subsequent submission by the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale required by the 5 th April 2013. Forum Purpose

3. Forum Agenda

4. Key Outcomes of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Process Source: October 2012 PowerPoint Presentation by the Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel available from the Department of Local Government website. Web address is : http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/FinalReport.aspx

5.  The Panel examined international, national and local research and published more than 40 background, briefing and information papers.  Website critical – about 20,000 visits during the review.  Nearly 450 submissions received - available on the website (if permission was given). Research and Analysis Source: PowerPoint Presentation by the Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel available from the Department of Local Government website. Web address is : http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/FinalReport.aspx

6.  Two public forums, one local government forum  Meeting with representatives of:  each metropolitan local government (25 of 30 accepted)  WALGA, LGMA  interest groups e.g. Committee for Perth, Chamber of Commerce and Industry  key State Government agencies.  Feedback incorporated by the Panel in finalising the report and recommendations Consultation Source: PowerPoint Presentation by the Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel available from the Department of Local Government website. Web address is : http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/FinalReport.aspx

7.  Duplication and wasted resources  Inconsistencies in processes and approaches  Fragmented approach to local planning  Illogical boundaries  Great variation in the size and capacity of local governments.  Disparity in service levels  Limited capability to address region-wide issues. Current Weaknesses Source: PowerPoint Presentation by the Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel available from the Department of Local Government website. Web address is : http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/FinalReport.aspx

8.  30 recommendations in total  The existing Regional Local Governments in the metropolitan area be dissolved  A new structure of local government in metropolitan Perth be created through specific legislation which reduces the number of local governments in metropolitan Perth to 12, with boundaries as detailed in Section 5 of the report. Some Key Recommendations Source: PowerPoint Presentation by the Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel available from the Department of Local Government website. Web address is : http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/FinalReport.aspx

9.  Two options with 12 local governments proposed  Option (A) amalgamating existing entities.  Option (B) amalgamating and splitting some LGs to create more strategically focussed boundaries. This is the preferred option.  Local governments created would have an average population in 2026 of around 190,000. Recommended Structure Source: PowerPoint Presentation by the Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel available from the Department of Local Government website. Web address is : http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/FinalReport.aspx

10.  less duplication  more logical boundaries  increased ability to attract and retain the best professional staff  more financially capable local governments  more consistency in services across local government areas  better use of existing infrastructure  fewer regulations  improved capacity to undertake significant projects  more effective advocacy for the community and the region  improved capability to address region-wide issues Benefits Include Source: PowerPoint Presentation by the Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel available from the Department of Local Government website. Web address is : http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/FinalReport.aspx

11.  Source: PowerPoint Presentation by the Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel available from the Department of Local Government website. Web address is : http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/FinalReport.aspx Population Outcomes

12.  Reducing the number of local governments with a Swan or Canning River foreshore from 21 to 7  Reducing the number of ‘‘hills’’ councils from 6 to 2  Reducing the number of coastal councils from 11 to 7  Boundaries of local governments abutting the Swan and Canning Rivers be extended out to the river midpoint Key Elements Source: PowerPoint Presentation by the Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel available from the Department of Local Government website. Web address is : http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/FinalReport.aspx

13. Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale 7 = Proposed City of Armadale boundary Option A – Non preferred

14. Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale 7 = Proposed City of Armadale boundary 8 = Proposed City of Rockingham boundary Option B – Preferred

15. A Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Perspective Richard Gorbunow Acting Chief Executive Officer

16.  Council does not support the proposed split and amalgamation of Serpentine Jarrahdale with other LGA’s  We recognise the need for reform  We propose a series of reforms as contained in the following slides.  We are a growing community Council’s Current Position

17.  Loss of identity  Loss of autonomy and control over our collective destiny  No resultant benefits with many potential downsides  Limited representation  It puts our unique environment at risk  Diminished emergency services capability  The drivers for this initiative are incomplete  Inconsistent messages  Our community is split in three parts as a result  We are more a part of Peel than Armadale  I will explain these in more detail Why we Oppose the Proposal

18.  Loss of identity  The Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale would cease to exist  We become a part of Armadale or Rockingham or Murray  Our collective voice is weakened  Loss of autonomy and control over our collective destiny  We will rely on other decision makers to recognise our priorities  We cannot control what happens at the local level  Key local area decision making responsibility is moved away  We rely on a single voice to represent our needs Our Concerns in More Detail

19.  No resultant benefits with many potential downsides  No rate decrease likely to result  Services may be reduced and centralised  The Review Panel’s benefits are based upon expediency not community  Limited representation  We would have a single voice at the City of Armadale Council table  We are split in 3 parts as a community  Our collective voice is lost Our Concerns in More Detail

20.  It puts our unique environment at risk  Others may not value what we have as we do  There will be many competing priorities  We surrender control to others  Diminished emergency services capability  We may no longer have a locally based service  Services may become centralised in Armadale  The drivers for this initiative are incomplete  The focus of the review is solely on economies of scale  It ignores social capital and environmental value Our Concerns in More Detail

21.  Loss of identity  Loss of autonomy and control over our collective destiny  No resultant benefits with many potential downsides  Limited representation  It puts our unique environment at risk  Diminished emergency services capability  The drivers for this initiative are incomplete  Inconsistent messages  Our community is split in three parts as a result  We are more a part of Peel than Armadale Our Concerns in More Detail

22.  Inconsistent messages  Amalgamation not proposed in earlier reviews in 1974, 1996 or 2006  2009 commendation for sustainable LG practices  Now we are too small  Our community is split in three parts as a result  We are split between City of Armadale, City of Rockingham and Shire of Murray  We are more a part of Peel than Armadale  We will lose our identity and function as part of the Peel region Our Concerns in More Detail

23.  Serpentine Jarrahdale remains as is  With a reduction in the number of elected members  Regional service delivery opportunities result  Boundary changes result west of Kwinana Freeway  Peel based service amalgamations result  Alternative reform models for achieving economies of scale be explored Our Preferred Approach

24. Community Forum Discuss Key Recommendations  Amalgamation only  Amalgamation and splitting  Council’s proposed approach

25. Community Forum Complete Forum Feedback Sheet on Proposed Recommendations

26.  Consolidate the feedback received tonight and finalise the workshop summary  Post the summary to the Council webpage  Present to full Council  Council will prepare and lodge its submission to Dept of Local Government by 5 th April 2013  Community welcomed and encouraged to make their own submissions. Next Steps

27.  Click here www.dlg.wa.gov.au

28.  Click here

30. Department of Local Government Gordon Stephenson House 140 William Street PERTH WA 6000 GPO Box R1250 PERTH WA 6844 Telephone: (08) 6552 1500 Facsimile: (08) 6552 1555 Free call: 1800 620 511 (Country Only) Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) - Tel: 13 14 50 Or at