Group C, Gosford West Ward

Kevin Brooks, lead candidate

 

1/ financial experience

 

I have a good understanding of finance having worked in global banks, and also as a public

sector Chief Audit Executive. I also served as the elected Leader of Harlow Council in the

UK, and led that Council out of the financial difficulties it faced when I arrived. When I stood

down I was credited with “turning around the Council’s financial position.”

2/ work experience

 

UK Department of Trade (Australasia Section) – advising UK exporters to Australasia on

local economy and other matters

Banking – NatWest Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, St George. Head Office roles with

experience across retail and corporate banking, financial markets, wealth management,

and domestic and international payment systems.

State Government (finance and audit) – Department Finance, Services and Innovation

(DFSI), and NSW parliament.

3/ community activism or involvement

 

Involved in campaigns against Special Rate Variation that garnered over 4000 submissions

to IPART.

Regular speaker at Council’s Public Forum – 15-20 speeches last three years.

4/ What current public causes/issues do you agree with? 

 

Support better value for money for ratepayers.

Opposed to the Wamberal Sea Wall

Support more affordable housing to provide relief for a generation of young people priced out

of housing, whilst also seeking to protect our coastal and bushland environment.

5/ Why should I vote for you?

 

I have a track record of success. I served as the elected Leader of Harlow Council in the

UK, and led that Council out of financial difficulties.

I have a good understanding of the issues here, having attended Council meetings, read

Council reports, and delivered about 20 speeches in the Public Forum.

After four years of higher rates and worse services, reforms are needed to address

underlying problems within the organisation and deliver value for money.

The Ratepayers Choice Group wants improvements in management, efficiency, productivity,

and culture.

We want to see services better aligned with community priorities.

And we want to restore trust through “tone at the top,” accountability, transparency, and

authentic communication.

Questions from the operational plan

 

Q1/ What’s important to you from the Operational plan’s vision and framework?

 

Choose three

 

Overall, I think the document contains too much waffle. It should be more succinct, better

prioritised, with more precise SMART objectives.

 

With respect to the aspirations on pages 18 to 21, I would consider the three below to be

among the most important.

 

1/ G4 “Serve the community by providing great customer experience, value for money and quality services.” – emphasises the primary focus should be delivering value for money services for customers.

 

2/ H1 “Solve road and drainage problem areas and partner with the State Government to improve road conditions across the region” – working with State Government to improve roads should be a priority.

 

3/ F1 “Protect our rich environmental heritage by conserving beaches, waterways, bushland, wildlife corridors and inland areas, and the diversity of local native species.” – the beaches, bushland and wildlife corridors are one of the main reasons people enjoy living here, and also attract tourism.

Q2/ Which upcoming plans already in the pipeline do you support or delete?

Choose three 

 

Endorse

1/ Bike Plan and Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan– half way through the previous 10 year

Bike Plan so timely for review

 

2/ Woy Woy foreshore – Public swimming baths and accessibility upgrade – important facility

 

3/ Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Resourcing Strategy, etc – Need to get

these right for the next four years. Need to be more succinct, precise, prioritised and with

SMART targets and clearer accountabilities.

 

Delete

Difficult to seek deletions based on mere titles in a plan, but before engagement commences

I would ask to see the rationale for including each item in the engagement plan, and what

Council is seeking to get out of each engagement.

Q3/  Do you support keeping the 2021 ten year special rate variation (rate increase) beyond 2031?

 

Yes or no?

No.

The Temporary Rate Increase was provided for short term emergency purposes such as the

repayment of emergency loans.

Once those loans have been repaid, there should be no need for it to continue.

Council initially estimated it would need $11 – $13 Million per year to repay the emergency

loans over ten years.

So, as soon as the loans are repaid, that’s $11 – $13 Million per year savings on debt

servicing that should become available.

The fact that Council’s Long Term Financial Plan does not show this $11 – $13 Million annual

saving flowing through to the operating result after the loans have been repaid raises an

important question: where has this $11 – $13 Million saving gone?

It certainly isn’t funding improved services so we can only assume it has been absorbed into

the bureaucracy and is propping up waste and inefficiency.

So, a newly elected Council needs to focus on improving efficiency and productivity.

Rates have increased 39% in four years, yet services have continued to decline. Council is

doing less with more revenue. We need to put that process into reverse through greater

productivity and efficiency.

We believe a key early initiative for the newly elected Council should be setting an

annual efficiency target within the Chief Executive’s Appraisal Process. 

This should be tracked through quarterly appraisal meetings.

For example, an annual efficiency target of just 1% per year starting in 2024/25 would shave

about $30 Million from General Fund Expenditure alone by 3031/32.

That is the same amount as would be lost in rates revenue when the temporary rate

increase expires that same year.

A similar efficiency target could be applied to the Water and Sewer Fund.

In addition, we believe Council should undertake a major consultation with the community on

service prioritisation. This should lead to resources transferring from lower priority functions

to higher priority ones.

We are unable to answer your question about which specific services should receive

reduced (or more) expenditure as that should be determined by the consultation on priorities.

 

We also reject the premise of your question that candidates who do not support extending

the temporary rate increase must identify specific services for reduced expenditure.

We reject this premise not only because an immediate annual saving of $11 – $13 Million on

loan repayments should be available once the emergency loans have been repaid.

But also because over the past four years Council has increased rates without improving

services due to lower productivity and inefficiency. Higher productivity and greater efficiency

can have the reverse effect.

With respect to increased revenue from other sources, we would like to see a review of other

sources which could include, for example, seeking to increase parking fees from tourists

(typically from Sydney) in coastal areas.

We also believe more can be done to push for higher funding.

Q4/ How would you increase revenue

(Use the operational plan to give three examples)

 

See above.

Q5/ How would you reduce expenditure 

(Using the same operational plan for examples)

 

See above.