Stormwater management service charge … management service charge implementation monitoring ... Stormwater management service charge implementation ... than the SMSC performance indicators

Stormwater management service charge implementation monitoring

(covering financial years 2006−07 to 2008−09)

© Copyright State of NSW and the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet

With the exception of photographs, the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet and State of NSW are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. Specific permission is required for the reproduction of photographs.

Published by:

Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet 59–61 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000 PO Box A290, Sydney South NSW 1232

Report pollution and environmental incidents Environment Line: 131 555 (NSW only) or [email protected]

See also www.environment.nsw.gov.au

Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks, climate change and energy efficiency information and publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

ISBN 978 1 74293 228 6 OEH 2011/268 June 2011

Stormwater management service charge implementation monitoring i

Executive summary

The Local Government Act 1993 was amended in 2005 to allow councils to levy a stormwater management service charge (SMSC) for improved stormwater management. This change was made in recognition of councils’ need for sustainable funding to support their key role in stormwater management.

The Division of Local Government (DLG) and the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet (OEH) have undertaken a ‘snapshot’ review, monitoring the following aspects of implementation of the SMSC in the financial years of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09:

the appropriateness of council charging structures.

whether councils’ spending of the charges raised were in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and the Stormwater Management Service Charge Guidelines (the guidelines) Department of Local Government 2006. The guidelines are available at: www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Circulars/06-47.pdf.

whether councils’ reporting of planned and actual spending of the SMSC was in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Act and Regulation.

This report presents the findings from this monitoring project and makes recommendations to help improve SMSC implementation, if required.

Key findings 1. Since implementing the SMSC in 2006–07, councils levying the SMSC have increased

their stormwater management spending by an average of approximately 89%. These increases are greater than those made by councils that do not raise the charge. The additional spending is considered to be positive, as it has helped increase on-the-ground capital works and maintenance of infrastructure. These works are reducing flooding, improving the health of urban waterways and providing alternative water sources to help reduce the demand for existing sources of drinking water.

2. In 2008–09, 77 councils levied an SMSC, raising over $39.3 million in additional funds for stormwater management services in local communities across the state.

3. An average metropolitan council charging the SMSC can raise over $1 million per annum for additional stormwater management services.

4. Most councils were appropriately raising and spending their SMSC revenue.

5. Overall, the SMSC is delivering significant benefits in a transparent and robust system. On-going transparency and accountability will need to be achieved in the context of recently introduced Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework that encourages long-term, strategic and holistic planning and streamlined reporting.

6. Implementing the SMSC has been effective, with only a few minor issues being identified, including incomplete reporting, excessive carryover of SMSC funds, and for a relatively few councils, inconsistent charging on privately-owned strata premises.

ii Stormwater management service charge implementation monitoring

Key recommendations The recommendations arising from this project are presented in the following table. In summary:

minor amendments to the Local Government (General) Regulation 2006 would help to clarify strata property charging, to reflect amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 (section 495A) that were made to permit charges to be levied on strata properties

the sections of the guidelines relating to SMSC planning, reporting and expenditure should be revised to be consistent with the legislative requirements of the recently introduced integrated planning and reporting framework

councils should be reminded of key SMSC requirements.

Table of recommendations Issue Relevant recommendations from report

Councils should be calculating the SMSC in accordance with the guidelines.

Recommendation 1: DLG to amend the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to regulate strata SMSC charges and align them with those outlined in the guidelines (refer to section 5.3 of the guidelines).

Recommendation 2: Councils to check that their SMSC for business properties does not to exceed $25 per 350m2 (refer to section 5.3 of the guidelines).

Recommendation 3: Councils to ensure that they are applying SMSCs for strata businesses in accordance with the charging structure outlined in the guidelines (refer to section 5.3 of the guidelines).

Recommendation 5: Councils to ensure they do not charge rateable properties more than the costs of providing stormwater services (with particular emphasis on recreational businesses such as racecourses and golf courses and high-rise strata blocks) (refer to section 5.4 of the guidelines).

Some councils are ineligible to levy the SMSC.

Recommendation 4: Councils to ensure they do not levy the SMSC if they levy a drainage charge component in their rates or have a special variation with the primary purpose of funding stormwater management services (refer to section 5.2 of the guidelines).

Stormwater management service charge implementation monitoring iii

Councils should undertake appropriate accounting and reporting for carryover of funds.

Recommendation 6: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider updating the guidelines to emphasise that the carryover of SMSC funding should only be planned for specific long-term projects and that SMSC funds should not be carried over to subsequent financial years with the primary intent of matching possible future grant funding.

Recommendation 7: Councils to undertake appropriate accounting and reporting for carryover of funds. In particular councils should consider:

that when implementing multi-year projects, they should ensure that their management (or operational) plans and annual reports provide information on the whole project to date, not just the current year’s progress

that management (or operational) plans and annual reports should contain a breakdown of expenditure of carryover funds and current year funds against projects, i.e. multi-year projects using carryover funds should be clearly identifiable

that management (or operational) plans and annual reports should document reasons for carryover of funds

that annual reports should identify the difference between planned and achieved SMSC funded project goals, and contain a statement of the reasons for the differences

SMSC funds should not be carried over to subsequent financial years primarily to match possible future grant funding

(refer to section 5.7 of the guidelines).

The guidelines should identify the types of services that can and cannot be funded through the SMSC. Councils should ensure the SMSC is only funding eligible services.

Recommendation 8: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider providing councils with examples of what cannot be funded by the SMSC including:

restoring riparian vegetation except where it is a component of a stormwater management works project, e.g. revegetation after bank stability work

river edge recreational development

repaying loans taken out before the SMSC was implemented.

Consider incorporating these examples into the guidelines.

Recommendation 9: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider amending the guidelines to allow reasonable project management costs to be funded by the SMSC. Staff time and activities performed should be clearly identified and justified as being related to management or delivery of new stormwater management services in the asset management plan, long-term financial plan and workforce management strategy components of the resourcing strategy; and should be reported on in operational plans and annual reports (refer to section 5.7 of the guidelines).

The SMSC can only be used to fund services on eligible land.

Recommendation 10: Councils to ensure the SMSC is only used to fund services on eligible land. Services delivered on ineligible land, including all public land, must be funded through other sources (refer to section 5.2 of the guidelines).

iv Stormwater management service charge implementation monitoring

When determining which stormwater management activities to fund through the SMSC, councils should consider their alignment with local, regional, catchment-based and state-based natural resource management objectives.

Recommendation 11: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider updating the guidelines to emphasise the importance of ensuring linkages between the SMSC and catchment action plans are established and maintained.

Councils should provide transparent and accountable reporting.

Recommendation 12: DLG with assistance from OEH to provide councils with sample complying templates for SMSC statements in operational plans (or management plans) and annual reports (see attachments B and C).

Recommendation 13: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider including these templates as examples in an appendix to the guidelines.

Recommendation 14: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider amending the guidelines to recommend the operational plan include:

the total number of residential properties, residential strata properties, business properties and business strata properties the SMSC is levied on

a council’s average stormwater management expenditure for the five years before the SMSC was implemented, where the information is available

the proportion of land that is exempt from the charge and the corresponding proportion of stormwater management funding that will be funded from sources other than the SMSC

performance indicators.

Recommendation 15: DLG to clarify with councils the linkages between the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework and SMSC implementation and expenditure, including emphasising how catchment action plans may be considered through this process.

Recommendation 16: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider amending the guidelines to reinforce these linkages.

(Refer to sections 6 and 7 of the guidelines, clause 217(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, and the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework guidelines and manual.)

Councils not implementing the SMSC are increasing their stormwater expenditure (but to a lesser degree than those councils that are implementing the SMSC).

Recommendation 17: DLG together with OEH to consider investigating why councils that are not implementing the SMSC are still increasing their stormwater spending and identify the source of these additional funds.

Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................... i

Key findings..................................................................................................................... i

Key recommendations ................................................................................................... ii

Table of recommendations............................................................................................. ii

1 What is the stormwater management service charge? .............................................1

2 Purpose of this monitoring project .............................................................................2

3 Approach used to monitor the implementation of the stormwater management service charge.......................................................................................3

3.1 Data collection and analysis.....................................................................................4

3.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................5

4 Findings and recommendations..................................................................................6

4.1 Uptake of the stormwater management service charge...........................................6

4.2 Charges....................................................................................................................7

4.3 Spending ................................................................................................................10

4.4 Reporting................................................................................................................15

4.5 Comparison with councils not raising the stormwater management service charge........................................................................................................18

4.6 Considerations for future reviews...........................................................................19

5 Conclusions.................................................................................................................20

6 Attachments ................................................................................................................21

Attachment A: Clause 200A of Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 – repealed ...................................................................................21

Attachment B: Template for SMSC Statements in Operational Plans (or Management Plans)..........................................................................................22

Attachment C: Template for SMSC statements in annual reports ...............................24

Stormwater management service charge implementation monitoring 1

1 What is the stormwater management service charge?

The Local Government Act 1993 was amended in 2005 to allow councils to levy a stormwater management service charge (SMSC) for improved stormwater management. This amendment was made to recognise councils’ key role in stormwater management and their need for sustainable funding to support their stormwater services. The additional services being delivered under the SMSC are helping to improve the health of urban waterways, reduce the impact of flooding on local communities and promote alternative water sources to help reduce demand on potable supplies.

The SMSC is optional. However, councils cannot implement the charge if they levy a drainage charge in their rates or they have a special variation with the primary purpose of funding stormwater management services. A council may choose to levy the SMSC after discontinuing these special rates or drainage charges. A council that can fund its stormwater management activities from existing revenue sources may not need to raise the charge.

The SMSC was first levied in the 2006–07 financial year, with 43 councils initially implementing the charge. Some 64 councils levied the charge in 2007–08 and 77 in 2008–09.

The annual SMSC is currently capped at $25 for a residential dwelling with an area-based pro-rata cap applying to commercial properties. This cap was set based on surveys of the community’s willingness to pay for stormwater management, provided the value for their expenditure is demonstrated locally and transparently.

Indicative calculations estimate that an average metropolitan council can raise over $1 million annually through the SMSC. As an example, this could enable a council to build three constructed wetlands to improve stormwater quality or three stormwater harvesting schemes to irrigate parkland.

The regulatory framework for the SMSC is established in the:

Local Government Act 1993 (particularly section 496A)

Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (clauses 125A, 125AA, 200A1, 217)

Stormwater management service charge guidelines (the guidelines) (Department of Local Government Circular 06/47, 26 July 2006). The guidelines are available at: www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Circulars/06-47.pdf.

Additional requirements relating to the financial reporting of stormwater management activities are included in the Local government code of accounting practice and financial reporting (Division of Local Government (DLG), Department of Premier and Cabinet, Update No. 17, June 2009). This is available at: www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_Documents Index.asp?sectionid=1&documenttype=3&mi=6&ml=1.

DLG is responsible for the Local Government Act 1993 and its regulations, and therefore oversees the implementation of the SMSC. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), part of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, works closely with DLG providing technical support and information.

1 Clause 200A was repealed in March 2010, as part of the introduction of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. Refer to Attachment A for the repealed clause.

2 Stormwater management service charge implementation monitoring

2 Purpose of this monitoring project

OEH, in conjunction with DLG, has undertaken this monitoring project to:

monitor the implementation and operation of the SMSC

identify any implementation issues

identify any areas for possible change to improve the effectiveness of the SMSC, if required.

The project monitored the implementation of the SMSC in the 2006–07, 2007–08 and 2008–09 financial year reporting periods.

This project aims to identify the benefits of raising funds through the SMSC and any key issues councils need to consider when implementing the charge.

This review did not:

review the SMSC cap limit

check individual councils’ compliance with regulations, although collectively this was examined to determine whether there were any issues with the application of the regulations and guidelines2

gauge the extent of community response to the introduction of the SMSC

gauge the attitudes of councils or survey councils for issues that they would like to see addressed regarding the SMSC.

2 The raw data behind the report findings has not been included in this report to avoid identifying the performance of any individual council.


3 Approach used to monitor the implementation of the stormwater management service charge

The project was undertaken in two stages. An initial monitoring project was carried out in 2007 and included:

a desktop review of available published information on the SMSC such as draft management plans and annual reports for 12 selected councils that levied the SMSC in the 2006–07 financial year (this represents almost 30% of the councils that levied the charge)

sending a written survey to these 12 councils inviting them to provide specific information about their approach to levying the SMSC, use of the SMSC income, community feedback and any other issues with the SMSC – 10 councils responded to this survey

follow-up telephone interviews with relevant staff from the 10 councils responding to the written survey, to clarify information as required.

The second stage was undertaken once data up to and including the 2008-09 financial year became available. This second stage was based on desktop analysis of data from a selection of councils from each of the following categories:

i Councils implementing the SMSC Thirty councils that were implementing the SMSC in the 2008–09 financial year were researched in detail. This represents almost 40% of all councils levying the SMSC. To ensure a representative sample, the 30 councils were randomly selected from the following geographic regions:

Greater Metropolitan Region

Hunter Region

Illawarra Region

coastal areas (i.e. councils that include rivers that drain to the ocean)

inland councils.

ii Councils choosing not to implement the SMSC Twenty councils were selected that are eligible to levy the SMSC but choose not to. To ensure a representative sample, councils were chosen from across the geographic regions mentioned above, and a range of council sizes were selected.

iii Councils ineligible to implement the SMSC Councils charging a special drainage rate or charge are ineligible to levy the SMSC. Also ineligible are those with a ministerially approved special variation to their rates (with an instrument from the Minister under section 508 or 508A of the Local Government Act 1993 that identifies stormwater management as the primary purpose for the variation). This project identified at least seven councils that are ineligible to levy the SMSC (there may be other ineligible councils that were not identified as part of this project).


3.1 Data collection and analysis Data was sourced from council management plans and annual reports.

Management plans3 set out the council’s objectives and strategies for the local government area, including a statement of planned revenue and expenditure for the current year and details of principal activities, service targets and evaluation procedures for at least the next three years.

Annual reports identify council’s achievements with respect to the objectives and performance targets set out in its management plan for that year. Annual reports also include audited financial statements, a comparison of the council’s actual performance with planned performance of its principal activities during that year, a report about the state of the environment in the area, a report on the condition of the public works, and other staffing, contract and financial details.

The following data was collected and analysed to monitor ways in which the SMSC is charged, spent and reported on by the selected councils. This data was collected for as many financial years as available from 2003–04 (to provide a baseline case) to 2008–09.

Councils that levy the SMSC Uptake of the SMSC

Total revenue generated through the SMSC

Planned and actual carryover to the following financial year

Proportion of SMSC funds allocated to different project areas (e.g. drainage, stormwater harvesting, treatment)

Proportion of SMSC funds allocated to maintenance versus capital projects

Proportion of SMSC cap that is charged

Compliance with regulatory requirements and guidelines

Total stormwater expenditure

Average annual spending per property on stormwater management

Councils that chose not to levy the SMSC Average annual spending per property on stormwater management

Councils that are not eligible to levy the SMSC

Average annual spending per property on stormwater management

3 NSW councils are transitioning to an Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (which was introduced in July 2010). Under this framework, councils report on planned activities and expenditure through operational plans, not management plans. As this project was carried out in 2009, OEH reviewed management plans, not operational plans. Recommendations made regarding management plans apply to operational plans under the new framework. Refer to section 4.4 of this report for more details.


3.2 Limitations

Data availability Data for this project was taken from council plans and reports that were available online, and DLG provided some additional data (noting that the 2007 component of the project supplemented this information with targeted surveys and interviews). Two issues with data were identified:

Variability in quality of council reporting – due to these variations there could be inaccuracies and misinterpretations of council reports. While all reasonable steps were taken to reduce any errors and minimise their potential impact on the calculations and subsequent analysis, some inconsistencies remain.

Lack of historical management plans and annual reports – many councils do not keep historical documents on their internet sites.

Identifying councils that are ineligible to levy the SMSC There is no available list of councils implementing drainage charges or special variations primarily for stormwater. OEH accessed a list of councils who had applied for a special variation from the DLG annual reports. Sixteen councils were checked in this way to determine those ineligible. Councils ineligible through levying a drainage charge in their rates were not listed and were primarily determined through internet searches. The 57 councils investigated in detail (30 SMSC charging, 20 non-SMSC charging and 7 known ineligible) were checked for ineligibility status. The councils not included in the survey and not on the special variation lists were not individually checked to determine their eligibility status.

Comparison between different sized councils This report makes some conclusions about implementing the SMSC by comparing stormwater management data for councils that levy the SMSC with councils that do not levy the SMSC. Efforts were made to select similarly-sized councils for this comparison.


4 Findings and recommendations

4.1 Uptake of the stormwater management service charge Of the 152 local councils in NSW, 77 had in place an SMSC in the 2008–09 financial year, raising a total of approximately $39.4 million. Figure 1 shows there has been a steady increase in SMSC uptake since it was first implemented in the 2006–07 financial year, and there has been a corresponding rise in the total revenue raised.

Figure 1: T otal stormwater management service charge funds levied and number of councils levying the stormwater management service charge

The councils that have implemented an SMSC are generally large urban councils. Councils not implementing the SMSC tend to be smaller.

Councils are ineligible to implement the charge if they levy a drainage charge component in their rates or have a special variation with the primary purpose of funding stormwater management services as set out in Clause 125A of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. This project identified seven councils that are ineligible to levy the SMSC, based on available information (five due to drainage charges and two due to special variations). However, there may be others not included in the sample (as explained in section 3.2).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Financial year

$Mill

ions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Councils

Total SMSCfunds raised(millions)

No. of councilscharging SMSCfee


4.2 Charges

Charging rules and policy The Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 under the Local Government Act 1993 states:

the SMSC may only be levied on rateable non-vacant urban lands categorised as business or residential

a council may not levy the SMSC at a rate that exceeds the cost of providing stormwater management services for the parcel of rateable land

a council may not levy the SMSC at a rate that exceeds $25 for land categorised as residential

a council may not levy the SMSC at a rate that exceeds $25 for each 350 square metres or part thereof for land categorised as business.

The guidelines state:

councils must not levy the SMSC on land where they do not provide a stormwater management service

the SMSC amount levied by councils must not exceed the anticipated cost of providing the new and additional stormwater service to land subject to the charge

councils may adopt any reasonable approach to determining the SMSC for residential strata lots, provided the charge does not exceed the lower amount of:

the cost of providing the stormwater management service; or

half (50%) of the residential upper limit (i.e. $12.50) – residential strata lots may only be charged up to 50% of the charge applied to standard residential properties

the business strata SMSC may not exceed the lower amount of providing the service; or the business upper limit ($25 per 350 m2 of land area divided between the strata lots) – should this approach result in individual contributions of less than $5, council may adopt a minimum amount of $5 to be levied on each strata lot.

The Local Government Act 1993 (section 495A) was amended to allow the levying of strata lots. However, further amendments are still required to the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to specify that the maximum charge to be levied on a residential strata lot is to be the lower amount of:

$12.50; or

the cost of providing the stormwater management services.

If the cost of providing the stormwater management services is less than $5, the charge should be set at $5 per property. The corresponding cap for business strata units would be $12.50 per 350 m2. These arrangements reflect the approach provided in the guidelines.

Recommendation 1: DLG to amend the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to regulate strata SMSC charges and align them with those outlined in the guidelines.


Standard residential SMSC Of the 77 councils levying the SMSC in 2008–09, 71 (i.e. 92%) are charging the full residential cap limit of $25 per property. No residential SMSC exceeds the cap limit.

Strata residential SMSC There were 58 councils levying residential strata SMSC in 2008–09. Of these, 52 (i.e. 90%) were charging the full residential strata cap limit. No strata residential rate SMSC exceeded the cap limit.

Of the 77 councils levying the SMSC, 19 councils made no residential strata SMSCs. Of these,17 were located in rural areas and there are possibly no residential strata properties in these rural council areas. However, if there are strata properties (which is likely, especially for the two urban councils) this result either indicates the council is:

not levying the SMSC on residential strata properties – this is council’s prerogative as there is no requirement for council to levy the charge, or

levying an SMSC but at the standard residential rate ($25) – this would mean residents are being overcharged.

Standard business SMSC The charging structures for business premises are more complicated due to the area based nature of the charge. All 77 councils implementing the SMSC appear to be charging business properties.

The SMSC for business properties was looked at in more detail for the 30 surveyed SMSC implementing councils, and the following was found:

13% of the councils surveyed levied the maximum charge

13% levied the maximum charge but with a cap in place

47% of councils implemented a flat charge, usually $25

27% of councils implemented an area based charge below the maximum.

This project reviewed the charging structures for business property for all 77 councils implementing the SMSC. This project identified three councils with charging structures that were not consistent with the regulations:

one council was charging businesses $125 even though their land area was only 1200m2 – this charge should only apply when land area is 1400 m2 or greater

two councils charged businesses a $50 flat rate SMSC. The business rate should be based on area ($25 per 350m2) or limit the charge to $25 unless the council has information that all business properties have an area exceeding 700 m2 (and can therefore charge the $25 per 350m2 twice).

Recommendation 2: Councils to check their SMSC for business properties does not exceed $25 per 350m2.


Strata business SMSC Of the 77 councils levying the SMSC, there were 45 councils levying a business strata property SMSC in 2008-09. Thirty-two councils have no business strata SMSC rate. Twenty-one of these councils are located in rural areas, and it is possible there are no business strata properties in these areas. However, if there are strata business properties (which is likely, especially in the 11 urban council areas) this result indicates these councils are doing one of the following: not levying the SMSC on business strata properties – this is a council’s prerogative as

there is no requirement for council to levy the charge

levying an SMSC but at a council-prescribed standard business rate – this is not in accordance with the legislation and could mean businesses are being overcharged

levying an SMSC but at a flat rate set at the same level as residential properties – this could mean businesses are being overcharged

rating business strata properties at a different rate but not reporting it in their management plans.

The charging structures for strata business premises are more complicated due to the area-based nature of the charge. The business strata rates were assessed for the 30 surveyed SMSC implementing councils. The results were:

5% of the councils surveyed levied the maximum charge

11% levied the maximum charge but with a cap in place

37% of councils implemented a flat charge, usually $12.50

37% of councils implemented an area based charge below the maximum

11% of councils implemented a flat charge over the suggested rate of $12.50.

This project reviewed the strata business rate charging structures of all 45 councils implementing a business strata charge through the SMSC. This project identified three councils with charging structures that were not consistent with the regulations:

one council set its minimum business strata charge at $12.50 (the guidelines recommend it should be $5)

two councils were charging a business strata flat rate of $25 and $15 (the guidelines recommend a maximum of $12.50 per 350m2).

Recommendation 3: Councils to ensure they are applying SMSCs for strata businesses in accordance with the charging structure outlined in the guidelines.

Eligibility As mentioned in section 3, some councils are ineligible to levy the SMSC.

This project found no cases of ineligible councils charging the SMSC. Some councils that were previously ineligible have since ceased their drainage charges or special variations, thereby making them eligible.

This project found that five councils levying the SMSC also levy special variation charges that have a stormwater component. In all these cases the stormwater component is less than 50% of the total variation (indicating the primary purpose of the variation probably is not to fund stormwater management). These councils are therefore eligible to levy the SMSC. However, the practice of levying a special variation that has a stormwater component as a secondary outcome as well as levying an SCMC could give the perception that some councils are ‘double-charging’. This was noted as a growing trend.

Recommendation 4: Councils to ensure they do not levy the SMSC if they levy a drainage charge component in their rates or have a special variation with the primary purpose of funding stormwater management services.


Other charging issues The regulations state that a council may not levy the SMSC for a parcel of land at a rate that exceeds the cost of providing stormwater management services on that land.

There is potential for the SMSC to exceed the cost of providing stormwater management services for businesses that occupy large areas of land (such as golf courses, racecourses and bowling greens), have high proportions of permeable land, or may not have many stormwater services provided by council. Some councils have addressed this issue in one of two ways:

by placing a flat rate or a cap on the maximum rate charged to businesses, or

by introducing a special recreational rate for these types of businesses.

It is possible that councils that have not introduced the above measures are overcharging these types of businesses. Similar considerations should be given to large (especially high-rise) strata blocks which are annually charged $12.50 per unit.

Recommendation 5: Councils to ensure that they do not charge rateable properties more than the costs of providing stormwater services (with particular emphasis on recreational businesses such as racecourses and golf courses and high-rise strata blocks).

4.3 Spending Councils that have introduced the SMSC (which were assessed as part of this project) have on average increased their total stormwater expenditure per household by 89% since the introduction of the SMSC in 2006–07. Graph 2 shows the average stormwater expenditure per household over time. Data is presented for years prior to 2006–07 to provide a baseline of stormwater management expenditure that occurred before the SMSC was created. It is clear that the SMSC is leading to increased stormwater management spending.

Figure 2: Average stormwater expenditure per household with 30 councils implementing the stormwater management service charge

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00

$45.00

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009

Expe

nditu

re p

er h

ouse

hold

Financial year


SMSC funds carried over Councils may carryover SMSC funds from one year to another to allow for planned capital expenditure that could not be funded from a single year of income. Over 40% of the SMSC funds levied by the 30 surveyed councils were carried over when the SMSC commenced in 2006–07. Only 38% of surveyed councils spent all their SMSC revenue in 2006–07 and 13% of councils carried over all their SMSC revenue.

This large initial carryover may have occurred because this was the first year of the SMSC, and the planning and delivery of the additional services may have taken longer than anticipated. In 2007–08:

the carryover was slightly reduced to about 38% on average of the SMSC funds levied by the 30 surveyed councils

the proportion of councils spending all funds in the year increased to 56%

the proportion of councils carrying over all the SMSC funds was reduced slightly to 11%.

Table 1: Planned and actual carryover of SMSC funds (30 surveyed councils)

2006–07 2007 –08 2008–09

Average planned carryover

39% 15% 22%

Average actual carryover

41% 38% Not available at time of project

No of councils not carrying over SMSC funds


No of councils carrying over 100% of SMSC funds


While the rates of actual SMSC carryover have not changed greatly the planned rates of carryover have varied markedly over the time of SMSC implementation:

in 2006–07 almost 40% of SMSC funds were not budgeted to be spent

in 2007–08, this dropped to 15%, presumably as councils had more opportunity to plan to utilise the new funds

the 2008–09 financial year has an average planned budgetary carryover of 22%.

Much of this increase in the 2008–09 carryover is attributable to councils planning to use the SMSC funds for large projects that span a number of financial years. While budgetary planning for large projects is acceptable, it is generally expected that maintenance activities will be undertaken in the financial year in which the funds are levied.

Councils must ensure that reserves built up by carrying over funds from year to year are justifiable and transparently reported. It is envisaged that the integrated planning and reporting (IP&R) reforms (see section 4.4 for details on the IP&R Framework), which are currently being implemented by councils, will help facilitate longer term planning for stormwater works and related reporting to the community on outcomes achieved.


This project identified the following issues regarding the carryover of SMSC funds that councils need to consider as part of IP&R:

At least one council carried over SMSC funds to support that council’s applications for grants that require them to provide matched funding. As a general practice, this is not supported unless this approach has been clearly communicated to the community. In the future this will be done through a council’s IP&R documents. A council should identify as part of its asset management plan, long-term financial plan and delivery program the proposed works to be funded through the grant and how such works will be funded if the grant application is not successful.

As shown in Table 1, there is a significant difference in councils’ planned expenditure (as was presented in the management plans), compared with the actual expenditure (as was presented in the annual reports) for each financial year. While some variation is expected due to operational issues, councils should be reporting in their annual report on the differences between planned and achieved SMSC funded project goals, together with a statement of the reasons for these differences.

Management plans reviewed often did not specify which activities are being funded from the previous year’s SMSC carried over funds and which projects are being funded from the current year’s SMSC revenue.

Councils implementing multi-year projects should provide information in annual reports and management or operational plans on the whole project term, not just the current year.

It is appropriate for councils to carryover SMSC funds for designated large projects, but only if transparently reported and the carryover is justified. Where a council is planning to carryover SMSC funds they should state why in the management or operational plan.

Recommendation 6: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider the need to update the guidelines to emphasise that the carryover of SMSC funding should only be planned for specific long term projects and that SMSC funds should not be carried over to subsequent financial years with the primary intent of matching possible future grant funding.

Recommendation 7: Councils to undertake appropriate accounting and reporting for carryover of funds. In particular councils should consider:

that when implementing multi-year projects, they should ensure that their management (or operational) plans and annual reports provide information on the whole project term, not just the current year

that management (or operational) plans and annual reports should contain a breakdown of expenditure of carryover funds and current year funds against projects, i.e. multi-year projects using carryover funds should be clearly identifiable

that management (or operational) plans and annual reports should document reasons for carryover of funds

that annual reports should identify the difference between planned and achieved SMSC-funded project goals, and contain a statement of the reasons for the differences

SMSC funds should not be carried over to subsequent financial years primarily to match possible future grant funding.


Nature of SMSC expenditure Capital versus maintenance expenditure During the first year of the SMSC (2006–07), the 10 surveyed councils had cumulatively spent approximately 54% of their total stormwater expenditure on capital and asset renewal projects, and 46% on maintenance activities. This large expenditure on maintenance costs in the first year was probably due to councils using the new funds for necessary stormwater treatment maintenance measures.

In 2008–09, SMSC expenditure was predominantly on capital projects with 11% of SMSC funds from the 30 selected councils used on maintenance. As more capital projects are completed through increased stormwater funding, it is expected that the maintenance costs will correspondingly rise.

Distribution of funds between different project types Table 2 indicates that SMSC funds are mainly directed towards flooding and drainage projects. When the SMSC was introduced, it was expected that councils would initially use the additional funds to ‘catch up’ on delayed projects, but eventually the funds would be invested in alternative stormwater management techniques, such as stormwater harvesting. Council management plans reviewed indicate that there will be an increase in new and innovative projects in the future.

Table 2: Proportion of SMSC funds allocated to project areas 2008–09

Flooding/drainage Harv esting Treatment Other

64% 2% 7% 13%

(Note: These funds add up to 86% of the total SMSC funds. The remaining 14% is allocated to maintenance or carried over to the following financial year)

Inappropriate expenditure of SMSC funding A few councils were using SMSC funds for projects that did not fall within the intent of the SMSC, as outlined below:

Riparian strip restoration and recreational area upgrades along river banks should not be funded by the SMSC, as these activities fall under biodiversity conservation and community amenity rather than stormwater management. Such activities that do not primarily aim to provide stormwater management services are specifically listed in the guidelines as activities that cannot be funded from the SMSC. However, the SMSC can be used to fund repair or control of streambank erosion resulting from stormwater runoff.

Street sweeping has minimal stormwater quality benefits and is essentially a road maintenance activity rather than an activity suitable for funding using SMSC revenue. This is stated in the guidelines.

SMSC funds can be used to pay off loans taken out to complete new stormwater management works or deliver new stormwater management services. However these loans should be taken out after the introduction of the SMSC – it is inappropriate to repay loans that were established before the SMSC was levied. The SMSC should only be used for new and additional services.


Recommendation 8: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider providing councils with examples of what cannot be funded by the SMSC including:

restoring riparian vegetation except where it is a component of a stormwater management works project e.g. revegetation after bank stability work

river edge recreational development

repaying loans taken out before the SMSC was implemented.

Consider incorporating these examples into the guidelines.

Funding council staff The guidelines note that revenue can be spent on staff specifically appointed to provide the stormwater management service associated with the charge (e.g. temporary project staff). This means permanent staff cannot be funded through the SMSC. Since the SMSC was introduced, the collection and allocation of SMSC funds can require many staff hours, particularly for larger councils. It is appropriate to consider amending the guidelines to relax this provision and allow revenue from the SMSC to be allocated to project managing SMSC funded activities. If amended, the guidelines should clearly explain the circumstances under which the SMSC can be used for covering the cost of reasonable project management, as the primary purpose of the charge is to fund new and additional stormwater management services.

Recommendation 9: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider amending the guidelines to allow reasonable project management costs to be funded by the SMSC. Staff time and activities performed should be clearly identified and justified as being related to management or delivery of new stormwater management services in the asset management plan, long-term financial plan, and workforce management strategy components of the resourcing strategy; and should be reported on in operational plans and annual reports.

Stormwater funding for SMSC exempt properties As specified in the regulations and guidelines, councils are responsible for using revenue sources other than the SMSC to fund stormwater management on exempt lands such as Crown land. This requires councils to estimate the proportion of exempt land being serviced and to ensure the SMSC is not being used to fund this proportion of total stormwater management expenditure. Of the councils being monitored as part of this project, 54% were using the SMSC to meet over half their total stormwater management services budget, as shown in Table 3. The proportion of exempt land being included in this figure could not be identified, so it is not known whether the SMSC is being used only to fund services delivered on eligible land.

Table 3 Proportion of surve yed councils’ t otal stormw ater expe nditure recovered through SMSC 2008–09

<50% 50–59% 60–74% 75–89% >90%

Percentage of councils surveyed

46% 12% 12% 19% 12%


Councils should use their management or operational plan to identify the proportion of exempt land and the amount and source of funds used to deliver stormwater services to this land (this will demonstrate that the SMSC is not being used to fund service delivery on exempt land).

Recommendation 10: Councils to ensure the SMSC is only used to fund services on eligible land. Services delivered on ineligible land, including all public land, must be funded through other sources.

4.4 Reporting This project found that overall reporting by councils can be improved. Of the 30 councils surveyed, 27% had no reporting issues with their annual reports or management plans. (Good quality reporting is required so councils meet legislative requirements and provide information to ratepayers on the planned and actual projects the SMSC funds deliver.)

The quality of reporting from councils was highly variable with some councils delivering a high standard of annual reports and management plans detailing the use of SMSC funds. Councils producing high quality reports provide their ratepayers with information on what their SMSC charges were delivering, increasing the public’s acceptance of the charge.

Management and operational plans Clause 200A of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that stormwater management matters be included in management plans (a copy is provided in Attachment A). This clause has since been repealed (March 2010) as a result of the introduction of the IP&R framework. Despite the repeal, it is important that thorough and transparent reporting on SMSC is continued.

About half the councils surveyed (53%) did not provide sufficient information in their management plans. Councils should be reminded of the obligations relating to the documentation of SMSC funds and projects in management and operational plans, and the need to provide evidence that catchment action plans (CAPs) have been considered.

Some councils can largely meet the legislative reporting requirements regarding SMSCs. However, fewer than 7% of councils surveyed showed evidence that they had considered the relevant CAP when preparing their management plan, despite consideration of CAPs previously being a requirement under Clause 200A of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. It is important that linkages between SMSC and CAPs remain. CAPs can greatly assist councils in determining the direction for funding and the allocation of this funding can assist the relevant catchment management authority to meet their stormwater targets.

To assist with improving the quality of council annual reports and management plans (or operational plans), it is recommended that the guidelines be updated to ensure there are linkages between SMSC and CAPs, and remind councils that they should consider relevant CAPs when determining which stormwater management activities to fund through the SMSC.

Recommendation 11 : DLG with assistance from OEH to consider updating the guidelines to emphasise the importance of ensuring linkages between the SMSC and catchment action plans are established and maintained.


Annual reports When the SMSC was introduced, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (Clause 2174) required that councils levying the SMSC include a statement in each annual report to compare the actual stormwater management services made available during the year with the services projected in the relevant management plan, with a statement of any reasons for the differences between them.

Of the surveyed councils, 40% produced annual reports that met these requirements. The remaining councils either did not include an SMSC statement or the information was considered inadequate to enable an understanding of ways in which the SMSC had been spent, or they did not explain any differences between the actual and proposed expenditure.

The documentation of proposed and actual SMSC expenditure in management/operational plans and annual reports enables the community to understand that the charge is to provide additional services and that those funds are being used efficiently. An informed community is more likely to accept the benefits of the SMSC.

To improve reporting, a future, more comprehensive review should consider amending the guidelines to include simple templates that could be used by councils to enable ready compliance. Possible standard reporting templates (adapted from the Byron Shire Council) for operational plans (or management plans until councils move to operational plans) and annual reports are provided in Attachments B and C respectively.

Although not required by legislation, including the following information in councils’ management or operational plans would further enhance transparency and accountability:

the total number of residential properties, residential strata properties, business properties and business strata properties proposed to be levied

councils’ average stormwater management expenditure for the five years before the SMSC was implemented

the proportion of land that is exempt from the charge, and the corresponding proportion of stormwater management funding that will be funded from sources other than the SMSC

reporting against project performance indicators.

Inclusion of these items in councils’ operational plans would help address inquiries about expenditure by interested ratepayers and other parties. These items have been included in the sample operational plan template (Attachment C).

Recommendation 12: DLG with assistance from OEH to provide councils with sample complying templates for SMSC statements in operational plans (or management plans) and annual reports (see attachments B and C).

Recommendation 13: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider including these complying templates as examples in an appendix to the guidelines.

4 In February 2011, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 was amended, requiring a statement in a council’s annual report that details the stormwater management services provided by the council during that year. The requirement to compare actual services with the services that were projected in the management plan was removed as a result of the introduction of the IP&R framework. Although this removes the legislated requirement for comparing the actual versus projected delivery of services, and corresponding explanations, it is still important to present this information in the annual report to promote transparent and accountable reporting.


Recommendation 14: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider amending the guidelines to recommend that the operational plan include:

the total number of residential properties, residential strata properties, business properties and business strata properties the SMSC is levied on

a council’s average stormwater management expenditure for the five years prior to implementing the SMSC, where the information is available

the proportion of land that is exempt from the charge, and the corresponding proportion of stormwater management funding that will be funded from sources other than the SMSC

performance indicators.

Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) Framework Amendments were made to the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to introduce integrated planning and reporting reforms. The IP&R Framework requires long-term, strategic planning in close consultation with local communities and consideration of relevant regional and state plans including CAPs. The framework encourages councils to draw various plans together to get the maximum leverage from their efforts by planning holistically for the future.

DLG‘s Planning and reporting guidelines for local government in NSW (2010) set out the essential elements and key requirements of the framework. These guidelines and further information about the IP&R framework is available on the DLG website: www.dlg.nsw. gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_IntegratedPlanningIndex.asp?sectionid=1&mi=20&ml=9&AreaIndex=IntPlanRept&index=1201.

The framework consists of:

a community strategic plan – a long-term (over 10 years) plan that outlines strategic objectives

a delivery program - this program sets out the key activities to be undertaken by a council during its term in office to achieve the objectives outlined in the community strategic plan; the delivery program must include a method of assessment to determine the effectiveness of each key activity in achieving its objectives

a resourcing strategy - this strategy identifies the funding required to achieve the objectives in the community strategic plan; the strategy includes long-term financial planning, asset management planning and workforce management planning

an annual operational plan – this plan is a subset of the delivery program and sets out the activities to be undertaken by a council during a particular financial year; it must include a detailed statement of revenue policy, and estimated income and expenditure

an annual report – this report must outline a council’s achievements in implementing its delivery program and audited financial statements, and other information required by the regulation, including in relation to the SMSC.

If a council plans to levy the SMSC, they must specifically state this in the annual operational plan (which is to be adopted before the beginning of each financial year), and subsequently report on the SMSC in the annual report (which is to be prepared within five months of the end of the financial year).

As previously noted, NSW councils are transitioning to the IP&R Framework. Since 1 July 2010, 30 councils have been operating under the new framework. All 152 councils will be operating under the new system by 1 July 2012.


Before July 2010, councils had to state their intention to levy the SMSC in their management plans and subsequently report on this in their annual report. All councils’ annual reports for 2009–10 are based on the old management planning and reporting system. The first 30 councils that have now changed to the new system are reporting in line with the IP&R Framework in their 2010–11 annual reports. By 2012–13, all councils will be implementing the IP&R Framework.

Recommendation 15: DLG to clarify with councils the linkages between the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework and SMSC implementation and expenditure, including emphasising how catchment action plans may be considered through this process.

Recommendation 16: DLG with assistance from OEH to consider amending the guidelines to reinforce these linkages.

4.5 Comparison with councils not raising the stormwater management service charge

In 2007–08, 75 councils did not levy an SMSC. Of these, two councils were ineligible due to implementing a special variation primarily for stormwater management services. Five councils were ineligible (and one became ineligible from 2009–10 onwards) due to them levying a drainage charge. Overall, it appears that approximately 45% of councils are eligible to implement the SMSC but have chosen not to (at the time of this project).

Figure 3: Average annual stormwater expenditure per household

This project reviewed the stormwater expenditure of 20 councils that choose not to implement the SMSC. As can be seen in the graph above, the average annual spending per household of those councils not implementing the SMSC has increased by 35%. This increase is not as large as the increase by councils that are implementing the charge (an increase of 89%). Since this project was limited to a desktop review, there is a lack of data to explain why councils not implementing the charge are still increasing their stormwater spending. It is possibly due to growing community concern and awareness about the

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00

$45.00

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 Financial year

Ave

rage

exp

endi

ture

per

hou

seho

ld

Councils implementing SMSC

Councils not implementing SMSC


importance of stormwater management and council responsiveness to that concern. It is recommended that this be investigated and the source of the additional funds be identified.

Investigating the sources of these additional funds was outside the scope of this project but it is recommended they be investigated in the future.

Recommendation 17: DLG together with OEH to consider investigating why councils not implementing the SMSC are still increasing their stormwater spending and identify the source of these additional funds.

4.6 Considerations for future reviews Over time, more comprehensive data will become available, which could inform a future review. A range of recommendations have been suggested throughout this report that could be considered in more detail in future reviews.


5 Conclusions

The SMSC is working well and achieving its aim to of providing sustainable stormwater management funding in urban areas by giving councils the option to raise additional revenue for stormwater management.

There has been an increasing trend in on-the-ground capital works and increased maintenance of council stormwater assets since the introduction of the SMSC. Encouragingly, this project found that there have also been increases in stormwater spending by councils that did not raise the SMSC (although this increase is lower than for councils that are levying the SMSC). This may be due to council responsiveness to growing community awareness of and need for stormwater management. The reasons for this overall increased stormwater expenditure could be investigated in the future.

This project did not identify any significant breaches of the Local Government Act or Regulations related to the SMSC, although a few councils were not fully meeting their charging, funding, spending and reporting obligations under the Act, Regulations and guidelines. Most issues raised, however, are minor with simple remedies and clarifications recommended to ensure that larger problems do not arise in future.

The project identified the main issues with SMSC implementation to include incomplete or inadequate reporting and unbudgeted carryover of funds. Again, these issues can be addressed with guideline changes and by reminding councils of their obligations. While the performance of councils in these areas was variable, many councils fully met their obligations and delivered improved stormwater management services.

While this monitoring project identified some areas of SMSC implementation that can be improved, overall many councils, both large and small, have met the legislative requirements to implement the SMSC charge effectively, to greatly increase the revenue available for stormwater projects and maintenance as well as stormwater outcomes for the community.


6 Att achments

Attachment A: Clause 200A of Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 – repealed (1) For the purposes of the fifth dot point of section 403 (1) of the Act, any activity relating to

stormwater management services in respect of which the council proposes to levy an annual charge is prescribed as a matter with respect to which a draft management plan must contain a statement.

(2) The statement in a draft management plan of a council relating to any proposed activity referred to in subclause (1) must include the following:

(a) particulars of the stormwater management services that are to be funded by the annual charge,

(b) particulars of the stormwater management services that are to be funded from sources other than the annual charge,

(c) particulars of any stormwater management services that are to be funded from the annual charge and from other sources noting the proportion funded from other sources,

(d) particulars of the council’s proposed expenditure for the provision of stormwater management services.

(3) If a council proposes to levy an annual charge for stormwater management services on land for which a relevant charge has been, or is to be, levied to fund works or activities that have as their primary purpose the provision of storm water management services, the statement referred to in subclause (1) must also include:

(a) particulars of the activities to be funded by the relevant charge, and

(b) particulars of how those activities differ from those funded by the annual charge for stormwater management services, and

(c) particulars of the activities that are jointly funded by the relevant charge and the annual charge for stormwater management services, noting the proportion.

(4) If a council proposes to levy an annual charge for stormwater management services on land that is subject to a catchment action plan, the statement referred to in subclause (1) must indicate that the council has considered the plan when preparing the statement.

(5) In this clause:

catchment action plan has the same meaning as in the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003.

relevant charge means any of the following:

(a) a rate within the meaning of the Hunter Water Act 1991,

(b) a river management service charge, drainage service charge or flood mitigation service charge levied under section 310 to the Water Management Act 2000,

(c) a stormwater drainage area charge within the meaning of the Sydney Water Act 1994,

(d) a catchment contribution within the meaning of Schedule 4 to the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003.


Attachment B: Template for SMSC Statements in Operational Plans (or Management Plans) This template is provided to assist councils in preparing SMSC statements in operational plans (or management plans until councils are required to prepared an operational plan under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework). Councils may use or adapt this template to suit their individual needs. It is not a requirement to use this template.

Stormwater Management Services Charge (Section 496A) About the charge Under provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, a council may levy a stormwater management service charge (SMSC) against rateable properties for which the service is provided.

The average council expenditure on stormwater management services for the five years before implementing the SMSC was <$>.

The council proposes to spend an additional <$ (A)> this financial year (including carryover from previous years) to provide stormwater management services to its council area.

Properties exempted under the Act and Regulation from the SMSC include:

• non-rateable properties

• rateable land owned by the Crown

• rateable land under a lease for private purposes granted under the Housing Act 2001 or the Aboriginal Housing Act 1998

• vacant land.

The proportion of land in the local government area that is exempt from the SMSC is <%>. Stormwater management for this land will be funded from sources other than the SMSC. Therefore, <%> of <$ (A)> will be funded from other sources. The remaining <$> will be funded through the SMSC, as explained below.

The council is eligible under the Act to charge this SMSC as it does not impose a drainage levy or have a special variation to its rates primarily for stormwater management services.

The council has identified the residential and business properties that are within its urban stormwater catchment areas that the SMSC will be levied on for the <year> financial year.

Properties will be charged in the following manner:

Property type Charge

Residential <$ or explain method>

Residential strata units <$ or explain method>

Business <$ or explain method>

Business strata <$ or explain method>

Forecast income and available SMSC funds <year>

SMSC revenue carried over from previous financial years is <$>.

The SMSC revenue forecast for <year> financial year is <$>, comprised of:

<$> from <A> residential properties charged at <$W/property or in accordance with the preceding table >


<$> from <B> business properties charged at <$X/property or in accordance with the methodology in the preceding table >

<$> from <C> residential strata units charged at <$Y/unit or in accordance with methodology in the preceding table >

<$> from <D> business strata units charged at <$Z/unit or in accordance with methodology in the preceding table >.

The proposed stormwater management expenditure partly funded by SMSC expenditure is noted below:

All stormwater operational plan (or management plan) projects <year>

Stormwater operational plan project particulars

Funded from SMSC

Funded from other sources*

Total Performance indicator

Description Loca tion Completion date

$ $ $

<Project 1> $ $ $

<Project 2> $ $ $

Stormwater maintenance

$ $ $

Totals $ $ $

* includes grants, loans and general revenues

The council is budgeting to carryover <$> of stormwater management service charge revenue from the <year> financial year, resulting in a total budgeted carryover of <$>, which includes a carryover from the prior financial year. This carryover is for <purpose>. Relationship to relevant catchment action plans The council has considered <name of catchment action plan> prepared under the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 in preparing this statement.

The following stormwater management projects to be funded by the SMSC support this catchment action plan:

<project 1>

<project 2>.


Attachment C: Template for SMSC statements in annual reports This template is provided to assist councils in preparing SMSC statements in annual reports. Councils may use or adapt this template to suit their individual needs. It is not a requirement to use this template.

Stormwater Management Services Charge (Section 496A)

Statement in accordance with clause 217(1)(e) (Regulations 2005) Stormwater operational plan (or management plan) projects <year>

Budget Actual Variance Performance indicator

Stormwater operational

plan projects Funds from

SMSC Funded

from other sources*

Total costs

<Project 1> $ $ $ $ $

<Project 2> $ $ $ $ $

Stormwater maintenance

$ $ $ $ $

Total $ $ $ $ $

* includes loans, grants and general revenue

Explanation of variances <Project 1> <Reason>

<Project 2>

<Reason>

<Maintenance>

<Reason>

The total funds of <$> from the SMSC have been carried over to the <year> financial year.