Annual Business Plan & Budget Response 2025-26

Council Budget Consultation Meeting 26 May 2025

Good evening Mayor Bria and Councillors.

I am here in the capacity of Vice-President of the St Peters Residents Association, as President Mathew Pole has other commitments.

I would like to say a few words then move onto some questions.

The St Peters Residents Association has, in recent years, repeatedly expressed strong concerns at the financial position of the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters, particularly in relation to decisions made regarding the Payneham Memorial Swimming Centre.

These concerns have mostly been the result of Council's decision in late 2023 to continue with the redevelopment of the Payneham Pool.

At that time Council had the opportunity to defer, change the scope of or to abandon the project.
Instead, it chose to proceed at triple the original estimated cost.

Council had fallen into the “sunk cost trap”

What is the sunk cost trap?

The sunk cost trap is defined as the tendency to continue with something we’ve invested money, effort, or time into — even if the current costs outweigh the benefits. When we fall prey to the sunk cost trap, we make irrational decisions that are against our best interest — essentially digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole.

So here we are now facing an 8½% overall rate revenue increase, and worse, a 9.5% increase for residential properties.

The ratepayers are having to pay the cost.
Perhaps we should be offered free entry into the swimming centre once completed.

Following the decision to proceed with the pool, Council's Long Term Financial Plan forecast an 8% rate revenue increase for this coming year, with similar increases in following years, to meet interest and principal repayment costs on the borrowings.

The first draft of the budget was based on this 8% and showed a modest surplus.
However, at the Council meeting earlier this month, an increase of 8.5% was decided upon.

This is significantly above the 3% CPI the budget is based on, and well above all other metropolitan Adelaide Councils.

Questions.

1. Why did Council ignore the Long Term Financial Plan and decide upon an 8½% rate revenue increase?
2. At the Council Meeting on 20th January 2025, the possibility of increasing the pool income by the addition of a gymnasium was reported, and that this would be presented as a part of the budget process.
   What is the status of the proposal to add a gymnasium to the pool complex?
   How would it be funded, without further affecting the budget.
3. The Draft Annual Business Plan & Budget includes an additional expenditure of $390,000 for the promotion and preopening of the Payneham Memorial Swimming Centre.
   This sum for promotion etc seems extraordinary in the light of the financial pressures facing Council.
   Why were these costs not accounted for in the original budget for the pool?
   Is this money required to cover an anticipated income shortfall or cost blow out?
4. We note that last year the Residential and the Commercial Rate increases were similar. This year the Commercial Rate increase is less than one percent, while the residential rate is plus 9.5%.
   What is the reason for this?
   Can a differential rate be applied to commercial properties?