- Council Rate Rises are Exorbitant.
Did you know that the council rate increase over the last 10 years is one of the highest of any product you can buy or service you use? Council rate rises are unsustainable. In the last 10 years the Mornington Peninsula Shire’s rates have increased 130%. This is an increase of more than 30% of the average increase of councils across Melbourne which, on its own at 100%, is preposterous. The rate increase is more than:
- four times the cost of living (CPI) in the same period;
- three to four times the cost of wage increases and rises in pensions, and
- three times the Municipal Association of Victoria’s estimate of actual increase in costs incurred in operating a council. (We ask where is this extra money going?)
We have consistently fought the annual rise in Shire’s rates with limited success. Read more on rate increases and our submissions:See below for further details:
MORNINGTON PENINSULA RATEPAYERS’ AND RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION INC.
9 June 2014
Mr Geoff Emberson
Manager – Finance
Mornington Peninsula Shire
Private Bag 1000
Rosebud VIC 3939
[email protected]
Dear Geoff
Submission to the 2014-15, 223 Budget Hearing
Following is the Mornington Peninsula Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association submission to the 2014-15, 223 Budget Hearing:
1. Rate increase.
We remind the Council that the proposed rate increase of 5.9% is inconsistent with the Strategic Plan 2013-17 submitted to the Minister for Local Government which provided for a rate increase of 5%. It is also inconsistent with the financial assumption of a rate increase of only 5.0% in the Director Sustainable Organisation’s report to Council only 9 December 9, 2013 on which the Council made its decision to proceed with the Southern Peninsula Aquatic Centre.
The increase in rates from 5.0% to 5.9% places an increased burden on the lower socio-economic group which is at odds with the argument put forward by Cr Gibbs that a pool is needed in Rosebud to provide benefit to the local community because West Rosebud is a low socio-economic area.
Fortunately the Council overturned the CEO’s recommendation that the Municipal Charge be increased by $20 from $180 to $200 per annum however we are disappointed that the “shortfall” will be offset by borrowings. Again this is inconsistent with Ms Kearney’s assumption on the 9 December 2013.
In summary we are disappointed that once again the Shire’s budgeting appears to be incompetent. Consistently over the last 10 years (except when the Strategic Plan and Budget coincide) and as late as 6 months ago the Shire’s look-a-head budgeting has been (purposely?) underestimated.
2. Property revaluations.
It is unclear to our Association how Councillors can give proper consideration to a rate rise when the impact in their Ward/townships is not known. The proposed average rate increase across the Shire is 5.9% however this is meaningless to ratepayers because being a property revaluation year the actual rates paid by individual ratepayers will depend on the changes in the value of their property.
The last time a revaluation occurred in 2012/13. The claim was that the average rate rise was “a modest 4.45%” however the actual rates varied from a reduction of a few per cent in Tuerong to over 20% in Tootgarook.
3. The losses of the Pelican Park Leisure Centre.
For a number of years the Ratepayers’ Association and its members have indicated concern with the losses of the aquatic-leisure section of the Pelican Park. Despite repeated requests the shire has refused to investigate the possibility of appointing a professional manager to operate the Centre. Excuses given are woeful and totally opposite to those claimed by other sections of the shire who maintain the council is a leader in outsourcing services.
When the Pelican Park was proposed and the council made the decision to proceed the consultants indicated that it “could possibly break even”. The graph below produced by the Association shows that the aquatic-leisure centre will have cumulative losses of approximately $8 million over 10 years.
We also note that aquatic-leisure section’s losses are heading north while SGL. the Sire's expert consultants, predicts SPA will head south. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out there is an inconsistency between the two and something is drastically wrong with either the prediction for SPA or the management of Pelican Park
Alan Nelsen
President, MPRRA
9 June 2014
Mr Geoff Emberson
Manager – Finance
Mornington Peninsula Shire
Private Bag 1000
Rosebud VIC 3939
[email protected]
Dear Geoff
Submission to the 2014-15, 223 Budget Hearing
Following is the Mornington Peninsula Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association submission to the 2014-15, 223 Budget Hearing:
1. Rate increase.
We remind the Council that the proposed rate increase of 5.9% is inconsistent with the Strategic Plan 2013-17 submitted to the Minister for Local Government which provided for a rate increase of 5%. It is also inconsistent with the financial assumption of a rate increase of only 5.0% in the Director Sustainable Organisation’s report to Council only 9 December 9, 2013 on which the Council made its decision to proceed with the Southern Peninsula Aquatic Centre.
The increase in rates from 5.0% to 5.9% places an increased burden on the lower socio-economic group which is at odds with the argument put forward by Cr Gibbs that a pool is needed in Rosebud to provide benefit to the local community because West Rosebud is a low socio-economic area.
Fortunately the Council overturned the CEO’s recommendation that the Municipal Charge be increased by $20 from $180 to $200 per annum however we are disappointed that the “shortfall” will be offset by borrowings. Again this is inconsistent with Ms Kearney’s assumption on the 9 December 2013.
In summary we are disappointed that once again the Shire’s budgeting appears to be incompetent. Consistently over the last 10 years (except when the Strategic Plan and Budget coincide) and as late as 6 months ago the Shire’s look-a-head budgeting has been (purposely?) underestimated.
2. Property revaluations.
It is unclear to our Association how Councillors can give proper consideration to a rate rise when the impact in their Ward/townships is not known. The proposed average rate increase across the Shire is 5.9% however this is meaningless to ratepayers because being a property revaluation year the actual rates paid by individual ratepayers will depend on the changes in the value of their property.
The last time a revaluation occurred in 2012/13. The claim was that the average rate rise was “a modest 4.45%” however the actual rates varied from a reduction of a few per cent in Tuerong to over 20% in Tootgarook.
3. The losses of the Pelican Park Leisure Centre.
For a number of years the Ratepayers’ Association and its members have indicated concern with the losses of the aquatic-leisure section of the Pelican Park. Despite repeated requests the shire has refused to investigate the possibility of appointing a professional manager to operate the Centre. Excuses given are woeful and totally opposite to those claimed by other sections of the shire who maintain the council is a leader in outsourcing services.
When the Pelican Park was proposed and the council made the decision to proceed the consultants indicated that it “could possibly break even”. The graph below produced by the Association shows that the aquatic-leisure centre will have cumulative losses of approximately $8 million over 10 years.
We also note that aquatic-leisure section’s losses are heading north while SGL. the Sire's expert consultants, predicts SPA will head south. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out there is an inconsistency between the two and something is drastically wrong with either the prediction for SPA or the management of Pelican Park
Alan Nelsen
President, MPRRA
|
|
|
