Glen Eira always pats itself on the back as being a ‘low cost council’. Repeated rates and charges increases would, we suspect, make many ratepayers doubt this assertion. It’s also questionable whether all those neat little graphs presented in the budget papers actually reveal the full story. It would be far more telling if rate increases were to go back a decade and actually include the highest rate increase in the state instituted by Newton in the early 2000s. But of course, the only comparisons made, are from 2004 onwards! Yet, even here, a different picture emerges. Below is a table of announcements from various benchmarking councils as to their proposed rate increase. Kingston has not as yet announced its intended charges.
|
COUNCIL |
RATE |
|
Glen Eira |
6.95% (NOW 6.5%) |
|
Port Phillip |
6.5% |
|
Bayside |
5.9% |
|
Stonnington |
4.5% |
|
Yarra City |
4.9% |
| Boroondara |
5.25% |
| Monash |
6.00% |
The budget also tells us that the objective is to “Maintain essential services at not less than current levels and charges” and that “Existing fees and charges to be increased in line with CPI or market levels”. We wonder whether ‘market levels’ consider a 20+% increase as justifiable in the case of waste disposal for instance and over 30% for child care fees?
Here are the proposed hikes:
Waste Management
“the percentage change in unit charge for each type of charge to be levied compared to that of the previous financial year;
Residential 240 litre bin – 19.23% Increase
Residential 120 litre bin – 20.83% Increase
Flats sharing 240 litre bin – 20.83% Increase
Family 240 litre bin – 8.10% Increase
Commercial/Industrial Properties – 8.70% Increase
Green Waste Residential -100% Decrease (A Decrease?!!!! Surely not, when residents will now be slugged a once off fee of $55)
Green Waste Commercial – 17.78% Increase
Commercial Recycling – 12.50% Increase
Additional Recycling – 12.50% Increase”
Child Care
“Child Care fees are proposed to increase as follows:
- • For 0–3 year olds from $85 to $91 per day (from 1 July to 31 December 2011)
- • For 0–3 year olds from $91 to $116 per day (from 1 January to 30 June 2012)
- • For 3–5 year olds from $79 to $85 per day.
This equates to a $31 increase PER DAY in the space of 6 months. So much for the promise to keep to CPIs and ‘market value’!!!!! Ratepayers need to question these increases, analyse proposed staff increases, and to voice their concerns as to the inequality of funds distribution across all areas outside of sport. Readers should also keep in mind that Glen Eira has more senior executives earning at last count over $230,000 pa, than any of its surrounding/benchmarking councils. The ‘fat cat’ syndrome is alive and well in Glen Eira!
Glen Eira Debates 
May 16, 2011 at 3:04 PM
All I know is that every year I’m paying more for exactly the same service which hasn’t improved over time. Rubbish is strewn over all the street every week, bin wheels keep falling off and so on. I don’t have kinda worries or childcare, but I know my sons do. To increase the costs to this level is totally beyond the pale. No family should be asked to find another 150 dollars per week simply because a bunch of pen pushers think they are easy targets.
The best solution to finding funding is to cut back on useless expenses that we’re never told about and certainly don’t fulfill their functions. I can’t believe that 95000 will be spent on software for gesac. What’s wrong with a simple access database or myob? Then there’s the 50 staff. No idea what they’re going to do and I would have thought that anyone who comes into the gesac centre would have to supply their own staff. The whole thing is cloaked in secrecy and mystery and I’m fed up with continually putting my hand deeper into my pockets to pay for useless facilities and incompetent bean counters.
May 16, 2011 at 8:24 PM
Sneaky little budget this one, as have been all the rest. There’s no informtion about how much is spent on consultants and outsourcing to contractors, nor where this money is referenced. Does it come under ‘capital works’, ‘staff expenses’ or anything else you’d like to conjure up. We’ve got a 1000 staff, and who knows how many more of these highly expensive consultants, not to mention official note-takers thanks to Esakoff and her gang. How much is all this costing and where does one find the figures that would tell us? There’s also contractors that are buried in all this. Of course there no data either on how many people are employed in each section so that ratepayers can actually get a handle on whether areas are overstaffed according to their output. For example I’d love to know how many people are involved in publications and how many involved in governance. Smoke and mirrors as glenEira said for sure. The result is no accountability and no way that the public can accurately evaluate performance. That’s the objective and it’s worked very well thus far.
May 17, 2011 at 9:35 AM
Glen Eira explain this for me.One of my best friends lives just off Brighton Rd in the City of Port Phillip. My property and his are of similar value according to Council valuation. His rates are over $3000-00 and mine are $1800-00.
May 17, 2011 at 3:26 PM
Wouldn’t it all be about “location, location, location”, the residential market value (not council’s evaluation) and not the rate?
May 17, 2011 at 6:04 PM
Nothing to do with location, mate. It is simply good prudent financial management. Port Phillip has about 85,000. Glen Eira has about 130,000. That about 50% more people. They collect $6 mill. more than Glen Eira from their ratepayers. They are slugging their ratepayers for plenty of things that are not really their responsibility. Be glad that you don’t live in Port Phillip forking out for people to contrive Social Justice policies or financing Mardi Gras. If i drive from Glen Eira into Port Phillip I don’t notice alot of difference.
May 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM
While you are answering the last blog could you also explain why you have overlooked Council being awarded the Risk Manangement Award by the firm that insures 77 (of 79) Victorian Council’s. Council Agenda also tells us that this Area is the responsibility of Corporate Council and that Council’s ranking affects the cost of Insurance. Congratulations should flow to our CEO, Corporate Council and the staff involved. The Award must have really hurt you Glen Eira.
May 17, 2011 at 1:04 PM
The award was to an individual, not a whole sector. This bloke could be a marvel – doesn’t mean they all are! Then there’s the real possibility that these awards are nothing more than ‘in house’ applicable only for members – ie those who pay registration fees. Hardly a huge plaudit, or a huge sample, don’t you think? Then of course we have to deal with tactics and how some people might be headed off at the pass to avert any claims. With no claims then higher ranking. it’s really very easy. Just keep making things as difficult as you can and you’ll put most people off. Then there’s the 1.5 or so million for corporate counsel. Bet they really earn their bucks in this area!
May 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM
budgets, and therefore rates, are all about spending. How much a council decides to spend on what. If you have an extravagant, and many would argue, profligate council like Glen Eira, then you need heaps and heaps of money to account for that spending. The GESAC investment is a perfect case in point, as is the decision to spend another 7 million on a grandstand and pavilion.
What has never been made public, except in ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims, is the profit that will come in from such projects. I find it impossible to believe that GESAC will be operating in the black after you deduct interest and principal repayments for probably decades to come. The same goes for the pavilion. If council is so sure of its estimates, then they should put people’s minds at ease by simply puplishing their data and their own analyses. I’ve seen nothing that would support the notion that we are dealing with real figures and realistic prognositcations as to eventual profit. Instead, ratepayers money is being spent on unfounded pie in the sky visions that will haunt ratepayers for years and years.