Rate increase of 6.5% for 2012/13 and again NEXT YEAR
- Rate increases for the past 8 years are:
2004/5 – 4%
2005/6 – 4.1%
2006/7 – 4%
2007/8 – 6.5%
2008/9 – 6.5%
2009/10 – 6.5%
2010/11 – 6.5%
2011/12 – 6.00%
2012/13 – 6.5%
TOTAL – 50.6% INCREASE IN 8 YEARS!
INCREASED CHARGES
- 240 litre bin charge up $50
- 120 litre bin charge up $20
- 240 litre family bin up $32
- Childcare for 3-5 year olds, up $10 per day
We will comment in greater detail once we’ve had time to fully digest these documents.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM
The scheming for Carnegie pool is becoming a lot clearer. Two years ago maintenance was $250,000. Last year it got $205,000 and in this year’s budget that money has dropped down to $150,000. I would have thought that when a pool is getting older and older that the maintenance cost would go up and not down by nearly a half. Sounds like this is the way of all things in Glen Eira that Newton wants to get rid of. Let it run down and then argue that it would cost to much to upkeep or maintain.
May 4, 2012 at 1:48 PM
It would be good to blame the council entirely but Im sure their grants have been cut. We could have had a situation where mining companies were actually forced to pay there fair share. However a successful campaign by them has watered down the tax. The end result is our crumbling infrastructure will never get the money it requires. Look at the state of schools, etc. Also remember we have to pay for our share of the new fence on Caulfield Racecourse.
May 4, 2012 at 2:49 PM
mrc, I agree with you on the mining company front, race course front etc however, GE is not proactive in seeking grants. History illustrates that they are not even prepared to match funds. This arrogance is even harder to take when you see our hip pockets, as residents, impacted in the ways illustrated above.
May 4, 2012 at 8:46 PM
MRC Fan Club, not sure what you mean by paying for share of Caulfield Racecourse fence. The agreement signed by Robertson (CEO of MRC) and Symons (Chair of MRC) and Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Pilling (GE Council) stated that the The MRC will create fund and maintain…all facilities will be established by the MRC by 27 April 2012…including fencing on the corner of Queens Avenue and Neerim Road, northern section of Queens Avenue, adjacent to main entrance and perimeter of the new park”.
Sounds clear to me that it is NOT a Council expense. Glen Eira, I cannot understand the confusion, can you?
May 5, 2012 at 11:16 AM
hi it says in the agreement council will play half. I was shocked
May 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM
More favours to the MRC when residents get nothing in return. Something about the relationship between the Council Administration and the MRC at the moment smells very fishy (or maybe its just the horse shit).
May 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM
It doesn’t change the general thrust of the post, but the above data represents an increase of 63.5% over 9 years rather than 50.6% over 8 years. In that same time the Melbourne CPI has increased 25.4%. The increase in Rates is related to the increase in density, and represents part of the substantial subsidy we provide to the Development industry. Melbourne 2030 talked about making more efficient use of existing infrastructure, but back on Planet Earth, infrastructure has to be upgraded and expanded at a rate that outstrips economic growth to support the increase in density.
May 4, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Open space is a joke when Booran Road is put off for another 5 years.
May 4, 2012 at 5:31 PM
Retrobate has hit the name on the head. We are subsidising developers both here (as GE residents) and in the growth areas (as Victorian residents- we pay for all infrastructre in the growth areas) whilst the developers reap the rewards!
When will Developer Contributions reflect the real cost of developments in our communities?
May 4, 2012 at 7:26 PM
Swabey’s worth his weight in gold. 230+ pages of spin, sugar coated bullshit and heaps and heaps of “creative accounting”. All up to Glen Eira’s normal standards.
May 4, 2012 at 8:15 PM
CPI for March was 0.1% Blaming such a rate increase on having to pay for half of sections of the Caulfield racecourse fence does not make sense. Anyway why shouldn’t the MRC pay for the full cost of the fence. If you or I had to replace the front fence of our house, would Council agree to pay half just because half fronted the footpath? Not blooming likely!
May 4, 2012 at 9:07 PM
Sorry last comment – should have made them all in the one post. Just had a look at the City of Melbourne website. The increases the last 3 years have been around 1% pa. How can Glen Eira justify 6%+ pa? Are we incompetent or just lazy?
May 4, 2012 at 10:41 PM
If you think those rate increases are of concern wait until the costs of the monument to wastefulness kick-in. Thanks Newton, Magee, Lipshutz.
May 5, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Anyone calculated the increase in Councillors pay together with the fact that it is mandated that super be paid by the rate payers. Have they increased their productivity. I doubt it. Cr Lobo should refund some of his allowance. He missed a few weeks. They probaly will give gthe Councillors a free pass to GESAC. after all their hard work to get it opened.
May 6, 2012 at 12:42 PM
I’m not against Rate increases per se. However I do expect Council to manage its financial resources wisely, to adopt and embrace seriously the Best Value Principles, and be much more accountable and open than it is. As the recent AG report discusses, Councils generally are struggling with their implementations of BVP, and Glen Eira’s annual BVP reports typify the problem. This was also the subject of a Post here in December 2011.
The MAV produces annually a Local Government Cost Index [LGCI] and discusses in it reasons why LGCI varies from CPI. These include the growth in service volumes, expansion in responsibilities, and changes in service standards or quality. It also notes that LGCI correlates strongly with Average Weekly Earnings (AWE), the implication being that Council costs are dominated by salaries and wages.
There is a huge disconnect between what our Council does, and the BVP coverage of those activities. It also tends to undermine the usefulness of the Council/Community Plan and documents derived from it, such as the Strategic Resource Plan and Budget. I don’t think the current Administration is up to it, but just maybe, if more effort was put into embracing BVP, there’d be a stronger link between our Rates and the things we value.