Every year at budget time the spin doctors at Glen Eira trumpet how low their rates are in comparison to benchmark councils. We’re also informed as to how generous Glen Eira is in terms of Pensioner Rebates. Neat little graphs are included in the budget papers that purport to prove these claims. Sadly, the truth of the matter is that these tables do not represent reality. In short, the figures are manipulated, or simply, wrong. Whether this is deliberate, or another ‘clerical error’ we leave to the reader’s judgement.
The table below is an edited version of what appears on page 6 of the current draft budget – “Council Advertised Draft Budget 2001- 2012”. We’ve copied the relevant figures only.
|
Description |
Glen Eira |
Stonnington |
Port Phillip |
Bayside |
Kingston |
Monash |
Boroondara |
Yarra |
| Rate Increase 2011/12 |
6.5% |
5.10% | 7.44% | 6.4% | 6.69% | 7.4% | 6.00% |
4.9% |
| Council Pensioner Rebate |
$270 |
$193 | $290 | $193 | $273 | $243 | $193 |
$323 |
Our concern is that many of these figures are incorrect AND that when it comes to providing the figures for Glen Eira the TOTAL increase is only calculated on the rate increase and does not include the charges increase. Last year’s total rate increase would have been closer to 7.5% than the 6% ultimately voted on had garbage and other increases been included in the publicised figures. Yet, when presenting data from other councils, this appears to have been added into the total. We are thus comparing apples with oranges – to the advantage of Glen Eira of course!
Hence, we believe that these figures present a totally distorted version of reality. Here is our evidence, cited directly from some of these council’s publications for last year.
- Stonnington we’re told has a rate increase of 5.10%. Their budget however states: – “In the2011/2012 financial year the increase in general rate is 4.2 percent and garbage charges is 6.0 percent”
- Port Phillip – The Budget proposes an increase of 7.32% ($6.037 million) in rates revenue for the 2011/2012 year.This increase comprises two components, price (6.50%) which represents the increase in the rate in the dollar and volume (0.94%) which represents new properties or assessments that were created during 2010/2011. This has been partially reduced by the increase of $90K in the pensioner rate rebate of (0.12%)”.
- Bayside tells us: “The rates and charges increase of 5.9percent for the 2011/12….”
- Kingston’s media release says – “The Draft Budget proposes a modest 4.95% rate rise which is one of the lowest in Melbourne’s south eastern region. Residents will also be asked to pay a separate additional 1.09% for an increase in rubbish going to landfills and the State Government’s landfill levy. (http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/page/page.asp?page_Id=2894)
- Monash is more expansive – “To achieve the goals for maintenance and renewal of the City‟s infrastructure, as well as ensure the continued high levels of service delivery and response to external cost pressures, the SRP reflects a rate increase of 6% in 2011/12. In addition it is expected that $800K of supplementary rates from new developments will be collected. As some Statutory Fees set by other tiers of Government have not increased, or have increased by less than 3%, this has required Council to increase some fees and charges by greater than 4% to overcome the shortfall”.
- Boroondara’s figures are: “The rate rise of 5% is a reduction on last year’s 5.25% and below the average for other Victorian councils “ http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/news/council-adopts-budget-council-
But the story doesn’t end there. When we look at Council Pensioner Rebates, Glen Eira can’t even get these figures right. Here’s Port Phillip’s figures for an example – “Council offers a pensioner rate rebate of $136.00 in addition to the current State Government rebate of $193.40.” That’s $329.40 and not the $290 claimed by Glen Eira.
CONCLUSION
Council is obviously free to manipulate figures any way it likes. However, it is surely incumbent upon them to ensure that comparisons are made on a ‘level playing field’ so that residents receive an accurate picture of the state of affairs. Whether these examples indicate a deliberate attempt to distort the truth, or reveal again simple incompetence, is for readers to judge.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Thank you blog owners for showing up the rubbish that they think they can get away with. I’m sick to death of paying more and more each year with no real justification and the reduction in services everywhere. Staff numbers keep going through the roof and I bet that’s what we’re paying for. Definnitely not service improvement.
May 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Trick will be to see if any councillor has the balls to raise this issue. If Penhalluriack says anything then Newton and the gang will only accuse him of bullying. Can’t wait to see what the rest of them are made of.
May 16, 2012 at 4:50 PM
Looking through the council plan’s action items there’s one terrific goal – to provide “accurate” information. What a disgrace that this even features as part of an objective. You would have thought that every single bit that goes out to the public is 100% correct. If it isn’t then there’s something terribly wrong with this administration and councillors for not picking these fabrications up.
May 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM
I read that City of Melbourne has had a ZERO rate rise. With inflation at less than 1 percent, surely that’s not unexpected. Problem is they let the MRC off with subsidized rates (and even pay half the new fence bill when and if the racecourse agreement is ever honored) and Monash pays none at all. Time for this inequity to change.
May 16, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Pity this council isn’t a private enterprise. Then they’d be up for false advertising.
May 16, 2012 at 9:49 PM
Last year’s budget figures are literally old hat. That means they have been fully available for over a year. Yet, our 1000 staff workforce still manage to get them wrong in comparison to a group of residents doing some homework. Either those responsible aren’t doing their work properly, or a more plausible explanation I feel, is that the public is being sold another set of very dubious propositions that are designed to flatter a floundering and incompetent council.
May 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM
I trust the Accounting Standards applicable to all Councils and subject to the same Independant External Audit conducted by the Victorian Auditor General.Evans for your information a large number of staff are part time and the increase is this years Labour costs is largely due to a Councillor decision to build GESAC.Glen Eira you deliberately didn’t tell us the Average Rate per Property.Why not?
May 17, 2012 at 10:58 AM
The argument here isn’t about accounting standards whatsoever. It relates to inaccurate figures – either by design for mishap. Your suggestion that staff increases are due to gesac also doesn’t hold up when you consider the continued and dramatic increase in staff numbers since this administration came to power. Finally, average rate per property is a useless comparison. What’s far more telling is a comparison of the overall rate increases per year and again Glen Eira is streaks ahead of neighbouring councils.
May 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Evans you are not a real person because no one could possibly be that stupid.Please everyone disregard Evans because she/he makes no sense.A complete fool.If you own a $1m property in Glen Eira, and the same in neighbouring Councils and the Rates paid in Glen Eira is less than most of the others than according to Evans this is useless information.The only useless matter here is Evans.
(MODERATORS COMMENT: We have decided not to edit/delete any part of this material since:
(1) We believe that Mr Evans is quite capable of answering for himself
(2) The comments as they stand reflect more on the person making the comments than the target of the comments.
May 17, 2012 at 9:39 PM
Accountant got angry and is very sorry for crossing the line. HUMBLE APOLOGIES