GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 31, 2012

Do We Really Need All These ‘Fat Cats’?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Staff numbers at Glen Eira continue to rise and rise. We’ve reported several times already on the number of ‘fat cats’ sitting on well over $230,000 per annum in contrast to other councils. But the scenario is even worse when we include ‘contractor’ costs. The promise made years ago was that Council would try to minimise its reliance on contractors. So much for promises! Below is a table detailing employee and contractor costs for the last 7 budgets as well as staff increases from 2008 onwards. Contractors we believe ARE NOT included in these staff figures.

 

2006/7

 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

2012/13

Salary

 37,960 41,066 43,277 44,073 47,838 51,841

56,277

Contractors

 16,339 16,063 16,803 17,646 20,532 22,471

25,183

Staff   (EFT)

 ? ? 623 630 654 715

736

 

 

May 29, 2012

Rates & Charges Up, Services Down!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Submissions for the Budget, Community Plan, and Strategic Resource Plan close in about a week. The continual spin is that Glen Eira is a low cost and well performing council. Our take on all this is that whilst rates and charges keep climbing, services have been downgraded, cut, and certainly have not kept up with demand or resident expectations. We maintain that the basics are being ignored in order to pay for such extravagances as GESAC, and now the Duncan Mckinnon pavilion/grandstand as well as another $700,000+ for Marlborough Reserve. Instead of ensuring that funding goes to the essentials, such as drains, roads, parking, footpaths, open space acquisitions and other themes highlighted by the community, we instead have profligacy and interest repayments that will continue to burden ratepayers for years to come. Residents have every right therefore to question the decision making capacity and priorities of this council.

Our ‘evidence’ as to the downgrading of essential services comes straight from the horse’s mouth – previous budgets and council plans. Residents should also note that instead of specific and quantifiable measures that appeared in previous plans, the ‘measures’ for the 2012/13 version are mere waffle. Nothing is quantifiable. It’s also questionable why, when budgets are set the target is to spend only 90% of the allocated funds! Either the money is available or it isn’t! If the latter then it would certainly be far more honest to state that instead of the claimed $3.8 million designated for roads, that council will really be spending only $3.42 million.

Below is a table comparing the published expenditure over the past 6 years. What needs to be kept in mind is that costs have risen so what $3 million could have ‘bought’ in 2007 is certainly not what $3 million will ‘buy’ today!

 

  2007 2009 2012
DRAINS “Reduce   flooding in Glen Eira by improving the Council drainage network – incidence   of flooding reduced – 1000 tonnes of sediment diverted ($3.3 million)” Renew and   upgrade Council’s drainage system to provide greater capacity – Implement   council’s drainage program – Expend $3   million on council’s drainage

Effectively   monitor and maintain the City’s stormwater network to minimise the   contaminants entering our waterways – Keep drains clear of sediment and   debris – 30km of drains cleaned.

 

 Maintain   renew and upgrade Council’s drainage system to reduce the risk of flood   damage – Implement council’s Drainage improvement and Flood Mitigation Sub   Programs – Expend $3.5 M on   Douncil’s Drainage improvemnt nd Flood Mitigation Sub-Programs

 

 
ROADS Local road   reconstructions $4 million Maintain a   program of road renewals and replacement at a standard that allows for long   term safety and sustainability – Implement   $4 million capital program for road reconstruction – Road program   implemented and approximately 5 km of road reconstructed.

 

 Implement   Council Road reconstruction Sub-program – Expend 90% of the budgeted capital works program for  road reconstruction. ($3.8 MILLION)
FOOTPATHS Improve   the quality of footpaths – 27km of   footpaths replaced

 

 Replace at   least 25km of footpath each year –   Implement $2M footpath upgrade   capital program at various locations around the City – 25km of new footpath   installed. Implement $1.7M footpath upgrade …at   various locations around the City – Expend   90% of the budgeted capital works program for footpath installation.

 
HOME CARE   4956 hours of property   maintenance  provided to eligible   residents  4,500   hours of Property Maintenance.
CUSTOMER   SERVICE   Customer   Service Centre to resolve 80% of calls at first point of contact and with an   average call waiting time of 10   seconds or less

 

 80% of   calls resolved at first point of contact

Average   call waiting time of 18 seconds or   less achieved for all calls

 
FOOD   INSPECTIONS   800 food   businesses inspected

 

 Conduct 800 food safety assessments of   registered food business

(and this after Lipshutz at last council   meeting tells us that food outlets have increased dramatically)

 
 

May 28, 2012

Newton v Penhalluriack: #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments 

The following is from the in camera Council minutes of 20th September, 2011. We have two simple questions for residents to mull over:

  • Is this nonsense worth $65,000 and rising?
  • Who are the real bullies?

“At the Council meeting of 30 August Council resolved

That Council:

Following consideration of the responses provided by the CEO and Cr. Penhalluriack in relation to the O’Neill report

1.

(a)      Resolves that Cr Penhalluriack puts all questions to the CEO and/or Officers in writing and submits them to the Mayor except where questions arise during the course of a meeting.

(b)      Directs Cr Penhalluriack not to make any accusations to the CEO and/or Officers unless he has supporting evidence (which must be produced at the time of making the accusations)

(c)       Urges the Chair to strictly enforce point of order at Council meetings concerning accusations made by any Councillor without any supporting evidence

(d)      Encourages all Councillors to take responsibility for the occupational health and safety of the CEO and/or Officers by taking steps to prevent bullying by acting on any incidents that they may witness and making points of order when accusations without evidence are made.

(e)       Requires Cr Penhalluriack to undergo training on bullying and the appropriate way to phrase questions at meetings and authorises the Mayor to ppoint an appropriate expert to carry out such training to a maximum expenditure of $2,500 (our emphasis)

(f)       Offers the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack Employee Assistance Support

2. Notes Tracey O’Neill’s recommendation to refer Cr Penhalluriack to a Councillor conduct panel and reserves the right to implement this recommendation should the above recommendations not be effective.

3. Appoints an independent arbiter, nominated by the MAV, to rule on issues relating to workplace safety identified in the O’Neill report and to ensure that recommendations are implemented and maintained to ensure a safe effective and productive workplace.

4. Strongly urges Cr Penhalluriack to exclude himself from all discussion in relation to the CEO contract and should he fail to do so, consider the formation of a special committee for CEO contract matters.

5. Notifies Cr Penhalluriack and the CEO of this resolution.

Issues

  1.  Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour subsequent to Council resolution 30 August 

Subsequent to the Council meeting of 30 August a number of OH&S incidents have occurred these include

  • 7 September 2011 – Cr Penhalluriack requested Council Officer (CEO) to supply him with Council Minutes and architectural drawings for Duncan Mackinnon pavilion contrary to the above resolution and also while having a certificate declaring himn unfit for any duties.
  • 7 September 2011 – Incident report 00553 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack attempted to direct officers to supply him with a Victoria Police report, an arborist report and photographs regarding a tree vandalism incident.
  • 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03554 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack emailed a Council Officer again requesting Council minutes
  • 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03555 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack approached a Council Officer requesting information making the Officer feel under pressure to comply
  • 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03556 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack directed a Council Officer to copy the minutes from the 30 August Council meeting after being refused he then went through the Officer’s desk and read the minutes, which had yet to be distributed, taking hand written notes.
  • 8 September 2011 – (CEO statement) Cr Penhalluriack attended the Citizenship Ceremony from 8.00pm until 8.50pm where he engaged other Councillors in conversation regarding the Caulfield Park Pavilion and amendment C60. Cr Penhalluraick (sic) then went to the City Management area and read the confidential minutes from the last Council meeting at an Officer’s desk. He was seen to still be there at 9.30pm reading through the confidential minutes. (our emphasis)
  • 12 September 2011 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack attempted conversation with Council Officers (CEO) (our emphasis)
  • 12 September 2011 – Incident report 03557 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack questioned a Council Officer about Council documents leaving the Officer shaken and distressed

Also in discussion with an Officer from OccCorp in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack’s potential WorkCover claim OccCorp advised that Cr Penhalluriack stated that “The CEO term finishes in April so that it will all be over by then.”

 

May 27, 2012

Prudent Financial Management? – Duncan McKinnon

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

The saga of the Duncan McKinnon grandstand and pavilion ‘redevelopment’ continues. Council minutes now reveal that the tender has finally been awarded and that the contract price is $9,744,651.52.  

We’re astounded at the apparent inflation rate. All along residents have been sold different versions of what this will cost. The 2011/12 budget stated –“$5.5m for Duncan Mackinnon in 2011-2012 and $1.8m in 2012- 2013”. This year’s budget tells us : “Duncan Mackinnon – $1.09m for Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion construction in 2012-2013 (plus carry forward from 2011-12)”. As for total costs, these are anybody’s guess – something that is surely reminiscent of the increasing costs associated with GESAC. Public pronouncements started off at about $7 million. Then in June last year, the price was announced as being $8.8 million. Now it’s just under ten million and this doesn’t include ‘design’, road restructuring, car park extensions, and so on.

Questions:

  • How can there be a million dollar jump in the space of less than one year?
  • How can there be a several million dollar jump in cost in the space of 2 years?
  • Have residents and councillors been told furphies as to cost all the way along?
  • Where’s the extra money coming from since council can’t borrow anymore?
  • How much has already been spent on ‘design’?
  • Has the delay and subsequent price increase been the direct result of financial blowouts over GESAC? Are we heading down the same path with Duncan McKinnon?
  • Are other services being cut in order to fund Duncan McKinnon?
 

May 24, 2012

Sloppy, Shoddy & Unforgiveable

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

Budget papers are supposed to be an accurate representation of a council’s financial status, its assets, and forward planning. Budgets are also submitted to Ministers, the public, and Auditor Generals. We imagine that they would go through countless hands before they are made public; that they would be checked and double checked for accuracy and consistency. How the following then occurs is simply incomprehensible. This is only one example of what we consider to be totally unprofessional and sloppy performance.

We have followed through on 3 separate budgets at basically two year intervals – 2007, 2009 and the current 2012 budget. The focus is on the stated number of DRAINAGE PITS.

In 2007 it is stated that Council has 16,000 drainage pits (Minutes of May 15th 2007, page 5 of the budget)

In 2009 we’re told that Council has 17,000 drainage pits (Minutes of May 12th, 2009 – page 17 of the budget)

Perhaps there has been a magical increase of 1,000 in 2 years. However, the piece de resistance comes in this year’s budget.

On Page 32 of the Community Plan Glen Eira suddenly possesses 22,000 drainage pits! Amazing! Then on page 32 of the budget we suddenly are back to 16,000 drainage pits!!!!!!!! Which is it? Does this administration even know? Or are figures simply plucked from the air and any number will do? Who checked these papers? Who is responsible for the inconsistencies and spin?

PS: Some more very questionable figures –

2007 – 5,953 registered business providing 32,750 jobs

2009 –13,521 registered businesses providing 29,000 jobs

2012 –13,521 registered businesses providing  29,000 jobs

2007 – 57,7007 rateable properties

2009 – 58,609 rateable properties

 

 

May 20, 2012

GESAC: How Open & Transparent?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

We’re not accountants. We’re just ordinary citizens looking for answers and wondering why so much secrecy surrounds the financial dealings and details of GESAC. The latest items to raise eyebrows stem from the budget and the lack of detail as to rates and charges.

The Regulations (2004) define the mandatory ‘standard statement of cash flows’ as ‘a statement which shows all cash inflows and cash outflows from all activities of a Council during a financial year’. GESAC is now open. Charges for everything should certainly be known, and known in advance, if an adequate Business Plan exists. Yet GESAC does not feature in the ‘rates and charges’ section of the draft budget. Carnegie Swim Centre does, as does every other ‘service’ – even to the extent of booking rotundas and open space. GESAC, the largest financial unit,  is certainly conspicuous by its absence.

The ‘get out of jail card’ appears to be this vague and repeated paragraph:

“The 2012-2013 budget reflects user fees for GESAC of $6.9m. GESAC will provide a range of facilities and services including some never offered before and some which are subject to market forces. Some experience will be required in order to set charges for some of these facilities and services and adjust them from time to time. Separate arrangements will be established under which the Centre Manager will be able to manage charges within the Budget determined by Council”

This is surely an astounding statement for several reasons:

  • It flies in the face of accountability and transparency. With no itemised figures as to income how can anyone determine the veracity of anything? Is $6.9 million simply plucked from the air?
  • It provides carte blanche to officers – again without councillor knowledge as to precise details. Delegating such authority to officers as happened with the basketball allocations is simply another example of why full transparency is required
  • What does this reveal about Business Plans – do they in fact exist?

Our argument is that throughout the entire GESAC saga the public and probably most councillors have been kept in the dark. All we have ever had are vague statements of totals – without detail, without explanation and without real justification. Below are several more statements taken directly from the budget. We ask readers to consider them carefully and to ask themselves, several fundamental questions:

  • Do the figures really add up?
  • How are they derived?
  • Are you be satisfied that this explains fully what is going on with GESAC?

“The Centre is expected to generate income of $7.07m and incur costs of $6.77m. The financial impact of the Centre in 2012-13 is an estimated operating surplus of $297k”.

“The largest additional cost increases (over and above the 2011-12 forecast figures) are as follows:  Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) expenses $3.7m”.

When this Council has basically ensured that the next generation of residents will have a financial millstone around their necks, then it is even more incumbent on them to provide full and transparent financial details. Otherwise residents are fully entitled to believe that secrecy is the means for covering up a gaping black financial hole and that the reported figures belong to the land of fairy tales.

 

May 19, 2012

A Very Expensive Exercise!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

Lawyer loses bully claim

Steve Butcher

May 19, 2012

A FORMER partner of a big Melbourne law firm has lost her claim for about $2.8 million damages after a judge rejected the claim she had been systematically bullied.

Fiona Brown had alleged a long-time friend and colleague at Maurice Blackburn Cashman had undermined, harassed and humiliated her and that the managing partner did nothing about it.

Ms Brown, a mother of three, who was head of the firm’s family law department, told the County Court she had been unable to work since November 2003 and had suffered psychiatric injury.

She claimed damages for pain and suffering of about $300,000 and total pecuniary loss damages of about $2.5 million.

But, in his decision yesterday, Judge John Carmody found she had not established that Lee Formica had ”unjustifiably abused, belittled, humiliated, threatened, undermined or bullied” Ms Brown in 2003.

Judge Carmody also rejected ”any suggestion” the evidence supported the allegation of conspiracy between Ms Formica and the managing partner, Michael Brett-Young.

Ms Brown recruited Ms Formica in 2000 and she was made acting head while Ms Brown was on maternity leave.

Judge Carmody concluded from an exchange of emails and evidence given by the ”protagonists” that each was under considerable personal and professional pressure.

They had exchanged ”regrettable” emails, but he did not accept that a reasonable person would classify them as communications that would victimise, humiliate, undermine or threaten Ms Brown, he said.

A later exchange of emails and related conversations he regarded as a ”classic storm in a teacup”.

Judge Carmody concluded, after examination of extensive medical opinion, that Ms Brown ”is suffering from significant depression with associated anxiety features”.

He did not find she had tried to ”deliberately mislead” the court but that at times her evidence was exaggerated and at others she ”downplayed the significance of events”.

”In short, [she] had focused completely all of her difficulties on what she perceived to be the injustice meted out to her whilst being employed at the defendant’s law firm,” he said.

He ordered costs, likely to run into six figures, against Ms Brown.

Her solicitor later told The Saturday Age they were reviewing the decision and considering whether to appeal.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lawyer-loses-bully-claim-20120518-1yw4q.html#ixzz1vGX1t02F

 

May 18, 2012

Keeping The Bastards Honest!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

Despite all the protestations that no-one at Council follows Glen Eira Debates it is amazing how often our posts have engendered some kind of verbal ‘feedback’ to our criticisms in actual council meetings. Words have also, at times, given way to real action. The latest example features in the agenda items for next Tuesday night.

We recently pointed out how the ‘measures’ included in the Council Plan for the past 4 years have NEVER been implemented as required. Whilst the measures promised to report on the NUMBERS of permits granted for Minimal Change and Housing Diversity Areas, this was never done. Instead there was the wonderful waffle of vague percentages. Well, we are very pleased to report that for the very first time that we are aware of, the Quarterly Report in relation to this objective actually does what is supposed to be done ie. “247 dwellings approved in minimal change area and 628 in housing diversity to the end of March (figures updated quarterly)”. This stands in contrast to the nonsense that was previously stated – ie. ‘75% of dwellings approved occurred in housing diversity area’. For this belated ‘improvement’, we unashamedly take some credit.

We haven’t been all that successful when it comes to delegations. The same old ceding of power to unelected officials continues unabated. We simply repeat here something that we wrote a year ago –

“We ask readers to consider the following comparisons between Glen Eira and other councils in order to assess how little control our elected representatives have over planning in this municipality and how little decision making by officers is accessible, transparent and accountable to the community.

For instance:

  1. Kingston, Darebin,   Moreland, Frankston, Banyule, Cardinia (amongst others) do not simply have  a ‘delegated planning committee’ (DPC) – they have decreed that such  committees are constituted as ‘Special Committees’. This means that      agendas are published, meeting schedules are published, minutes are published, residents officially address committees (some allow 5 mins), and most importantly the committees consist of councillors – all chaired by the Mayor. The role of officers is simply to present and/or provide  ‘advice’. This is a far cry from the manner in which DPC’s operate in Glen      Eira
  2. Many councils provide monthly reports to full council meetings where information is provided on: how many applications; how many permits granted by officers, DPC’s; how many refused by the various officers, etc. In Glen Eira, the only report      which is published is that which documents applications before VCAT. We   doubt if councillors, and certainly not the public, have any idea as to  the breakdown of applications and their acceptance or refusal.

There are many other differences as well –

  • ‘Councillor call in’ – where a single councillor has the power to ‘call in’ any application for decision at a full council meeting (Port Phillip; Cardinia; Bayside; Kingston; Banyule; Casey; Frankston to name but a few!)
  • Number of objections clearly specified as the trigger for panel or full council determination (often 5, some 10 – In Glen Eira we find the phrase ‘significant number’!)
  • Height levels that determine whether applications go to DCP, Council or officers. In Glen Eira two storey to be determined by officers alone)
  • Parking restrictions – ie. if a development intends to waive parking restrictions whether or not this should go to council or DCP (Port Phillip).”

Nothing like this of course, happens in Glen Eira

Item 9.1: GESAC

This report bears Newton’s name. We simply marvel at the sheer audacity of the following sentence and what it could possibly imply about the intelligence of residents?

“Government grants constituted 35% of the construction contract. Glen Eira ratepayers enjoy 100% of the facility after contributing 65% of the cost.”

Surely the ‘cost’ must include $2.5 million per year in interest for the next 10 or 15 years, plus running and maintainence costs; plus staff costs; plus insurance costs; plus setting up costs; plus lost income costs; plus tendering costs; plus more car park costs; plus road changes, traffic light installation costs; plus power supply costs. At a rough estimate just on interest alone the alleged $45-47 million project balloons out to between $70 – 80 million dollars. Does this then equal ‘65% of the cost’ or are residents just being fed more and more spin?

 

PS: CORRECTION. We’ve double checked the Quarterly Reports and despite the long standing requirement to report NUMBERS for dwellings in Minimal Change/Housing Diversity this did not happen until the Quarterly Report of November, 2011.

 

May 17, 2012

Good Or Bad?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Announcement from the Local Govt Minister –

Administration to continue at Brimbank City Council

Thursday, 17 May 2012

The Victorian Government will introduce legislation next week to extend the Administration of the Brimbank City Council through until March 2015.

The decision to extend the period of Administration was recommended by two independent reports, has considerable community support and will help to ensure a return to stable, effective representative government at Brimbank City Council.

“The weight of advice provided by independent reports was such that the best course of action was to maintain Administration while work was finalised,” Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell said.

“Both reports identified that the premature return to an elected council carries the very real risk of a return to the discredited and damaging practices of the past and the derailing of numerous important projects commenced under Administration.

“Subject to the passage of the legislation a rotation and refocusing will occur amongst the team of administrators at Brimbank.

“Jo Anderson and Meredith Sussex will step down at the end of October this year, roughly in line with the general Local Council elections.

“Peter Lewinsky will relinquish his role as Chief Administrator but remain a member of the Administration team.

“It is important to put on the record my personal thanks to the current Administrators for the outstanding job they have done at the council and acknowledge the role the former Minister Richard Wynne played in the decision to appoint them.

“The community of Brimbank have been fortunate to have the skills and dedication of Jo and Meredith working for them during this difficult period,” Mrs Powell said.

“The final phase of administration will feature a comprehensive community engagement strategy to prepare for the return of an elected council.

“I have asked the current Chair Peter Lewinsky to stay on as an administrator, thereby giving the team important continuity.

“John Watson, the current Executive Director of Local Government Victoria, will retire in October and will then assume the role of Chief Administrator at Brimbank.

“John Watson is highly respected for his skills and abilities throughout the sector and by both sides of politics.

“Upon learning of his intention to retire from LGV, I asked him to take on the role of Chair of the Brimbank Administrators.

“I can think of no-one better qualified to build on the work of the current Administrators and prepare the council for elections in March 2015,” Mrs Powell said.

The third administrator’s position will go to an individual with strong qualifications in community engagement.

 

 

May 16, 2012

Can We Trust Them?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

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.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »