Community Conversations: Rate Capping

Consultation has concluded

UPDATE: At the March Council meeting, Council announced it will prepare the 2016/17 budget based on a 2.5% rate rise (the State Government cap).

In February, we presented a list of potential service and infrastructure cuts to the community to meet the cap. Following the consultation, some small changes have been made to enable the school crossing supervision, fire prevention and infrastructure projects that were listed to continue for 2016/17.

We've prepared some information about how we plan to meet the cap.

Survey Results

More than 900 responses were received via hardcopy and the online survey below. 78% selected a 2.5% rate increase and 17% opted for 4.5%. A number also wrote lower amounts or did not select an option, but their comments clearly showed a preference for a 2.5% or lower rise.

We would like to thank everyone who participated in the Community Conversations consultation in 2015 and 2016 to help inform this decision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite implementing a range of efficiency measures and staff reductions over the last three years, Mitchell Shire Council will need to consider reducing services and infrastructure investment under a 2.5% rate cap.

The State Government announced the cap late last year which will strip $633,000 from Council’s budget in the first year and $44 million over 10 years.

Reductions to school crossing supervision; fire prevention; grants; and opening hours for customer service, libraries and leisure centres are on the cards to meet the rate cap.

Previously planned infrastructure improvements including netball change rooms and courts in Seymour, footpath and stadium upgrades in Wallan and sporting oval improvements in Broadford are also in jeopardy.

Considering these potential impacts, Mitchell Shire Council is asking the community to indicate their rating preference based on a 4.5% or 2.5% rate increase scenario.

For a $300,000 house, a 2.5% rate increase would be an extra $1 a week ($52 a year) and a 4.5% rate increase would be an extra $1.80 a week or $94 a year.

Your input will help inform a decision in March about whether to apply for a rate cap exemption.

Please read the information in Step 1 (or the PDFs in the document library) and then complete our short survey in Step 2 to indicate your service and infrastructure preferences.

To complete this survey you must be registered for Engaging Mitchell, please register or sign in. This is to prevent multiple submissions. If you would still like to complete the survey, but do not want to register for the site, you can pick up a hard copy at any Customer and Library Service Centre and make your submission there. All information gathered during the registration process is taken in accordance with our privacy policy.

UPDATE: At the March Council meeting, Council announced it will prepare the 2016/17 budget based on a 2.5% rate rise (the State Government cap).

In February, we presented a list of potential service and infrastructure cuts to the community to meet the cap. Following the consultation, some small changes have been made to enable the school crossing supervision, fire prevention and infrastructure projects that were listed to continue for 2016/17.

We've prepared some information about how we plan to meet the cap.

Survey Results

More than 900 responses were received via hardcopy and the online survey below. 78% selected a 2.5% rate increase and 17% opted for 4.5%. A number also wrote lower amounts or did not select an option, but their comments clearly showed a preference for a 2.5% or lower rise.

We would like to thank everyone who participated in the Community Conversations consultation in 2015 and 2016 to help inform this decision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite implementing a range of efficiency measures and staff reductions over the last three years, Mitchell Shire Council will need to consider reducing services and infrastructure investment under a 2.5% rate cap.

The State Government announced the cap late last year which will strip $633,000 from Council’s budget in the first year and $44 million over 10 years.

Reductions to school crossing supervision; fire prevention; grants; and opening hours for customer service, libraries and leisure centres are on the cards to meet the rate cap.

Previously planned infrastructure improvements including netball change rooms and courts in Seymour, footpath and stadium upgrades in Wallan and sporting oval improvements in Broadford are also in jeopardy.

Considering these potential impacts, Mitchell Shire Council is asking the community to indicate their rating preference based on a 4.5% or 2.5% rate increase scenario.

For a $300,000 house, a 2.5% rate increase would be an extra $1 a week ($52 a year) and a 4.5% rate increase would be an extra $1.80 a week or $94 a year.

Your input will help inform a decision in March about whether to apply for a rate cap exemption.

Please read the information in Step 1 (or the PDFs in the document library) and then complete our short survey in Step 2 to indicate your service and infrastructure preferences.

To complete this survey you must be registered for Engaging Mitchell, please register or sign in. This is to prevent multiple submissions. If you would still like to complete the survey, but do not want to register for the site, you can pick up a hard copy at any Customer and Library Service Centre and make your submission there. All information gathered during the registration process is taken in accordance with our privacy policy.

Consultation has concluded
  • Rate Capping: the difference between 2.5% and 4.5%

    almost 3 years ago

    At 4.5% ($1.80 a week or $94 a year increase for a house valued at $300,000)
    • Long term financial sustainability will improve over time
    • Services and infrastructure will not be reduced beyond operational efficiency targets
    • Operational savings will be redirected to capital works to meet increased need for community infrastructure in our urban growth areas and for ageing assets in our rural areas
    At 2.5% ($1 a week or $52 a year increase for a house valued at $300,000)
    • Funding shortfall of $633,000 in the first year and $44 million in lost revenue over 10 years
    • Long term financial sustainability will deteriorate (especially our asset renewal and underlying deficit)
    • Deteriorating standard of assets with potential for closures
    • Inability to respond to unforeseen circumstances
    • We will not be able to meet the service and infrastructure needs of a growing community
    • Community services will be reduced (potential cuts are mentioned below)
    • Infrastructure and capital works will be delayed (potential cuts are mentioned below)

    At 4.5% ($1.80 a week or $94 a year increase for a house valued at $300,000)
    • Long term financial sustainability will improve over time
    • Services and infrastructure will not be reduced beyond operational efficiency targets
    • Operational savings will be redirected to capital works to meet increased need for community infrastructure in our urban growth areas and for ageing assets in our rural areas
    At 2.5% ($1 a week or $52 a year increase for a house valued at $300,000)
    • Funding shortfall of $633,000 in the first year and $44 million in lost revenue over 10 years
    • Long term financial sustainability will deteriorate (especially our asset renewal and underlying deficit)
    • Deteriorating standard of assets with potential for closures
    • Inability to respond to unforeseen circumstances
    • We will not be able to meet the service and infrastructure needs of a growing community
    • Community services will be reduced (potential cuts are mentioned below)
    • Infrastructure and capital works will be delayed (potential cuts are mentioned below)
  • Rate Capping: potential service and infrastructure cuts

    almost 3 years ago

    To help you provide informed input, Council has prepared a shortlist of services and capital works that could be reduced to meet the 2.5% cap.This shortlist is based on a combination of:
    • input from Community Conversations and other consultation
    • socio-economic impact
    • statutory and non-statutory services
    • services that are not Council’s legal responsibility
    • financial impact
    POTENTIAL SERVICE CUTS:
    • School Crossings: Cease Council contribution and only provide supervised crossings that State Government fully funds ($187,000 cut)
    • Fire Prevention: Reduce preventative activities which are not legislative requirements ($150,000 cut)
    • Customer and Library Service Centres: Reduce hours ($85,000 cut)
    • Leisure Centres: Reduce hours ($50,000 cut)
    • Tourism Grants: Cut subsidy to groups providing tourism events and activities ($70,000 cut*)
    • Community Grants: Cut subsidy to community groups which provide community events, activities and equipment ($140,000 cut*)
    • Environment Grants: Cut subsidy to landholders and community groups for weed control, erosion control, revegetation and other environmental works on private land ($120,000 cut*)
    * There would also be some staffing impacts on top of the grant funding

    POTENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CUTS:
    • Seymour | Kings Park netball change rooms and court two: Cut from 2016/17 works program with flow on effects to other planned capital works in future years ($270,000 cut)
    • Broadford | Harley Hammond Reserve Oval upgrade: Cut from 2016/17 works program with flow on effects to other planned capital works in future years ($230,000 cut)
    • Wallan | RB Robson Stadium power upgrade: Cut from 2016/17 with flow on effects to other planned capital works in future years ($40,000 cut)
    • Wallan | Footpaths: Cut $100,000 from footpaths in Wallan ($100,000 cut)

    To help you provide informed input, Council has prepared a shortlist of services and capital works that could be reduced to meet the 2.5% cap.This shortlist is based on a combination of:
    • input from Community Conversations and other consultation
    • socio-economic impact
    • statutory and non-statutory services
    • services that are not Council’s legal responsibility
    • financial impact
    POTENTIAL SERVICE CUTS:
    • School Crossings: Cease Council contribution and only provide supervised crossings that State Government fully funds ($187,000 cut)
    • Fire Prevention: Reduce preventative activities which are not legislative requirements ($150,000 cut)
    • Customer and Library Service Centres: Reduce hours ($85,000 cut)
    • Leisure Centres: Reduce hours ($50,000 cut)
    • Tourism Grants: Cut subsidy to groups providing tourism events and activities ($70,000 cut*)
    • Community Grants: Cut subsidy to community groups which provide community events, activities and equipment ($140,000 cut*)
    • Environment Grants: Cut subsidy to landholders and community groups for weed control, erosion control, revegetation and other environmental works on private land ($120,000 cut*)
    * There would also be some staffing impacts on top of the grant funding

    POTENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CUTS:
    • Seymour | Kings Park netball change rooms and court two: Cut from 2016/17 works program with flow on effects to other planned capital works in future years ($270,000 cut)
    • Broadford | Harley Hammond Reserve Oval upgrade: Cut from 2016/17 works program with flow on effects to other planned capital works in future years ($230,000 cut)
    • Wallan | RB Robson Stadium power upgrade: Cut from 2016/17 with flow on effects to other planned capital works in future years ($40,000 cut)
    • Wallan | Footpaths: Cut $100,000 from footpaths in Wallan ($100,000 cut)
  • How do our rates compare to other Councils?

    almost 3 years ago
    Rates per head

    You might be surprised to learn that our rates are actually quite close to the state average. In fact, compared to many other large rural councils (which is the group we benchmark against), our rates are lower than average.

    Average per property

    • Mitchell's average rates and charges per property are $1958, compared to the state average of $1819. The highest in the state was $2610 and the lowest in the state was $1259.

    Average per head

    • Mitchell's average rates and charges per head are $885, compared to the state average of $867. The highest in the state was $2108 and the lowest in the state was $579.

    Source: Municipal Association of Victoria's 2015 rates survey






    You might be surprised to learn that our rates are actually quite close to the state average. In fact, compared to many other large rural councils (which is the group we benchmark against), our rates are lower than average.

    Average per property

    • Mitchell's average rates and charges per property are $1958, compared to the state average of $1819. The highest in the state was $2610 and the lowest in the state was $1259.

    Average per head

    • Mitchell's average rates and charges per head are $885, compared to the state average of $867. The highest in the state was $2108 and the lowest in the state was $579.

    Source: Municipal Association of Victoria's 2015 rates survey