Council proposes to increase rates revenue by 2.8% instead of the 3.5% maximum allowed rates cap in the draft Council Plan that goes out to community consultation. The rates reduction motion whilst modest is the first time since the introduction of the State Government ‘Fair Go’ rates cap that Council is supporting rates relief in recognition of cost-of-living pressures due to high inflation and interest rates that are hurting the community.
Council officers had proposed a 3.5% rates revenue increase and a one-off rates rebate whereby residents get a rate rise waiver this year but must pay it back next year on top of next year’s rate rise.
Councillors voted against the rebate because while it provides rates relief this year, the benefit is only temporary and potentially punitive if residents struggle to pay the two years of rates increases in one year.
Although the 0.7% reduction in rates is modest it delivers permanent rates relief.
Cr Rhonda Clark said “I’m proposing this motion to reduce the rates as a better way to provide rates relief to residents. It is a permanent reduction in rates. We should not lose sight of the fact that rates come from our residents and many in the community are struggling in this economic climate”.
During the debate some Councillors declared themselves to represent renters and opposed the rates reduction and support for property owners. A group of residents spoke at the Council Meeting and advocated for the $12M surplus to be spent on social housing, welfare, and climate change. All state and federal government responsibilities.
Cr Andrew Bond said “This outcome will please many in our community who are feeling the cost-of-living pressure. For reasons I fail to fully understand, a number of members of our community also attended Wednesday evening’s meeting and requested Council put our rates up by the maximum amount possible”.
ROPP congratulates the Councillors who supported rates relief and Cr Rhonda Clark who amended the original motion and Heather Cunsolo, Marcus Pearl, Andrew Bond, and Christina Sirakoff.
The Residents of Port Phillip community association are disappointed with the small rates reduction because they are advocating for a zero-percentage increase when the City of Port Phillip are forecasted a surplus of $12M. ROPP supported zero rates increase because:
We spend
- More than $100M compared to Bayside.
- More than $50M compared to Stonnington and Glen Eira.
COPP proposes to use the surplus fund to a forecasted 1% funding gap over the next ten year created by the compound growth impact of foregoing revenue in the next year– a gap that is not material in accounting terms.
Why does Port Phillip spend much more that the other LGAs when we have a similar population, and number of properties and we are smaller in area and our road are shorter in length? We don’t have more assets than the other Councils. Bayside has beaches as does Port Phillip. Stonnington has the Prahran Market as we have the South Melbourne Market. Stonnington and Glen Eira have swimming pools and golf courses and Port Phillip does not. Stonnington has two town halls, and we have three and ANAM is helping to fund the South Melbourne Town Hall.
