The Essential Services Commission today announced its decision on rate cap variations in Victoria – three councils have had their applications rejected.
Nine councils applied for a variation to the 2.5 percent rate cap implemented across the state.
Of the applicants, five rural shires have been granted full exemptions – Pyrenees, Moorabool, Buloke, Horsham and Towong – and Murrindindi has received a partial exemption to increase rates 1.8 per cent above the cap.
The City of Casey, City of Wyndham and the City of Ballarat had their applications rejected by the ESC.
In a comment, President of the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) Councillor Bill MacArthur, expressed disappointed in the decision.
“The MAV is disappointed with the ESC’s reasons for rejecting variations sought by Casey, Wyndham and Ballarat. We believe it is a short-sighted, economically rationalist approach to address complex and sophisticated issues facing these municipalities.”
City of Casey Mayor Sam Aziz blasted the ESC’s decision to reject his municipality’s variation application.
The Mayor said it would contribute to a $168 million funding shortfall over the next ten years for the Council.
“This is another unacceptable act of economic vandalism by the State Government who are happy to deprive Victoria’s largest and one of Australia’s fastest growing municipalities of a mere $1.6 million across a whole year to fund critical infrastructure, while wasting $1.1 billion not building a road that Victorians desperately need,” said the Mayor.
“This is short term petty politics that will lead to long term harm for the residents of the City of Casey. A future State Government will modify this policy and residents could be facing double digit rate increases to make up for the infrastructure shortfall to continue build a first class city.”
Cr MacArthur said the MAV would reconvene its Rate Capping Taskforce to review the ESC decisions.
“We believe a review of the ESC variation process is needed so that improvements to their approach can be implemented before March 2017.
“Any review conducted should include the MAV and councils who sought variations so their insights and experience can inform a better, more transparent system going forward.”
