On the 20th of March, the Port Phillip Council convened to deliberate on a critical motion proposed by Cr Rhonda Clark, advocating for a freeze in rates for the upcoming financial year while ensuring the preservation of essential services' quality and accessibility. Regrettably, the motion faced considerable dissent, with six out of the nine Councilors voting against it, thwarting hopes for immediate financial relief amidst the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

In an assembly characterized by divergent viewpoints, the motion presented by Cr Clark stood as a beacon of fiscal prudence, urging a reduction in spending by 1.6 percent across all service domains to realize a commendable $3.6 million efficiency in expenditure. The motion, cognizant of the expertise vested in the CEO and their officers, entrusted them with the task of identifying and implementing operational efficiencies.

However, the proposal encountered resistance, with challenges raised by one councilor, hostile to the motion, regarding its legal standing and feasibility. These were swiftly dealt with as it would be unconscionable to think a council could make it illegal to request a motion to find efficiency at any time.

When prompted by another councilor, who confessed she was furious with the motion, the CEO, provided an on-the-spot opinion expressing apprehensions regarding the feasibility of attaining the targeted cost savings within the existing $223 million budget, thereby casting doubts on the motion's viability and his consideration of the community in fiscal pain which he is paid to serve.

Cr Clark articulated, “residents are impacted by significant cost of living pressures and my motion seeks to provide much needed relief to Port Phillip residents and business owners, including renters whose rents are rising in part to absorb rates.  No increase in rates will help with the cost-of-living crisis at a time when everyone is impacted by cost-of living pressure, inflation and thirteen interest rate rises”.  She underscored the pervasive impact of escalating living costs, inflation, and successive interest rate hikes, warranting urgent measures to alleviate the financial burdens faced by the community.

The motion sought to counteract the State Government's rates cap rate rise of 2.75% by instituting a corresponding 2.75% efficiency dividend, thereby effectively freezing rates and charges revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. This initiative aimed to sustain the rates revenue at $131.4 million, thereby effecting a 2.75 percent reduction equating to $3,613,170 in rates for 2024-25. Moreover, it delineated a prudent reduction in spending of 1.6 percent on total recurrent expenditure, underscoring a commitment to fiscal responsibility for the $223,100,000 in the current year 2023-24. 

While concerns lingered regarding the fiscal ramifications of the proposed freeze, the Council anticipates accruing additional rates revenue from newly developed properties exempt from the rates cap. Furthermore, the imminent introduction of the container deposit scheme promises to augment the council's revenue streams significantly.

The Council's decision to rebuff the rates freeze motion has sparked discontent among constituents, epitomized by Dan Peel, a resident of Port Melbourne. Peel lamented “the Council's failure to prioritize the community's interests, condemning the pervasive financial hardships inflicted by escalating living costs, inflation, and interest rate fluctuations. The plight faced by families, individuals, renters, ratepayers, and business owners underscores the pressing need for concerted action to alleviate their financial burdens”.

In the wake of the Council's decision, contentious debates ensue, underscoring the imperative of fostering constructive dialogue and collaborative solutions to address the multifaceted challenges confronting the community.

One might ask oneself at a time like this “Hands up who wants a rate rise”?