What do you think about the future challenges facing Council?

over 3 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.


Relates to Relates to survey_tool: Have your say

Consultation has concluded

  • PDP11 over 3 years ago
    Regarding the community consultation session:The Council needs to be truthful about the situation and not massage statistics to manipulate residents. Council comparisons using averages should not be limited to 'Rates per Capita' but should also include 'Rates per property'. People who didn't accept the per capita rates graphs thought the Council data was dodgy then they cast doubts on the Council's data which undermined trust in the Council. When asking residents about funding for the four lowest priority projects the Council should also have advised how many projects were funded within the State Government rates cap. I.e. were the four project the lowest priority of a list of six projects or a list of one hundred and sixty. If 1% rates increase is going to add 4 projects to a very short list then it represents a significant return to ratepayers but if it only adds four, low priority projects to a very long list then ratepayers will reject a rate increase.When comparing the impact of different rate increase scenarios there should have been a graph plotting the three options. Without the graph people were trying to estimate the impact and accepted their worst case results.In other words the Council case for 1% rate increase options was undermined by restricting information. Next year please do a better community consultation.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Melissa over 3 years ago
      You claim these are "lowest priority" projects. Several times. What evidence do you have to suggest, for instance, that the renovation of the decrepit, decades-old Maternal and Child Health Care Centre at Autumn Place is a "low priority" project?In other words, please offer a better justification of your priorities, and claims thereof.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • PDP11 over 3 years ago
        The Council has many more projects that require expenditure of capital than it can fund therefore the Council has to decide how to allocate limited funds between projects. Large projects like Bunjil Place take years from initial planning through to completion so each financial year some fraction of the total project costs are paid and the balance is planned to be paid in later years. Once the contracts are signed and a builder is doing their bit on a project the Council funding is committed. Commenced projects where contracts have been signed have the highest priority.As there are more projects than funds the Council has to decide which projects will be built, which projects will be partially funded (e..g. planning and design work only) and which projects will not receive any funds this financial year (i.e. can be ignored). For example Hallam Reserve/Fleetwood Reserve the report from Council Officers (staff) stated "The project is a long term priority with delivery in 12-20 years.". See the Council Officers recommendation in item 6.5, Council Meeting Agenda 5 May 2015.From that recommendation the upgrade for Fleetwood Reserve has a relatively low priority from Council Officers but the Council would like to bring this forward to the next 24 months. See the Minutes for the 5th May 2015 Council meeting.So Council decides the priority of what projects get funded and when. I don't assign priorities, the Council does this.Assuming the 3.05% rate increase is approved 4 projects were identified by Council as being unfunded if the Council did not receive an additional 1% rate increase. All projects that have been funded within the 3.05% have received a higher priority than these four projects.If these four projects had a higher priority then there would have been a different mix of projects up for discussion over an additional 1% rate increase. The four projects are on the borderline. If the rate rise had been projected to be 4.05% then they could have been funded and we would be talking about a different set of projects that had just missed out on being funded. An additional 1% would then deliver funding to a lower priority set of projects than the current 4 project.End result the four projects are the lowest priority projects that can be funded from the additional 1% rate increase. That doesn't mean they are the lowest priority of all Council projects as there are projects that might be waiting be 20 years or more years for funding e.g. Quarry Road, Narre Warren North is still unfunded and that has been on the Council books since 1993.The other way of looking at the situation is if the Maternal and Child Health Care Centre at Autumn Place had received a significantly higher priority it would have already been rebuilt. If it had received just a higher priority then some other project(s) would have been dropped to make way for the Centre. If the Council does not have the funds next financial year then my guess is the following financial year it should be funded. It is not like the Council wants to delay the project but it has to work within a budget where some residents are going to be unhappy with their decisions.I believe the council could have presented a stronger case and provided more options for discussion.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Melissa over 3 years ago
          Thank you for your reply. I agree the Council's project cases warrant 'validation' and as suggested, we don't assign priorities. I look forward to Council's consideration of (among other suggestions) "better community consultation".
  • Dozlubel over 3 years ago
    Better get moving! Stop spending money making annoying videos listing excuses. Council need to follow through on promises made years ago eg. Hunt Club oval.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Admin Commented Casey Administrator over 3 years ago
      Thanks for your comments and participation. We will be collating feedback and presenting it to Councillors early 2016 to inform its decision making.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Melissa over 3 years ago
        We suggest, also, that the name 'Hunt Club' should be struck from consideration and replaced with a reference more relevant and less revolting to modern minds.
  • JohnFourOaksWard over 3 years ago
    To Cr Aziz,Mayor of Casey,The challenges facing Casey have been defined by Casey council.We are told our biggestchallenge is how to accommodate population growth.High population growth,however, is sponsored by both state and federal governments. Shouldn't they be the ones to pay for the infrastructure needed to sustain a high population growth rate? Why do existing residents have to pay for anything other than waste collection and basic road maintenance services?Climate change and extreme weather events are the biggest challenges we face due to increased Co2 emissions and population growth.Shouldn't Casey be wanting to stabilize its population growthto help contain emissions and pollution?
    Hide reply (1)
    • Admin Commented Casey Administrator over 3 years ago
      Hi John. Thanks for your feedback. We will collate feedback from the online forums and focus groups and present to Councillors in early 2016 to inform Council’s decision making as to whether it will seek a rate variation for 2016/2017.