Ballarat City Council’s rate-cap affected 2016-17 budget was passed on Wednesday night.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It was the subject of a strong debate in the chamber as council reacts to the state government’s new policy.
While materially it will mean a million dollars lost from 2016/17 budget that gap will increase in years to come.
It was not voted in unanimously, with Councillor Amy Johnson voting against it and saying with some level of cuts earlier in the council’s life high rate rises would not have been necessary.
She proposed privatisation of some services, service-sharing with other councils in the region and said sending council documents by email instead of through the post could have an immediate impact on the budget.
Councillor Amy Johnson said if cuts were made in years past the City of Ballarat would not have had to lose money when the policy came in.
She was rebuked by mayor Des Hudson and Vicki Coltman, who said it was one thing to criticise spending but the community asked for services and had to pay for them.
“It’s easy to vote against it and say we can tighten our belts, and we have, over the last four years we have been driving efficiencies across the organisation,” Cr Coltman said.
Cr Hudson said budgets were guided by the long-term consultations.
“(It’s) built on a number of discussions with the community.”
I find it strange when you see people voting against the budget...when the community has been telling us (this is what they want),” he said.
Cr Johnson described these statements as “condescending”.
The 2016/17 budget contains funding to continue major projects like the Ballarat West Employment Zone ($5 million), $13.6 million for road construction and renewal, $1.1 million for bicycle-related projects, and notes $48 million is the total borrowed by council.
Where the missing $1 million from the rate cap will come from exactly was not detailed at the meeting, but the budget says it will partly come from the capital works expenditure.
The Essential Services Commission denied the application on the grounds the extra 1.2 per cent was a “one-off cost” rather than a long-term investment.