Rising gas prices and state imposts have forced City Hall to seek higher fees and charges across most community services, according to council administrators.
The proposed 4.42 per cent average increase would help cover an estimated $600,000 in higher leisure centre gas costs and $900,000 extra for state planning charges, administrators chair Kathy Alexander said.
The administrators’ draft budget proposes increases of 2.3 to 36.4 per cent for leisure centre membership, and planning permit hikes up to 156 per cent for household works such as restumping.
Pet owners face fee increases of up to 500 per cent to retrieve pets from pounds.
More than half the overall increase in fees and charges would cover costs “outside our control”, including the gas and state government hikes, Dr Alexander said.
“Our services are not run on a profit-making basis,” she said.
“Fee increases are purely to help cover rising costs associated with running these services and ensure a user-pays system where costs are shared fairly.”
The three administrators’ first and last budget approved a two per cent rates hike, in line with a state rate cap, and a $7.75 increase in council’s waste collection fee to “partly” cover a compulsory EPA levy.
The administrators forecast a $20 million reduction in debt after last year expressing concern over the $93 million they inherited from the previous council, sacked in April 2016.
But the $73 million debt budgeted for 2017/2018 would climb higher on new borrowings in subsequent years after the administrators finished their term in October, their draft budget revealed.
Debt would reach $104 million in 2018/2019 before hitting $122 million two years later.
The debt levels were within State Government “tolerances” but the impact on future budgets would be “significant”, budget notes said.
Budgeted cash reserves would fall from $75 million to $62 million next year.
The draft budget also forecast an increase in staff costs of $6 million to $152 million from overall operating expenditure of $414 million.
The administrators’ “modernised” budget process proposed an additional $8 million for disadvantaged areas, Dr Alexander said.
“We want money to be spent in the parts of our municipality that need it most.”
The administrators proposed $3.3 million for works in central Geelong and $5.6 million for a “strengthened community grants program“, said administrator Peter Dorling.
“Transparent criteria“ and “an independent assessment panel“ would choose community projects for funding, he said.
The Community Investment and Support Fund follows the 2014 scrapping of a scheme under which councillors had $600,000 each to disburse among community projects within their wards. A state investigation found flaws in the scheme but cleared councillors of any impropriety.
