1 Mandy Kynnersley From: Bess Gillard <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 7:24 AM To: Council Subject: Budget Submission - Mansfield Basketball 10 May 2019 Alex Green & Councillors Mansfield Shire Council Highett Street Mansfield Vic 3722 Dear Councillors The Committee and members of the Mansfield District Basketball Association would like to acknowledge your support for the much needed Dual Court Multi Purpose facility to be built at the Secondary College. We note that this facility is included in the Council 19/20 proposed Budget. Given there will be Federal funding for the Stadium we assume this money will be withdrawn. Our club continues to grow and develop and we are seeking funding for improvements to the Mansfield Sporting Complex. What we require are three new height adjustable backboards. The backboards we are seeking reduce the height from 10ft to 8ft. They can be adjusted up and down as required. The height adjustment would enable our smaller players to shoot and sometimes get goals. Unfortunately, at 10 ft it is extremely difficult for the littlies to reach. It also creates poor shooting form, which then needs correcting when they get to the older age groups This year we have seen huge growth in the Under 10 Competition. Last Season Spring/Summer we ran a Mixed Competition boys and girls playing together in one team. The comp was so well received, we are running a Boys only U10 and a Girl only U10 Competition. We are also running the Nationally recognised Aussie Hoops program twice this year due to popular demand. Aussie Hoops is focussed at Children aged between 5‐10. Why 3 Backboards? One backboard at each end of the court and one on the side wall for shooting practise and skills improvement for all ages. As you are aware, Mansfield Basketball has a growing membership of close to 500 registered members. We hope you will look favourably on our application and look forward to presenting our proposal to you. Regards Bess Gillard
Alex Green & Councillors Mansfield Shire Council Highett Street Mansfield Vic 3722 Dear Councillors
The Committee and members of the Mansfield District Basketball Association would like to acknowledge your support for the much needed Dual Court Multi Purpose facility to be built at the Secondary College. We note that this facility is included in the Council 19/20 proposed Budget. Given there will be Federal funding for the Stadium we assume this money will be withdrawn.
Our club continues to grow and develop and we are seeking funding for improvements to the Mansfield Sporting Complex.
What we require are three new height adjustable backboards.
The backboards we are seeking reduce the height from 10ft to 8ft. They can be adjusted up and down as required. The height adjustment would enable our smaller players to shoot and sometimes get goals. Unfortunately, at 10 ft it is extremely difficult for the littlies to reach. It also creates poor shooting form, which then needs correcting when they get to the older age groups
This year we have seen huge growth in the Under 10 Competition. Last Season Spring/Summer we ran a Mixed Competition boys and girls playing together in one team. The comp was so well received, we are running a Boys only U10 and a Girl only U10 Competition. We are also running the Nationally recognised Aussie Hoops program twice this year due to popular demand. Aussie Hoops is focussed at Children aged between 5‐10.
Why 3 Backboards? One backboard at each end of the court and one on the side wall for shooting practise and skills improvement for all ages.
As you are aware, Mansfield Basketball has a growing membership of close to 500 registered members.
We hope you will look favourably on our application and look forward to presenting our proposal to you.
Rate Capping is a disaster for small Councils because you can only increase rates by 2.5%, yet you have Zero control over costs such as Wages % increases and Supplier CPI % increases.
Rates increase 2.5% but costs will normally increase by a larger %.
Over time costs will increase greater than Rates. Squeezing Councils ability to pay its debts and service the community.
No business could survive long term with such a restriction on their income.
When Rate Capping was introduced there was much talk about getting rid of Small Councils (eg Mansfield) and merging small councils into fewer Mega councils.
My belief is that the politicians had this in mind when introducing rate capping.
Rate capping will see MSC become Financially unsustainable and the only thing MSC can do is Cut Capital expenditure or staff to offset it.
There is only so much cutting that can be done.
MSC s Council plan shows that council is unsustainable at the moment. This is visible when you look at the working capital plummeting over the next few years.
UNSUSTAINABLE
The Figures in the Table below are from MSC’s Long Term Financial Plan which I found on the ESC Website.
Q. Why are these reports not available on the MSC website?
The Table shows that Council is Financially unsustainable in the years to 2026.
Working Capital is the critical calculation in determining Financial sustainability. You are Financially unsustainable when Working Capital declines in this manner.
When working capital goes negative as MSC’s does by over $1m, then the alarm bells should be ringing.
2
The figures show that the Quarantined Items such as the $900k land sale and the Developer Contributions are expected to be used to fund Operations.
This can be seen where Working Capital goes into the negative by over $1m in some years.
If the Employee Leave Provisions and the $900k of land sale and the developer contributions were truly kept separate from the operating bank account, then Council would be insolvent. These funds are keeping the operation going, even though they are supposed to be quarantined.
Q. What is the purpose of selling land for $900k, when the forward projections show it not being used for 10 years? I struggle with this decision. It makes no sense unless the MSC has previously recognised that they need to put more money into the Bank account to make their sustainability appear better than it is.
By adding items such as the proceeds from the land sale to the bank account of $900k, it effectively hides the true Working capital unless you know how to show the true working capital as I have displayed below.
The negative figures above show council is using funds that are supposed to be quarantined to keep the business going.
Working Capital $7,967,330 $4,559,879 $1,441,361 $859,006 $83,596 $101,533 ($83,005) $317,171 $1,162,742 $2,733,318 $3,951,239
The current assets above include the Bank balance which includes funds added to it from the following sources.The money from these sources are not to be used to fund Councils operations and must be deducted from working capital.Less Retricted ItemsQuarantined Land sale Proceeds $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000Statutory Reserves (Developer contributions) $837,000 $437,000 $437,000 $437,000 $437,000 $437,000 $437,000 $437,000 $437,000 $437,000Total restricted items ‐$ 1,737,000$ 1,337,000$ 1,337,000$ 1,337,000$ 1,337,000$ 1,337,000$ 1,337,000$ 1,337,000$ 1,337,000$ 1,337,000$
Real Working Capital $2,822,879 $104,361 ($477,994) ($1,253,404) ($1,235,467) ($1,420,005) ($1,019,829) ($174,258) $1,396,318 $2,614,239
The budget shows Financial unsustainability over the years to 2026 And shows that the $900k in land sales and Developer contributions are being used to fund Councils operations. These items should not be used.The CPI & Wage increase figures used in the forecast are Wages 2% year on year which I believe is unlikely and similarly unlikely CPI increases for suppliers.Many Capital expenditure items have not had CPI increases at all. Im am concerned that CPI has not been applied to Capital expenditure over the 10 year plan. As this would significantly understate expenditure.Using low CPI & Wage increase make these numbers look better.
MSC Unrestricted Working capitalAnalysis
3
Council has also produced its own figures that confirm the problem. This table is an extract from Councils Draft Budget.
Where the % is LESS than 100%, as all of the results in this table are, it means that your Unrestricted cash is not enough to cover your current debts. The 50% in 2023 means that the Current debts are twice the size of the Unrestricted cash. Council does provide the following explanation Note 3. Unrestricted Cash: The declining trend reflects the decline in Council’s cash balances over the four‐year period. The ten year forecast shows unrestricted cash rising again from year seven (2025‐26) onward. If you look at my 10‐year table above, the figures get worse to 2026, which means that MSC’s Unrestricted Cash % will get worse for another 3 years past the figures in the table above. MSC states that everything gets better after 2026. This assumes Council’s Long Term Financial Plan has appropriate assumption built into it. The Long Term Financial Plan is seriously flawed due to unrealistic assumptions There are cost omissions to Wages in that there is NO growth in staff over the 10 years to service the growing Shire. Wage % increases of 2% per year are NOT realistic CPI % increases in Supplier costs of 1%, 2% and 3% in a repeated Cycle is unrealistic The appears to be NO CPI added to many Capital Expenditure items. Capex appears to have been cut to cover the extra cost of the new Director roles. The Sale of Land proceeds of $900k have been put into the Bank account and artificially increase Working capital. And the Funds have not been spent over the 10‐year financial Plan – Why Sell the asset if the funds will not be used? These issues are expanded below.
4
BUDGETING ISSUES
MSC’s costs are understated due to council using CPI increases and wage increases that are too low and not realistic.
If more conservative increases were used, the negatives above would be much larger.
Last year MSC used Budgeted Wage increases for each future year of 1%, which is simply unrealistic and previous budget submissions highlighting this fact were ignored.
Now a year later MSC has used 2% for wages increases each year…big difference, but equally unrealistic.
Every 1% adds significantly to MSC’s costs.
Q. How can MSC make informed long term decisions based on unreliable forecasts where the key % increase assumptions are so wrong?
Q. Who is making the decision on these very important budget assumptions?
The budget looks bad to me, but the reality will be worse.
A 2% increases in Wages each year over 10 years is not realistic and understates what the Wage cost significantly over the 10 years. As does the CPI increase assumptions for Supplier costs.
Actual Wage increases consist of the EBA % increase, plus increases for staff who move up through their Wage Banding levels.
It appears as though the banding increases have not been budgeted for as only 2% has been allowed for and this is the figure council has assigned to the EBA % increase.
In addition, MSC has budgeted for Growth in Rate payers each year for 10 years, but there is no allowance for putting additional staff on to service the growing community. This is very unrealistic. Logic suggests that over the next 10 years, number of Council staff must increase in order to service the growing community needs. Effectively this budget would have us believe that the existing staffing levels is enough to service the growing community for the next 10 years.
This is not possible.
By not budgeting for staff growth, MSC has further understated the Wages cost in the future years.
5
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
CPI increases should be factored into Capital Expenditure forecasts because a dollar today will not have the same purchasing in 10 years’ time.
Many of the Capital Expenditure line items below are the same value year on year, which suggests that CPI has not been applied.
For example, if in 2019 we budget for $242,000 of Drainage and assume costs will increase by a CPI of 3%. The Value by 2029 should be $325,000
You should expect the Capital expenditure in 10 years’ time to be much higher than today. But the MSC reports show otherwise.
Below is an extract from MSC’s Long Term Capex Plan which shows items with no CPI and even negative CPI over the next 10 years. The Red items show where Capex has been cut altogether.
Either it is a mistake that MSC has forgotten to add CPI to its Capital spend, or it is a massive cut in real terms.
I put this question to MSC and even asked for a yes or no answer to whether they had factored CPI to the Capital spend.
I was advised that they would not answer the question Yes or NO, and that I could put in a submission or attend the budget information sessions to obtain the answer. More time was spent communicating to me that they would not answer the question as opposed to simply saying yes or no. Is it a secret?
Submissions are for amendments to the budget, not for getting simple answers to questions about how the budget was constructed.
In line with your wishes, I will ask the question again as a submission, but I can’t understand why such a simple question can’t be answered directly.
Q. Has Council factored CPI into the future cost of Capital expenditure and has council factored Employees banding pay increases into the annual wage increase? The reason I ask is that the figures you produced, suggest not in many cases. Again, a Yes or No answer will suffice.
Reducing costs by using very low CPI & Wage increases significantly overstates the forward Financial sustainability of Council and makes the figures look better that they should.
The $900k of Land sales proceeds according to the Balance sheet, are still sitting in the Bank account by the year 2029. This suggests that there is no immediate need to sell the land.
Q. Why sell a Land asset that will increase in value over 10 years when there is no expectation to use the funds for 10 years?
Q Was the purpose of the sale to prop up the Bank balance by $900k due to being Financially unsustainable?
NEW DIRECTORS $400k
The addition of new Directors costing a combined $400k per year has had a major negative impact on the Financial sustainability of MSC.
The council Plan shows that it is unaffordable.
The only way to make it work in the future is to slash Capital expenditure, which appears to be what is happening in the Long Term Financial Plan.
7
FINANCIAL STRATEGY
The Council Plan shows council is unsustainable to 2023 and the Long Term Plan to 2026.
I can see there is a problem and I can see that the only possible strategy is to cut Capital expenditure. I can say this because of my experience in Finance.
However, the Average Member of the Community does not have my Training and rely on your budget narratives for explanation.
The problem is, that your narrative does not mention any problem at all! And there is only a footnote that says things improve in the Long Term Plan.
There is NO explanation as to what your strategy is to turn things around.
EG I can deduce that Adding 2 new directors to the Payroll at $400k and Rate Capping impacts on Councils sustainability but we will rectify this by cutting Capital expenditure and lobbying government to provide us with flexibility to increase rates over 2.5% if circumstances warrant it.
Simple and informative.
The current budget narratives tell the community nothing.
Be informative and get the community on board.
8
SUMMARY
We have budgeted for growth in Rate payers but not budgeted for growth in staff to service the growth
We have used unrealistically low Wage Increase % and CPI % for Suppliers
It appears as though employees moving up banding levels has not been budgeted.
The New director positions will put significant pressure on the Finances.
Capital expenditure does not appear to have had CPI applied to it in many cases.
Capex cutting appears to be the strategy MSC is using become Financially.
Land is to be sold for no logical reason
There is no high level explanation as to why MSC is unsustainable and no explanation of what the Strategy is to rectify it.
There is simply a massive budget document, unreadable to untrained community members, with lots of figures and the community is expected to identify for themselves what is going on and what the fix is.
If these Budget assumptions and omissions were fixed, then the Forecasts would look far worse than reported.
The reports tell me that Rate capping is disastrous for a small council who can only tackle the problem by cutting Capital expenditure.
MSC’s 10‐year plan goes from disaster to earning $1m in cash in the last 3 years of the Plan.
This is simply not realistic.
9
My Submission is this.
1 Explain/Train councillors on the importance of Working Capital and unrestricted working capital and what it means when it decreases constantly (Unsustainability) and also when it goes negative. This is the only way Councillors can make informed decisions about the budgets.
2 Put notes in the budget that explain to the community what the signs of Financial unsustainability are.
3 Reinstate Working capital as the key KPI – it appears to have been omitted from your budget narratives and not included in your Financial policy.
4 Recognise that Rate Capping will have dire consequences for small councils.
5 Use more conservative and realistic budget CPI & Wage increase assumptions, as it hides the true result.
6 Apply CPI to the Capital Spend each year.
7 Explain what your strategy is in order to make MSC sustainable. Eg Cutting Capital. And explain why MSC is unsustainable.
8 Don’t sell the Land because it will increase in value over time as opposed to losing this growth when you cash it in.
9 Redo the Long Term Financial Plan to get a better picture of future finances.
9 Gain Community support and lobby the government to allow for flexibility in the Rate capping for when Costs increases faster than Rates.
Rate Capping will stress MSC finances to the point where the Government may make a decision about the future of small councils
But please use realistic budget assumptions and remove the veil of secrecy.
Regards
David Butler
16 Entrance Way
Mountain Bay
1
Mandy Kynnersley
From: Brian Johnstone <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2019 3:46 PMTo: Mandy KynnersleyCc: Harry Westendorp; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Paul Volkering; Peter Olver; Alex
GreenSubject: Re: Draft Budget and Chnages to the Adopted Rating Strategy
Mandy: I have very briefly looked at the Mansfield Council documents presented to the Essential Service Commission which are now on the ESC website I note there are variations in the Farmland differential rate for 2019-2020, as follows: From attachment to Council Meeting draft Minutes 19 March: 0.002144 Attachment: "Rating Strategy 2019-2020" Note: Heading says 2018-19 revised rating strategy From Essential Services Commission as at 4 April: 0.001906 Attachment: "Draft Rating Strategy 2019-2020 Note: Heading says 2018-19 revised rating strategy From attachment to Council Meeting draft Minutes 26 March: 0.001851 Attachment: "Mansfield Proposed Budget Report 2019-2020" From Essential Services Commission as at 4 April: 0.001851 Attachment: "Mansfield Proposed Budget Report 2019-2020" Please explain the variations in the rate for Farmland and I presume for the other rating categories – Or have I somehow misinterpreted the figures I presume that the "correct" figure for Farmland for 2019-2020 is 0.001851. If so, when will the Council be re-considering the Rating Strategy with corrected figures? Regards
Brian Johnstone Brian Johnstone Mountain Bay Tel: 61-437-777-444
From: Brian Johnstone Date: Tuesday, 2 April 2019 12:58 PM
2
To: Mandy Kynnersley Cc: Cr Harry Westendorp ; Cr Paul Sladdin ; Cr Marg Attley ; Cr Paul Volkering ; Cr Peter Olver ; Alex Green Subject: Re: Draft Budget and Chnages to the Adopted Rating Strategy Mandy: I have considered the % increase in rates - including general rate, municipal charge, waste charge reduction I note the CEO/Council advice is that the average ratepayer in each rating category will not have an increase From my calculations I have confirmed that this is so However, I note that higher value properties will pay more Can you advise what the indicative % increases are for high value properties (e.g. Farmland CIV =$5,000,000, Commercial CIV = $2,000,000, etc) Regards
Brian Johnstone Brian Johnstone Mountain Bay Tel: 61-437-777-444
From: Brian Johnstone Date: Tuesday, 2 April 2019 11:22 AM To: Mandy Kynnersley Cc: Cr Harry Westendorp ; Cr Paul Sladdin ; Cr Marg Attley ; Cr Paul Volkering ; Cr Peter Olver ; Alex Green Subject: Draft Budget and Chnages to the Adopted Rating Strategy Mandy: I note that you have copied my email and your response to the Council and the CEO I would have thought that it is not necessary to copy my emails to Council as I am only seeking Budget and Rate Strategy clarification at this stage Nevertheless I will also copy my emails to the Council and the CEO I only require answers to my enquiries so that I might better understand the draft Budget and the status and content of the Rating Strategy I may or may not want to make a formal submission to Council or the Essential Services Commission
3
Whether I make any submission will depend upon the answers to my questions and my then improved understanding of the matters that I have raised Could you advise what alternative budget is available should the Essential Services Commission reject Council's request for rate increases I presume that Council's request to the ESC for a rate increase above 2.5% would have been forwarded to the ESC by the deadline of 31 March I am advised that the ESC will accept ratepayer submissions with an effective end date for submission by, say, 30 April The timescales you have advised for me to formally submit to Council and get any feed back would seem to mean that I will miss any deadline for submissions to the ESC I seem to remember that the CEO has on several occasions stated that it is not possible to reduce the expenditures in the draft budget I also note that public consultation has not come up with any suggestions of expenditure reductions from ratepayers Does this mean that the only option for Council in the event that the ESC rejects the proposed rateincreases is to get an Administrator to take over? Perhaps the CEO or Mayor might like to comment on the above Regards
Brian Johnstone Brian Johnstone Mountain Bay Tel: 61-437-777-444
From: Mandy Kynnersley Date: Tuesday, 2 April 2019 8:59 AM To: Brian Johnstone Cc: -Councillors ; Alex Green Subject: RE: Rating Strategy Hi Brian The budget will be publically released for community comment on 17 April and there will be community budget forums in both Mansfield and Melbourne that you may wish to attend. You will be able to make a public submission up until 14 May. It is important that engagement with the community is consistently managed through the formal process.
4
If you would like me to consider your email below a budget submission please advise. All submissions will be considered by Council at a Special Council Meeting in May before the budget is adopted in June. Kind regards
Mandy Kynnersley Finance Manager Phone: 03 5775 8574 Fax: 03 5775 2677 Website: www.mansfield.vic.gov.au If you are deaf, or have a hearing or speech impairment, contact us through the National Relay Service. For more information, visit: www.relayservice.gov.au.
Sign up for Email
Notices
Mansfield Shire Council acknowledge the Taungurung people as the traditional owners of the land on which our offices are located. We pay respect to the Taungurung Elders, past, present and future and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
From: Brian Johnstone <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2019 7:04 PM To: Mandy Kynnersley <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Rating Strategy Mandy: Thankyou for your response to my telephone message Can you clarify the following: I believe that the Application to the Essential Services Commission to raise the Rate Cap is based upon the Draft/Proposed Budget for 2019-2020 which incorporates the following Differential Rates (in red) Differential Rates 2018-19
Actual Proposed26 March
Budget 2019
Draft Strategy
19 March
Rating 2019
Types or class of land 2018-19
Cent /$CIV
2019-20 Cents /$CIV
Change 2019-20 Cents /$CIV
Change
General rate for rateable residential properties
0.2514 0.2804 11.5% 0.3249 29.2%
General rate for rateable commercial properties
0.3545 0.3842 8.4% 0.4451 25.5%
5
General rate for rateable vacant land
0.3494 0.3645 4.3% 0.4224 20.9%
General rate for rateable rural residential properties
0.2338 0.2496 6.7% 0.2892 23.7%
General rate for rateable farmland
0.1810 0.1851 2.2% 0.2144 18.4%
However, the Draft Rating Strategy has different Differential Rates (in blue) Further, I cannot find the justification for the differences in the % change in Differential Rates In the past, the change in Differential Rates has been the same percentage for each rate – e.g. 2.5% Whereas, the Draft Budget has changes: Residential – 11.5% and Farmland – 2.2% With the Proposed Rating Strategy having changes : Residential – 29.2% and Farmland – 18.4% Could you also explain: The only reason given for the change in Rate Cap is the increase to make up for the Waste Charges, however:
I cannot find any reference to the need for higher rates to cover the 2 new Directors and the other new staff Also, I cannot find any reference to the Basketball Court and the associated Carpark Is this because these items were carried forward from a previous approved budget? Can I see the cost justification for of the above items and if they were funded by not proceeding with other Council expenditures?
There does not seem to be any mention of the implementation of the Railway Precinct for which a major study has been prepared in 2018-2019 I look forward to your response Regards
Brian Johnstone Brian Johnstone Mountain Bay Tel: 61-437-777-444
3
Deputy Mayor Paul Sladdin: Since you suggested that I contact you on "sensitive" matters, rather than Council Officers, here are a few budget / financial questions that you may be able to advise me on I am concerned about such things as: Financial Matters:
Rate Capping Removal of excessive waste charges Potentially massive hikes in rates for larger farms High staff turnover with consequent re-hiring and training expenses Sale or attempted sale of land to be accrued against general revenue So many expensive studies, planning and otherwise - that often lead nowhere The Domestic Wastewater Management Plan - Hardly started, yet the original 5
year time frame is almost over Project expenses that do not include staff and management expenses Costs of additional budgeted Deputy General Managers, etc Cash flow and sustainability matters - Are we in the black or red - and for how long
Current Year actual/Budget: A major concern in the budget was the assumptions that Wages CPI and Supplier CPI were extremely low and inconsistent with actuals from previous years. e.g. Budgeted wage increase 1.5% year on year - Note: When Actual CPI and Banding increases are combined, surely the overall increase will be significantly higher. No doubt, Council would have by now negotiated the Actual CPI - scheduled for November 2018? - What was the outcome?, If the actual increase is higher than budgeted this would result in a future decrease in “Unrestricted Working Capital”. i.e. Unless there is an on-going additional influx of funds…e.g. From property sale proceeds. Adding proceeds from property sales would make the Unrestricted Working capital look better in the short term. However, the above could have a major impact on the Financial Sustainability
I raised the above and other matters at budget time, so would you mind now advising me on the status of these matters, above and below
4
As a start, answers to the following questions will certainly give me, an interested and concerned ratepayer, a better understanding of how OUR shire is financially travelling
What are the Actual Wage and Band Change cost, with the increase that was negotiated around November 2018? How does this impact the budget model over the 10 year period previously presented?
With regard to the Saleyard Land, why are these land sale proceeds proposed to go into general revenue, rather than being “Quarantined” to be spent on future identified Capital Projects?...Note, the original budget 2018/19 specified that proceeds from sale of land would be quarantined.
Why has this strategy changed? Maybe it is appropriate to quarantine these funds, and avoid using the funds to prop up operational expenditure. Of course, it might be a better "investment strategy" just to retain land as it is an asset that will not go away, and not have long term depreciation - Money often just gets used "somewhere else" and if kept in the bank it "depreciates"!
Thanks, Paul Regards
Brian Johnstone Brian Johnstone Mountain Bay Tel: 61-437-777-444
SUBMISSION FOR THE 2019/20 BUDGET FOR MANSFIELD SHIRE COUNCIL
MANSFIELD SHIKb COUNCIL*
9 MA Y 7019
FILE NO ~ [2 HoW
Friends of Venilale 7 May 2019
Mr Alex Green Chief Executive Officer Mansfield Shire Council
At a meeting on 12 February 2019 of Friends of Venilale representatives with 3 councillors and Council staff including the CEO, Council strongly reaffirmed the friendship relationship between Mansfield and Venilale, Timor-Leste, through the 2005 Venilale Sub-District - Mansfield Shire Memorandum of Understanding.
Council also agreed to a recurrent annual grant of $2000 per annum for Friends of Venilale. Council made no commitments to increase grant funding, however stated that any additional funding or support requests would be reviewed annually through the budget process.
Friends of Venilale is grateful for the $2000 recurrent annual grant which in particular will assist towards covering salaries for the Friendship Liaison Officer, Education Support Officer and translator in Venilale. Without their organisation and efforts, the relationship between Mansfield and Venilale would simply not progress.
At the 12 February meeting, Council did not support a renewed Memorandum of Understanding between Council and Friends of Venilale. A previous MoU included Council financial support for meeting room hire, printing costs and storage costs.
Friends of Venilale still has to cover these costs, and by covering them it reduces the effectiveness of fundraising for priority projects in education, tourism, women's handicrafts production, and health, all in support of the Venilale community.
As a result, on top of the $2000 annual grant, Friends of Venilale wishes to make a submission for additional funding to be included in the 2019/20 Council budget, as follows -
Printing Annual calendar
(see attached quote from Mansfield Printing) Friends of Venilale Profile
(produced every 3 years - see same quote) Venilale tourist brochure
(printed every 2 years - verbal quote from Mansfield Printing, at $1.60 per double sided colour A4 sheet)
200 copies $320 -f- 2
100 copies
50 copies $645 -r 3
$1050
$215
$160
Meeting room hire Mansfield Library $6 x 11 meetings $66
Plus the agreed annual grant $2000
TOTAL $3491
Friends of Venilale encourages Council to approve this submission for $3491. It will represent a tangible statement by Council on behalf of the Mansfield community that it continues to meaningfully support its friendship town of Venilale in Timor-Leste in a lasting and fruitful relationship that is now into its fifteenth year.
Friends of Venilale requests to make a verbal deputation at the Special Meeting of Council on 28 May.
20A Early Street | Mansfield Vic. 3722 Ph: 03 5775 2123 | Fax: 03 5775 2456 Office hours 9am - 5.00pm Monday to Friday www.mansfieldprintinq.com.au Did you know we now have a Direct to Garment Printer? Check out what it can do here - https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=JFBkvV06ebg
MANSFIELD SHIRE COUNCIL
DRAFT BUDGET / DRAFT COUNCIL PLAN
SUBMISSION
First of all, as I stated at the Budget Information Session, congratulations to Council and its Officers on all the hard work that has gone into the Budget and the Council Plan. Managing competing interests is not an easy task.
Like many Ratepayers, I am worried by the stated need to appoint two Directors. I acknowledge, however, that it must be very difficult to continue to satisfy the very onerous and in my view completely unnecessary extra reporting requirements being placed on Council by the State. The same is being experienced in the Health sector, and ultimately, much of it is not about patient outcomes. If a blowtorch was applied to the proposed new reporting requirements for Local Government, I believe they would be found to be of little direct ratepayer and resident benefit, and more about someone in Spring Street who counts beans trying to devise a way to have more beans to count. Council could perhaps consider appointing two middle level managers to deal specifically with these reporting requirements rather than appointing “Directors”.
I suspect the above will be raised by other ratepayers, so my submission focusses more on two of the major initiatives listed on page 9 and 10 of the Draft Budget papers under the heading:
1) Develop a master plan for the Station Precinct in partnerships with key
stakeholders
2) Develop and implement a co-ordinated review of Council assets in
consultation with the community focusing on whether or not the disposal of key
assets would realise greater net community benefit. This includes the proposed
sale of land at Lakins Road and the Saleyards.
1) Develop a Master plan for the Station Precinct in partnerships with
key stakeholders.
Council has been aware that the open public consultation for this project so far has been limited to the start of stage one of a three stage project, as letters have not been replied to and submissions not supplied to the Steering Committee, who have been requested not to discuss the project with other ratepayers.
My submission is basically that the Consulting firm, SJB Urban, may have been paid or be about to be paid without fulfilling the terms of their contract (the Project Brief). This may impact on the progress of the major initiative listed as above for the 2019/20 Budget, and the lack of consultation and community involvement thus far is at odds with the Council Plan.
2. Develop and implement a co-ordinated review of Council assets in
consultation with the community focusing on whether or not the disposal
of key assets would realise greater net community benefit. This includes
the proposed sale of land at Lakins Road and the Saleyards.
I am pleased that Council has undertaken to consult the community about these decisions. The need for excellence in Emergency Services is ever growing in our district, and our volunteers, in particular, need all the support they can be given. This issue obviously relates directly to land currently used by our various Emergency Services, its current and future suitability or otherwise, its value, who owns it, etc., and the promised consultation on this should be broad ranging.
It is particularly important that the issue of where our Emergency Services are sited (with a focus on the needs of both our volunteer and professional services, and taking into account the future needs dictated by climate change), is solved as a first step.
Any attempt to “trade-off” specific sites against other projects should not happen until our Emergency Services have their future secured in a way that enhances their compatibility, their future adaptability and their response capabilities.
Involvement and engagement with the hierarchy of the involved agencies and with the State looks currently to be still at a very early stage, and should be seen as such.
Thank you for the chance to comment on the 2019-20 Council Plan and Council Budget.
From: Diane & Helmut Beck <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2019 3:10 PMTo: CouncilSubject: Budget Submission
I share all the concerns raised by other Mansfield ratepayers. We are not a large shire and understand the limitations that imposes but decisions being made recently defy all reason and the following are some I find concerning. 1. The mushrooming number if developments within the town boundaries which are on a par with the worst of Melbourne developments. Examples include the block on the corner of Station St. and Curia St., one block now has three properties and not one. Peak Crt. off Highett St., Carob Crt.(where is the historical connection to Mansfield in that name?) off Monkey Gully Road where the blocks and road space are so limited that neighbour disagreements over parking, noise, lack of privacy are inevitable. I realise this provides more ratepayers to add to the income for council, but has resulted in a reduction of the quality of lifestyle for everyone. Less privacy, open space, parking in town, access to doctors and still no emergency department at the local hospital. And Water? Sewerage? I enquired about connecting our property at 73 Monkey Gully Road to sewerage in 2000 and was told it would not happen as the system was full then! 2. I could agree with rate rises if we benefited in some way. In fact we get less and less for our rates. No green waste collection and the ending of the annual free green waste dump at the depot. No hard waste collection 3. Decisions about council owned land. The land beside the hardware shop would surely have provided an ongoing income for council with little outgoing expenditure needed.
2
4. The apparent indifference by council to the opportunity for an emergency precinct in a central position at the old saleyards. The need for emergency services is only going to rise with the constant increase in residents and visitors engaging in activities involving risk, from accidents skiing, boating, off road bike riding and 4 wheel driving, camping, bushwalking. Fire, ambulance and SES services are going to be increasingly required, and again NO EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AT THE HOSPITAL. Visitors are not aware of this and are shocked and angry when they need treatment and are unable to have it in Mansfield. I have witnessed this disbelief and then anger myself on several occasions when attending the hospital. I realise this is not the responsibility of council but where are the efforts by council to achieve this from the relevant authorities, on our behalf? 5. I have previously worked in local government and when we deamalgamated some years ago a friend commented that we would be too small to attract good CEOs and would get short term people who were either on the way up the ladder or on the way down. This prediction has proved fairly accurate but it does not mean that we could not employ good people going in either direction and benefit from the time they spent with us. The idea of employing two extra managers to enable our CEO to network is a bit of a stretch. Regional and statewide meetings and gatherings are where this occurs and are certainly not necessary on a weekly basis, annually or six monthly is sufficient for someone with the necessary skills. I think the basic fact is that someone is either a good manager of their own time and other people, and has the ability to manage a budget however tight or not. Diane Beck
1
Mandy Snell
From: Debbie Skinner <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 4:41 PMTo: FeedbackSubject: Mansfield non resident ratepayer feedback
Hi I have a property at Enoch’s Point which I have had for the last 10 years. Until a few years ago, when phoning the Mansfield Shire relevant to a survey, the shire were addressing and viewing Enoch’s Point the same as Woods Point, which it is not. We do not have any community facilities, garbage collection etc and I am curious as to what the Mansfield Shire attributes any of their budget allocation towards Enoch’s? I live in Taggerty (Murrindindi Shire) and do not attend the Melbourne based forum as it is 2/24 plus away. Thank you Debbie Skinner -Louis PO Box 289 Alexandra 3714
May 13, 2019 Mansfield Shire Council Private Bag 1000, MANSFIELD VIC 3723 Attention: Alex Green Subject: Budget submission for Tourist Attracting signs for GVRT Please find attached our funding request to install Tourist Information signage along the rail trail for consideration as part of the 2019-20 Budget submission process. The Great Victorian Rail Trail is a valuable tourist asset to Mansfield and the communities along the trail. It is also one of three rail trails that underpin Tourism North East’s ‘Ride High Country’ campaign to promote our area as a premier cycling destination across each of the cycling disciplines. Should visitors be inspired by this high level promotion to experience our rail trail, they will have difficulty locating many of the access points available to them. Lack of signage, both along the trail and within towns, has been a recurring theme since the rail trail opened. With 17-access points along the length of the rail trail, our Friends Group would like to address the lack of signage within Mansfield Shire. What can you do about it – our Friends Group is seeking $8,700 to install signage at five access points within Mansfield Shire. We are willing to project manage it. In fact we already have a permit from VicRoads to install the signage!! We would welcome the opportunity to make a verbal presentation in relation to our submission at the special council meeting for hearing public submissions. Kind regards, Ross Vaughan Chair, Friends of the Great Victorian Rail Trail
Background:
The Great Victorian Rail Trail (GVRT) was officially opened in June 2012 and is jointly managed by three Shires; Mansfield, Murrindindi and Mitchell. Maintenance of the the trail is the responsibility of each Shire to help facilitate a safe and enjoyable user experience as well as provide protection of the asset. Promotion and marketing of the asset is managed by the GVRT Marketing Committee comprising a representative from each Shire Council who meet quarterly. The project did not include for the provsion of highway directional signage, interpretative signage, or other improvements that would enhance the rail trail users experience. It was envisaged that these would be provided at a later date. This has not occurred to-date!! What does the project involve:
There are 17-access points along the length of the rail trail. Only four of these sites within Murrindindi Shire have tourist attracting signs installed on the highway to raise the awareness of passing motorists that they are travelling parallel with the Great Victorian Rail Trail. Within Mansfield Shire, five access points have been identified to have this signage installed (see attached photos of each of the access points). Mansfield Shire has issued a ‘no objection’ approval to the Friends of the Great Victorian Rail Trail for VicRoads to issue a permit allowing installation of these tourist attacting signs. Project involves the manufacture and installation of these signs by a VicRoads approved contractor (see artwork of proposed signage) Total cost of submission...........................................................................................$ 8,700
Ongoing benefit to the community as a result of this project:
This $14 million rail trail is a valuable asset to Mansfield and the communities along the trail. It is also one of three rail trails that underpin Tourism North East’s ‘Ride Hide Country’ campaign to promote the area as a premier cycling destination across each of the cycling disciplines of road, mountain biking and rail trail. Despite this promotion the GVRT remains an under utilised asset!! Increasing useage is essential to its sustainabiliy and an important means of encouraging further development of the trail. It’s also essential to the businesses that directly and indirectly benefit from, or support rail trail users. Why should Council fund thisproject:
In keeping with the Shires Strategic objective 2.7 to optimise benfits from cycling based tourism, the GVRT underpins TNE’s ‘Ride High Country’ campaign, but lack of signage makes it difficult for new visitors to access the trail. In fact, the GVRT Marketing Report of Oct-Dec 2017 under ‘trail feedback states ‘lack of signage both on the trail and within towns as a recurring issue’. As part of the Shire’s Enhanced Liveability objective 4.3 to promote healthy, active lifestyles and increase the use of Councils leisure assets, the GVRT is well recognised for being a safe place to walk, cycle or horse ride. However, signage is critical to increasing visitation to one of the best off-road cycling experiences in Victoria.
Maroondah Highway & Pikes Road, Mansfield
Maroondah Highway & Station Street, Maindample
Entrance to rail trail bridge from Maroondah Highway, Bonnie Doon
Maroondah Highway & Brankeet Avenue, Woodfield
Maroondah Highway & Finks Road, Merton
One of the GVRT Tourist Information signs installed on the Maroondah Hwy at Cathkin
Graeme Stoney Managements ALPINE AND GENERAL CONSULTANTS ABN 90 186 622 307
“Greenstone” 50 Spring St, Howqua Hills, PO Box 182, Mansfield VIC 3724 M 0428 576 090 E [email protected]
President and Councillors
Mansfield Shire Council
Re: The Forthcoming Budget and Draft Council Plan.
I write as a private citizen; however, I am a member of Mansfield Cultural Heritage and Arts
Centre (MCHAC) and the Mansfield Historical Society. I am a lifetime resident of Mansfield
and the patriarch of a family which has been in the district since 1864 and who are
collectively, significant ratepayers in this Shire today.
For some time, I have had serious reservations about the management and direction of the
Mansfield Shire.
The example I cite is the obvious link between the aspirations listed in the council plan and
the current station precinct planning process.
From the council draft plan: Strategic Objectives:
1: Participation and Partnerships; Council will encourage community participation in decision making, ensure our community has a say in matters of interest to them and that Council is an effective advocate on behalf of the community. Partnerships between key service providers and authorities across the municipality will be nurtured and strengthened. 2. Community resilience and connectivity: Council’s role is to assist the community in achieving its goals. It is a partnership. Neither Council nor the community can address the challenges and issues we face alone. Through collaboration with our local communities, other agencies and governments, we will assist people to work on their own solutions to the issues that are important to them.
Putting aside the ridiculous cost of more than a hundred thousand dollars, I have watched the
Station Precinct process develop with dismay as it became increasingly obvious Council has
not been followed the consultative process and the guidelines it created.
I especially mention the blatant and deliberate tactic of sidelining MCHAC, (which comprises
representatives from: Rotary, The Historical Society, Arts Mansfield, the Taungurung and
Yooralla) from a project that those key groups have spent ten years years supporting.
2
The flawed Council process has
1. Only had one consultation at the start of stage one of a 3 stage project.
2. Had no public agenda or minutes for the Steering Committee.
3. Instructed the Steering Committee Community Representatives not to talk about the
outcome of meetings.
4. Not giving public submissions to the Steering Committee (Well into the process it became
clear that Steering members had no knowledge of MCHAC or many other community views on
the Precinct. This was a real slap in the face and wake up call to MCHAC that the process was
off the rails and it was being sidelined.)
5. Not replied or properly acknowledged letters submitted to the process.
There is no other conclusion that can be reached except that Council staff and Councillors
have decided that MCAHC (which represent those community groups) should be put “back in
its box” because it has attempted to remain involved and keep the process accountable. It is
clear there has been a message sent to us that Council is in charge and it knows best.
The resulting process and the flawed outcomes mean the dead hand of this Council has gutted
community enthusiasm by very virtually spitting in the face of groups which have invested the
last decade attempting to achieve outcomes for the Station Precinct at no cost to Council.
Even worse, the aforesaid dead hand, evident throughout this sorry affair, will now ensure
that it will be many, many years before any real progress will be made in developing the
Precinct.
Finally, don’t get me started on the ability of the consultants who didn’t listen to the initial
and carefully presented community submissions on site and then placed important buildings
and other facilities at the last minute in inappropriate places because they had forgotten to
include them. The resulting plan is a dog’s breakfast, and really good alternative suggestions,
only put forward after the omissions became known, were swamped in the haste for the
consultants to finish and be paid.
Referring you again to the quoted words above in the draft plan on community consultation,
they have been proved to be already empty, worthless and indeed laughable.
TO: Mr Alex Green, Chief Executive Officer Mansfield Shire Council: Councillors Westendorp, Sladdin, Attley, Olver and Volkering Private Bag 100, Mansfield, VIC 3724
RE: Proposed 2019-20 Budget, Council Plan and Strategic Resources Plan I find myself yet again in a position of re-stating my concerns expressed repeatedly in recent years about the annual budget and decisions made by council which are contrary to general community feeling about the management and financial security of our Mansfield Shire. These concerns are so serious that they are provoking escalating community alarm about where the shire council is taking us as ratepayers along a path of high risk management that will jeopardise our viability and potentially rob us of the independence that we fought so hard to regain from the amalgamation disaster. I would like these matters addressed as a matter of urgency:
STAFFING The dramatic increase in staffing levels is unacceptable and the appointment of two new directors (after having been refused in previous budget) is alarming and reckless. We ratepayers cannot afford this high cost structure which cannot be justified for a rural shire such as Mansfield.
FORMER SALEYARDS SITE Ownership of this prime site should be retained in council ownership on behalf of ratepayers for key community use such as an emergency services precinct which has major community support. As a recognised strategic asset its future use should not be sold off to make the budget look better and facilitating it to be lost for community use forever.
TRANSPARENCY & COMMUNICATION The council has not been transparent and open about informing us of significant issues including (i) voluntary admission of the overcharge of ratepayers on garbage charges and (ii) what the reasons are for renewing the CEO salary contract so far ahead of its scheduled review which I consider highly unusual and ill-advised by whoever advises you. The Council has a full page advertisement in the Courier that it should use for meaningful communication in addition to the usual channels of communication.
INFRASTRUCTURE With the township sprawling significantly in all directions there is a need for our rates to be spent on pathways for pedestrians, children and our senior citizens, especially those in mobility carts to access and navigate the township safely. The budget for upgrade and construction of roads, pedestrian and bike pathways is inadequate and underestimated, especially as the priority is being given to sporting facilities which are worthy but not as urgent as community mobility and safety. FINALLY, I ask the council to restore our trust and act responsibly and be genuine in its responses to ratepayers with real concerns rather than treating us as adversaries by repeatedly ignoring such a groundswell of concerned ratepayers on many issues, which is unprecedented in many years. Sincerely, Joan Tehan
As the owners of Choices Cafe, we would like to bring to your attention the state of the storm water drain on the corner of Apollo and High Street in Mansfield.
After heavy downpours of rain the drain is incapable of dealing with the flow of water and therefore water backs up from Apollo Street to well past the three parking spaces in front of our shop. This is not only a serious traffic issue, but the water is so deep in front of the shop customers are unable to use the car parking, resulting in significant lose of trade for us.
In our opinion, the storm water requires serious augmentation to rectify the problem that occurs at least ten times a year, and would not be tolerated by traders further up High Street.
Attached are photographs of the most recent event that occurred today.
We would appreciate your action in prioritising this desperately needed work.
Re: Budget Submission
Phil & Kate O'Connor
Cc: Councillor Volkering
Jamieson Community Group & Assoc. Bodies Inc. Registered Number A0016504U
7th May, 2019 Mr. A. Green, Chief Executive Officer, Mansfield Shire Council, Private Bag 1000, MANSFIELD. VIC. 3724 Dear Alex,
“The Island”, Jamieson Budget Submission 2019-2020
The Jamieson Community Group wish to lodge a budget submission with the Mansfield Shire in regards to our management of “The Island” in Jamieson on behalf of the Council. For the 2019/2020 financial year, we are asking for a budget of $6,500, which includes mowing as well as managing the blackberry growth on “The Island” as follows:- $5,500 Mowing of “The Island” $1,000 Managing the Blackberries
$6,500 The budget would need to provide enough money to finance a minimum of 10 mows for the next financial year. This financial year (2018/2019) was a fairly dry year, and we found that the 9 mows undertaken (8 from the budget and 1 from the Mansfield Council for the River Festival) to be insufficient. For the next financial year, we will be incorporating the mow from the Mansfield Council into our 2019/2020 budget. During the 2018/2019 financial year, we implemented the start of our blackberry eradication program which was effective, and with the assistance from Landcare, we have found $1,000 to be a good amount to keep the blackberries controlled. Thus far during the 2018/2019 financial year, the Community Group had 6 community Tuesdays maintaining “The Island”, as well as 1 day each from the Lauriston and Timbertop Schools, which involved removing dead/fallen trees and tidying up the edges of “The Island”. We will continue to invest our volunteer time into the upkeep of “The Island” for the 2019/2020 financial year. Through an “Expression of Interest” process, the best rate we could obtain for the 2018/2019 financial year allowed for 8 mows, taking 5 hours each at $100 per hour. We will offer the “Expression of Interest” again this coming financial year in an endeavour to make the money stretch further, though our current contractor has informed us his standard rate is $110 per hour and he would expect that rate for the 2019/2020 financial year. We will continue with our blackberry eradication program, and the $1,000 for the next financial year will enable us to continue with the ongoing maintenance program, which will go towards further poisoning of new growth and further removal of these unsightly blackberries.
- 2 - Mr. A. Green 7th May, 2019 We will provide the Mansfield Shire with a full reconciliation of the monies received for the 2018/2019 financial year when all areas are finalized. We are extremely appreciative of this funding which has helped the Jamieson Community Group maintain “The Island” to a standard set by the Mansfield Shire for its Reserves, and continue with our blackberry/weed eradication program. We look forward to discussing the management of “The Island” with you in regards to managing this most valuable Reserve on behalf of the Shire. Regards,
Sue Malins, Secretary.
c.c. Harry Westendorp, Jamieson Councillor & Mayor
Jamieson Community Group & Assoc. Bodies Inc. Registered Number A0016504U
The Jamieson Community Group wish to lodge a budget submission with the Mansfield Shire in regards to our management and maintenance of Recreation Reserve in Jamieson. For the 2019/2020 financial year, we are asking for a budget of $1,000, which includes mowing and maintenance. During the 2018/2019 financial year, the Mansfield Shire generously provided us with $1,000 to maintain this Reserve, and we do not see any need to increase this amount for the 2019/2020 financial year. Thus far during the 2018/2019 financial year, the Jamieson Community Group maintains Recreation Reserve in regards to mowing, weeding and generally tidying up the area. We will continue to invest our volunteer time into the upkeep of Recreation Reserve for the 2019/2020 financial year. We will provide the Mansfield Shire with a full reconciliation of the monies received for the 2018/2019 financial year when all areas are finalized. We are extremely appreciative of this funding which has helped the Jamieson Community Group maintain Recreation Reserve to a standard set by the Mansfield Shire for its Reserves. We look forward to discussing the management of Recreation Reserve with you in regards to managing this most valuable Reserve on behalf of the Shire. Regards,
Sue Malins, Secretary. c.c. Harry Westendorp, Jamieson Councillor & Mayor Mandy Kynnersley, Finance Manager, Mansfield Shire
Mansfield branch VFF Budget submission 2019
1. The Mansfield branch of the VFF ask Councillors to increase the amount spent on the re-
sheeting of the Shires gravel roads .Many of these roads have suffered serious degradation
due to the continuing dry season and the extra load on these roads from continual fodder
transportation .Only 600k has been allocated to re-sheeting , a marked fall from previous
years .Given that Council has an extra 3 million in revenue due to the recent education
department grant , it appears timely that at least 1 million of this be spent on this basic
Council service. VFF will be happy to work with Council to highlight the roads most in need.
2. The VFF strongly recommends that Council re appoint the finance committee that the
current CEO disbanded early in his tenure. We believe that a Finance Committee (at no cost
to ratepayers) offers a invaluable service to Councillors and enables them to get a
alternative analysis on projects and budget ect.
3. The VFF strongly oppose the appointment of 2 new Directors at the cost of 400k+ to
ratepayers. We believe that being the” only Shire” not to have Directors is not a valid
reason for their appointment. This Shire will not survive employee cost increases of 15% pa
(1.1 million dollars) and employee rises of 3-5% pa .The VFF would like to see a full
breakdown on this 1.1 million. In the 2017/18 MSC budget under this Council , employee
levels were forecast to be at 96.3 FTE in 2020/21 ,already we are at 101 FTE in 2019/20.
4. The VFF opposes the sale of the old saleyard site and encourages Council to work with the
community to develop this site into a Emergency services precinct. 95% of our membership
are members of CFA and or SES.
5. VFF encourages Councillors to heed the Mayors introduction which states “Council plans to
continue to seek community input and engage the Mansfield Shire Community in important
decisions.
James Tehan
Branch President Mansfield VFF
1
Mandy Snell
From: Martine K <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2019 7:33 AMTo: CouncilSubject: Att Alex Green CEO
My name is Rod Keep . I live at Woods Point and have done so for around 2 years, since leaving Phillip Island in the Bass Coast Shire. I left that Shire following their ongoing spending spree on Executives and proposed Art collection acquisitions. Their resultant rate rises were not tolerable. They appeared to lose sight of what their core business was and appointed people to all manner of exotic positions. When a council CEO earns more than the Prime Minister and noone cares, I deemed it time to leave. I hope Mansfield doesnt go the same way and keeps a tight rein on any Executive or Director appointments. Focus should always remain on things such as Roads, Parks and Gardens and Rubbish etc... We do nt need an assistant to the assistant to the deputy HR Manager! Rod Keep 8988 Woods Point Rd Woods Point 3723 0488 304832 Sent from the office of The Rod.
Mr Alex Green
Chief Executive - Mansfield Shire Council
Private Bag 1000
MANSFIELD VIC 3724
28 March 2019
Dear Mr Green,
Mansfield Shire Council budget 2019-2020
Farmers in Mansfield Shire Council are concerned about the future sustainability of rates and the
impact of rates on farms, and thus take a great interest in the council’s 2019-2020 budget.
To that end we request a copy of the draft council budget to be sent to [email protected],
when the draft budget is released.
Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) members within Mansfield Shire Council wish to work with the
council to ensure a budget is delivered that is fair to all residents, businesses and allows farmers the
ability to continue operation of viable businesses. We therefore request that as well as the rating
cap applying to total rates, that the rating cap be applied to each individual rating category.
The VFF is looking to work with the council to ensure sustainability of both farms in the district and
the council. Ultimately it is the VFF position that the pool of funding for rural and regional councils
needs to be grown or responsibilities reduced, in order to lift the burden off a small local base.
Nationally, through the National Farmers Federation, we are pushing for larger federal infrastructure
grants to be based on need rather than population. At a State Government level, we are pushing for
clear guidance from the state government on the core business of local councils to stop the shifting
of responsibilities onto local government. Additionally we campaigned extensively to get a review
into the sustainability of the rating system and will be looking for the review to look at all options to
try and find a new way forward, towards more sustainable local government.
We invite you to get in contact to discuss ways we can work together for the benefit of everyone in
the community. You can contact Paula Fitzgerald, VFF Stakeholder Policy and Advocacy Manager on
It is policy that the following principles encompass the VFF policy on local
government responsibilities and funding:
Responsibilities of Local Government
The State Government must outline the core responsibilities of Local Government in legislation
These core responsibilities should include: o Maintenance of local roads; o Control fire risk on roadside verges; o Control of pest plant and animals on Local Government owned land; o Provision of Municipal Planning; o Community services to an extent that all rate payers benefit (eg. local libraries,
economic development or waste disposal if applicable to all rates payers, as voted by all ratepayers);
o Hosting council meetings and community forums to inform the community on council activities;
o Providing feedback to State Government on proposals and regulatory change that will affect the local area.
Any additional community services that do not benefit all rates payers should be paid for through a service fee by those who use the service.
Any funded activities outside of those core responsibilities should have to be justified to the community and passed through the Local Government budget process as a separate budget item to core responsibilities, to allow for any objections to this additional activity.
Local Government must be evaluated annually on their performance against those core responsibilities, with the community made aware of the outcome of the evaluation.
Funding of Local Government
Overview: o The VFF reject the use of property tax revenue as a funding stream for Local
Government. o The VFF support the use of a municipal charge, grants and user charges as the
funding streams for Local Government, and o The Local Government budgetary process must be transparent and clear to a
layman, with a process for rate payers objections which is accessible to all those who pay rates.
Federal o Given the large scale and economic importance of the road infrastructure controlled
by Local Government, the VFF expect the Federal Government to significantly fund Local Government.
o If rating land forms apart of Local Government revenue, federal crown land should be rated.
o Any federal grants should be based on need rather than population.
o Call on the NFF to advocate for greater federal funding on behalf of the VFF.
State o If rating land forms apart of Local Government revenue, state
crown land should be rated. o Any state grants should be based on need rather than
population.
Municipal charge o A flat charge to each occupied dwelling should be used by all Local governments to
fund core responsibilities, rather than the rating system. o This charge should be renamed to Community Charge. o If a rating system is in place, there should be a minimum requirement of a 20%
municipal charge (community charge) with no maximum.
User charges o For community services beyond the core responsibilities of Local Government, users
of these services should be charged. o If community services which have user charges are cross subsidised by other sources
of funding, in particular rates but also grants, this cross subsidisation should be made clear to all in the community through the Local Government budget process.
Rating o The VFF does not support the rating of farm land in any circumstances. o Where farm land is rated, whether with differential rates or not, a rate cap of CPI
cap should be separately applied to each individual rating category – general, residential, farm, commercial.
o If rating land forms apart of Local Government revenue, the VFF does support the rating of house and curtilage on farm land at a rate commensurate with the level of services provided by the council to that property.
o If farm land is rated, a differential rate must be applied to reduce the burden of rates on farm land.
1
Mandy Snell
From: avis crawford <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, 13 May 2019 4:46 PMTo: CouncilCc: Peter OlverSubject: RE: Mansfield Shire Budget
These are my concerns regarding the proposed 2019‐20 Mansfield Shire Budget. The appointment of two Directors at approximately $400,000 per annum by the CEO. To release the said CEO to pursue "networking and visiting other shires " when one would expect this role to be covered by our elected representatives, not a CEO concentrating on his role as set out in Know your council.vic.gov.au/guide. Mayor Cr Harry Westendorp is quoted as saying "The inclusion of directors in the corporate structure is consistent with all other councils in the state" I ask are all other councils in the state in a similar financial situation to our Mansfield Shire Council ? In closing, my impression is that Mansfield Councils have been known for their independent thinking. I implore our current council to listen to the community and show their independent thinking by supporting their community, not an employee. Regards Avis Crawford. 424 Monkey Gully Road, Mansfield.
1
Mandy Snell
From: Anne Foster <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 10 May 2019 12:15 PMTo: CouncilCc: Harry Westendorp; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Peter Olver; Paul VolkeringSubject: budget feedback
10/5/2019 Mr Alex Green, Chief Executive Officer Mansfield Shire Council These are my concerns regarding the proposed 2019‐20 Mansfield Shire Budget:
1). The appointment of two new directors at approximately $400,000 per annum 2). Increased staff costs of $1.1 million per annum 3). Rate increases which have not been communicated to residents Reasons for concerns: 1). The appointment of two new directors has been discussed and rejected previously. Surely the CEO can visit other shires and research their methods and services using the internet or phone. None of Mansfield’s previous CEO’s have been unable to network or needed additional staff. 2). Last year many Council staff lost their positions or had their hours reduced because the Council could not afford to maintain wages. Yet miraculously this year those same conditions do not apply. This requires a detailed explanation for ratepayers. 3). Residents should be informed in advance if their annual fees are to be increased and a full explanation provided. Under a previous Council residents were asked if they wanted to pay higher fees and receive better services or get reduced fees. That Council was transparent and believed that engagement with the residents was worth listening to. These qualities are to be admired and used as models of good practice. Kind regards,
Anne Foster 278 Dead Horse Lane, Mansfield 3722
SIR ANDREW GRIMWADE, C.B.E. P O BOX 607 MANSFIELD VICTORIA 3724 MOB: 0408 828 658 EMAIL: [email protected] 10 May 2019 Mr Alex Green, Chief Executive Officer Mansfield Shire Council Private Bag 100, Mansfield, VIC 3724
SUBMISSION RE 2019-20 BUDGET & ASSOCIATED PLANS
1 Overview Big is not better, if it is achieved by the sale of irreplaceable long term assets and by increasing costs to ratepayers. Like many ratepayers with whom I have spoken, I am appalled that the Council and CEO are ignoring the majority views of the community in framing the 2019-20 Budget and Associated Plans in respect of several key areas. 2 Sale OR Lease of Saleyards? The Saleyards Site must be preserved for a future Essential Services Hub embracing the SES, Ambulances, CFA and Helipad Operations. The health, safety and well-being of ratepayers will be maximised by the Shire’s ownership of this key site. At the very least, until funds are obtained, the Saleyards could be leased for an interim period, BUT WITH Shire ownership maintained. The iconic Saleyards Site must never be sold by the Shire. 3 Appointment of Two Directors I am strongly opposed to the Shire appointing two directors (for $450,000 plus) to free up the CEO, amongst other things, to network outside the Shire. The CEO should manage and focus on the business within the Shire. Even if other Shires have directors, it does not justify Mansfield having them. Mansfield is not BHP! A grandiose organisation is not part of Mansfield’s DNA. If the CEO is unhappy, he should move elsewhere. 4 Revenue Opportunities. The Budget should require the CEO to investigate fresh ways to increase revenue. For example, Mansfield is believed to have some of the largest tourist numbers pro rata to its resident population, how can this traffic be captured at no net expense to ratepayers? Quite simply, by installing parking meters with residents having exemption free-parking vouchers. Meters may be unsightly to some, but they will be better for residents than increased rates. 5 The Alternative There is a general awareness that the Council & CEO are not listening to the strong wishes of the community and there is chatter that the Shire could be better served by an Administrator. 6 Conclusion I request an opportunity to speak to Council on this Submission. Yours faithfully,
Andrew Grimwade
1
Mandy Snell
From: Alex GreenSent: Monday, 6 May 2019 12:12 PMTo: Adele McCormackCc: -Councillors; Mandy KynnersleySubject: RE: Submission for budget
Thanks for your submission Adele. I have forwarded on to Mandy Kynnersley to be included in the formal process. A link to all Council budget information including the process and budget document can be found here. Regards Alex
Alex Green Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Phone: 03 5775 8530 Fax: 03 5775 2677 Website: www.mansfield.vic.gov.au If you are deaf, or have a hearing or speech impairment, contact us throughthe National Relay Service. For more information, visit: www.relayservice.gov.au.
Sign up for Email
Notices
Mansfield Shire Council acknowledge the Taungurung people as the traditional owners of the land on which our offices are located. We pay respect to the Taungurung Elders, past, present and future and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
From: Adele McCormack <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 6 May 2019 8:34 AM To: Alex Green <[email protected]> Subject: Submission for budget
Good morning Alex, I have only scanned the budget document but one area of it has caused me great concern.
2
That is the engagement of two directors at 6 figure salaries. There has been no explanation for why there is a need for such highly paid individuals either. Out of the blue we ‘need’ two more executives - to do what? I would prefer to see more locals employed to work with the town at ground roots level. Such as on the maintenance crews, the home care crews, the garden maintenance crews. Over my lifetime in Mansfield I have seen many of these highly paid ‘professional local government workers’ they come in work at ‘improving Mansfield’ for a few years and move on and up the ladder. One time one fellow boasted that he had almost doubled the population by granting permits for X number of subdivisions which went ahead. He had not taken care of the details and although the subdivisions were created the roads were substandard and had to be redone – at the shire’s expense a few years after he left. I believe, as I was told by a councillor in a different shire, although I have no proof, that he did end up being found to be corrupt and had taken bribes from developers in another shire. He was fired from several positions later in his career which I believe has folded. This, and the way many of these highly paid executives use various local shires as stepping stones, sours me to too many highly paid individuals. When it comes time to trim the wage bill it should be at this level not at the base level. I hope this is a satisfactory submission. I am usually happy to allow council to run along as it needs to but we are not that flush in funds to hand out 6 figure income jobs to career climbers I don’t think. Most sincerely yours Adele McCormack Adele McCormack Beolite Village 67 MacPherson-Smith Drive Mansfield 3722 0409600655
To Alex Green and Mansfield Shire Councillors, I am writing to you regarding the proposed upcoming budget. You will receive a copy of this in both written and email form. M A I V - ;r t r-OUNeiL
8 T' vr-a J
FILE NO.
Ywliy the staff increase -
As a resident ratepayer I strongly oppose the following: 1. The appointment of two new Directors. 2 The addition of any staff beyond the current 2018/2019 level of 97.7 FTE The Council seems to be pushing an agenda in the budget without being fully clear oi is required. There is a strong community feeling that this should not proceed as evidenced on Facebook community pages and opinions shared in the local newspaper.l believe the budget has only just returned to a tentative positive (based on an unapproved 13.9% rate rise approval), so spending this now is questionable and extravagant at best.
I have the following queries and I would like to see them answered before I consider removing this objection: 1. What are these Director positions and how are they justified? 2. What is the Infrastructure position and how is it justified? 3. How will these appointments improve the delivery of services to the ratepayers after so many true operational staff have been let go previously? 4. How will the Directors improve and normalise the budget surplus without the need for above standard rate rises? 5. How will the Directors reduce risk / improve governance? 6. The Mayor mentioned when approached at the recent bush market "we are the only shire council in Victoria that does not have similar positions", and the "CEO needs to spend more time networking on Spring Street" but what are these seemingly critical positions and why are they not
detailed in the budget transparently? 7. Is this funded by our rates, or will this come from additional external state funding? 8. Is this budget now locked in? 9. Crucially, was the CEO not aware of point 6 when he accepted the position in -2016 based on the job description at the time?
Effectively this does not pass the "pub test". Never in any other organisation would someone be able to request what is basically additional staff to assist them with the role that they were knowingly hired for and paid to perform. Most of us would be told, if you don't like it you can leave. I am writing to you as a professional researcher, scientist and communicator, so I can appreciate how line managers would respond to my request! Perhaps if the role is overtaxing for the CEO, he could either let 2 people do his job for the same total salary as his wage, or accept that having such an over-inflated wage means he has to work as hard as needed for his community as do most people in their career.
Awaiting your response, please respond in writing.
To Alex Green and Mansfield Shire Councillors, I am writing to you regardin proposed upcoming budget. You will receive a copy of this in both written an
As a resident ratepayer I strongly oppose the following: 1. The appointment of two new Directors. 2. The addition of any staff beyond the current 2018/2019 level of 97.7 FTE The Council seems to be pushing an agenda in the budget without being fully clear on why the staff increase is required. There is a strong community feeling that this should not proceed as evidenced on Facebook community pages and opinions shared in the local newspaper. I believe the budget has only just returned to a tentative positive (based on an unapproved 13.9% rate rise approval), so spending this now is questionable and extravagant at best.
I have the following queries and I would like to see them answered before I consider removing this objection: 1. What are these Director positions and how are they justified? 2. What is the Infrastructure position and how is it justified? 3. How will these appointments improve the delivery of services to the ratepayers after so many true operational staff have been let go previously? 4. How will the Directors improve and normalise the budget surplus without the need for above standard rate rises? 5/ How will the Directors reduce risk / improve governance? 6. The Mayor mentioned when approached at the recent bush market "we are the only shire council in Victoria that does not have similar positions", and the "CEO needs to spend more time networking on Spring Street" but what are these seemingly critical positions and why are they not detailed in the budget transparently? 7. Is this funded by our rates, or will this come from additional external state funding? 8. Is this budget now locked in? 9. Crucially, was the CEO not aware of point 6 when he accepted the position in -2016 based on the job description at the time? Effectively this does not pass the "pub test". Never in any other organisation would someone be able to request what is basically additional staff to assist them with the role that they were knowingly hired for and paid to perform. Most of us would be told, if you don't like it you can leave. Note, I'm writing to you as a senior manager for a large multinational - so I know how these things work.
Awaiting your response, please respond in writing.
To: Alex Green, CEO Mansfield Shire Council Submission on the Proposed Mansfield Shire 2019-20 Budget
The following is a submission in relation to the proposed Mansfield Shire 2019-20 budget (MS19-20). Though there are several areas that deserve comment, I have decided to focus on the largest expense item of the budget, Employee Costs.
Table 1: Analysis of the Financials of Mansfield, Alpine & Strathbogie Shires Mansfield
*The data tabled is sourced from each council's published financial statements.
A The data is from the proposed Mansfield Shire 2017-18 Budget that triggered the Staffing review/adjustment.
Analysis: The MS 19-20 Employee Costs are significantly higher than those of Alpine & Strathbogie Shires in percentage terms, versus Total Expenses. This is also an historic fact that has not been addressed. Specifically, the MS19-20 Employee Costs are at least 13% higher than those of Alpine & Strathbogie Shires. This means Mansfield Shire is spending significantly less, in percentage terms, on other important Expense items, such as Capital Expenditure.
- The Mansfield Shires 19-20 Employee Costs, include two new director positions (2FTE, $396,000). It is also noted in the MS19-20 that the Executive Services FTE numbers rise from 2 in 18/19 to 5.5 in 19-20. So costs associated with the two new director positions are likely to be higher again. The two director positions are solely funded by the Council i.e. from Council Income only.
- The Mansfield CEO, currently, has 5 managers reporting to him. The CEO is now proposing to reduce this to just two, the new directors. The result is an extra layer of management at a significant expense. The MS19-20 Staff numbers & Employee Costs/Total Expenses percentages exceed those of the Mansfield Shire 2017-18 draft budget that triggered the staffing review/adjustment.
Conclusion: I strongly oppose the appointment of the two new directors. Financially, the Mansfield Shire is in a weak position compared to similar local councils, & simply cannot afford these two high cost positions.
Signed: — Michael Lamin, Tolmie Date: 13 May 2019
vlAklsHbQS SH1R£ COUNCIL
1 L M AY 2 (119
FILE NO. 2 10 p N/
Robert Graves Paxton’s Hill
376 Mt Battery Road Mansfield
Victoria 3722
14 May 2019
Re: Submission on the Mansfield Shire Council Proposed Budget 2019-20 In early 2018, the council opted to make 9 positions redundant as a cost saving exercise, in response to a Council resolution to save $500,000. The explanation for the redundancy was to remove long-term structural costs, noting that the redundancies would incur charges. At the time, the Council had a budgeted staff level of 94.2 EFT and a staffing cost of $8,660,000. In the 2018/19 budget, the EFT was budgeted to remain the same, and costs to drop to $8,321,000. Actual EFT was 97.7 and actual cost $8,178,000. Given the number of positions that were advertised and re-advertised, I’d guess that the reduction in cost was due to unfilled positions, and not good management. How then can the Council justify increasing EFT to 101.0 – an increase of 6.8 over the pre-redundancy levels, and costs to over $9,282,000 – an increase of $682,000 from pre-redundancy levels. This includes the addition of two extra senior staff, and a replacement for a staff position that was made redundant earlier. No explanation is given as to why Council needs two additional senior managers – when it could easily put in place directors by altering existing management structures. No explanation is given as to why there are now 22 externally funded positions, when the 2018/19 budget papers advised there would be 1.9 externally funded positions. What services are at risk if the funding is removed? History shows that the raised EFT will remain, regardless of the funding, and the costs will remain embedded. It is against the spirit of the motion that the Council passed to save money. It appears to reflect an inability of the Council to keep control of its budget, and of it’s CEO. The Council cannot rely on the Essential Services Commission supporting ongoing rate rises above the rate cap, and the infrastructure requirements of the Council must not suffer because of staffing cost blowouts. I would like to see the Council commit to the spirit of the last budget, and to accept that the choice to make redundancies should be a long term one – not just until the ratepayers forget what was promised. Staff costs should be reduced to $8,300,000 in line with the 2018/19 budget and incorporating the long-term savings from the redundancies, and EFT kept below 95. Force the CEO to make a budget that fits the economic circumstances of the Council. If the Council chooses not to follow this approach, it will be remembered for poor financial management, and squandering the cash and good will of ratepayers. Robert Graves 0412 455 149
PO Box 552 Mansfield 3724 14th May 2019 See Distribution OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED MANSFIELD SHIRE COUNCIL BUDGET 2019/20 I object to the proposed 2019/20 Mansfield Shire Council. In particular, I object to the employment of any additional executive staff (Directors) and oppose to the employment of any further staff that results in a change to the Salaries and Budgets component of the proposed budget by more than 4% above the 2018/19 level of $8,170,499. I note the following:
The Victorian State Government has enacted a freeze on the creation and funding of any additional executive staff within the Victorian Public Service. The Mansfield Shire Council Application to the Essential Services Commission dated March 2019 reports that: “Permanent Savings from implementing a new organisational structure. As part of the quest to deliver operational savings, the CEO restructured the human resources of Council. Assessed in Full Time Equivalent (FTE) fractions, 7.9 staff were made redundant, 2.6 vacant positions were not filled, 5.6 new positions were created (to which some staff were redeployed, and some were new hires). The net impact was a reduction of staff of 5.1 FTE, saving $390,000 per annum (excluding redundancy costs). The operational impact was improved function alignment and more streamlined service delivery channels.” The Strategice (sic) Resource Plan (SRP) and Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) attached to the Mansfield Shire Council application to the Essential Services Commission shows a jump in Employee costs from in 2018/19: $8,170,499 to 2019/20: $9,283,927.
In 2017, in response to public submissions to the 2017/18 budget, Council directed the CEO to find operational expenditure savings of $500,000. The CEO identified savings of $394,000 in wages and salaries which were subsequently enacted in the 2018/19 budget. However, the proposed 2019/20 budget reports an increase of $1,113,428 in the Wages and Salaries component of the budget when compared to the 2018/19 budget. Of grave concern, the body of the Application by the Mansfield Shire Council to the Essential Services Commission dated March 2019 refers ONLY to the reduction of EFT and subsequent wages and salaries savings. It makes NO reference in the body of the proposal to recruit additional executive level staff and increased salaries and wages by $1,113,428. The only reference is embedded in the detailed figures contained in the annexes to the application.
In Conclusion: I object to the recruitment of additional Director staff. I object to an increase of the 2019/20 Wage and Salaries component of the budget that is greater than 4% of the 2018/19 budget. I request that Council’s written response this submission include reasons why: Council is not abiding with the Stage Government policy of a freeze on the recruitment of Executive positions. Council’s proposed budget does not recognise the communities view expressed in 2017 and recognised by a direction to the CEO to identify at least $500,000 worth of savings in operational expenditure in the 2018/19 Budget. Council’s application to the Essential Services Commission did not explicitly note in the body of the application the proposal to recruit two Directors and to increase the wages and salaries component of the 2019/20 budget by $1,113,428 when compared to the 2018/19 budget. I further ask Council to advise if they intend to update the Essential Services Commission of the proposal to recruit two Directors and to provide advice that the $390,000 of wage and salaries savings identified in the body of the report will be subsumed by the increase of $1,113,428 in the 2019/20 wages and salaries costs of the proposed Mansfield Shire Council budget. If not, why not. Yours sincerely Distribution: Mansfield Shire Council For information: Clr Harry Westendorp Clr Paul Sladdin Clr Marg Attley Clr Peter Oliver Clr Paul Volkering
2
I share all the concerns raised by other Mansfield ratepayers. We are not a large shire and understand the limitations that imposes but decisions being made recently defy all reason and the following are some I find concerning. 1. The mushrooming number if developments within the town boundaries which are on a par with the worst of Melbourne developments. Examples include the block on the corner of Station St. and Curia St., one block now has three properties and not one. Peak Crt. off Highett St., Carob Crt.(where is the historical connection to Mansfield in that name?) off Monkey Gully Road where the blocks and road space are so limited that neighbour disagreements over parking, noise, lack of privacy are inevitable. I realise this provides more ratepayers to add to the income for council, but has resulted in a reduction of the quality of lifestyle for everyone. Less privacy, open space, parking in town, access to doctors and still no emergency department at the local hospital. And Water? Sewerage? I enquired about connecting our property at 73 Monkey Gully Road to sewerage in 2000 and was told it would not happen as the system was full then! 2. I could agree with rate rises if we benefited in some way. In fact we get less and less for our rates. No green waste collection and the ending of the annual free green waste dump at the depot. No hard waste collection 3. Decisions about council owned land. The land beside the hardware shop would surely have provided an ongoing income for council with little outgoing expenditure needed. 4. The apparent indifference by council to the opportunity for an emergency precinct in a central position at the old saleyards. The need for emergency services is only going to rise with the constant increase in residents and visitors engaging in activities involving
3
risk, from accidents skiing, boating, off road bike riding and 4 wheel driving, camping, bushwalking. Fire, ambulance and SES services are going to be increasingly required, and again NO EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AT THE HOSPITAL. Visitors are not aware of this and are shocked and angry when they need treatment and are unable to have it in Mansfield. I have witnessed this disbelief and then anger myself on several occasions when attending the hospital. I realise this is not the responsibility of council but where are the efforts by council to achieve this from the relevant authorities, on our behalf? 5. I have previously worked in local government and when we deamalgamated some years ago a friend commented that we would be too small to attract good CEOs and would get short term people who were either on the way up the ladder or on the way down. This prediction has proved fairly accurate but it does not mean that we could not employ good people going in either direction and benefit from the time they spent with us. The idea of employing two extra managers to enable our CEO to network is a bit of a stretch. Regional and statewide meetings and gatherings are where this occurs and are certainly not necessary on a weekly basis, annually or six monthly is sufficient for someone with the necessary skills. I think the basic fact is that someone is either a good manager of their own time and other people, and has the ability to manage a budget however tight or not. Diane Beck
1
Mandy Snell
From: Daniel, Dallas F <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 10 May 2019 7:05 PMTo: CouncilSubject: attn: Chief Executive Officer Mr Alex Green
Dear Mr. Green, I must admit that I find it incredible that lately you have made decisions which I am positive you knew would incur a community backlash. In recent times our Shire has sold the cattle yards, despite pressure to keep it, overcharged ratepayers and yet despite the Shire still being in financial difficulties, according to all the reports, we now find ourselves trying to understand your decision to increase rates to pay for increased staffing and the employment of two directors, all of which seem to be so unnecessary. I am afraid that your reassurances, as reported in The Courier this week, has done little to convince me of the validity of either the rate increases or the need to employ directors. I, like many others, have to say, if you feel unable to undertake your position at Mansfield Shire without the support of TWOdirectors, then I am wondering why you elect to stay on in a position you seemingly find so arduous. Whilst you have the backing of the mayor and one other councilor, I fear you may well be on your own in deeming these decisions as being essential to the smooth running of Mansfield Shire, and I urge you to reconsider these decisions. Yours faithfully, Dallas Daniel Dallas Daniel English/Drama Teacher Mansfield Secondary College 5775 2022 [email protected]
IMPORTANT - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.
1
Mandy Snell
From: Debbie Roberts <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, 13 May 2019 4:23 PMTo: CouncilCc: Harry Westendorp; Paul Volkering; Paul SladdinSubject: Budget response
Mr Alex Green CEO Mansfield Shire Shire Offices Highett St MANSFIELD Dear Mr Green I strenuously oppose the proposed 2019‐20 budget recently released on the grounds as voiced by the newly‐formed Mansfield Ratepayers Group. I am particularly disturbed by the proposed appointment of two new directors based on economic/staff level concerns. If you, as the present CEO find the position too stressful or that you are overloaded, ethically and for health reasons, I consider it in your interests, and those of the local community, to step down from the position. We, the Mansfield Community do not know, as far as I can gather, the terms of your employment contract with the Mansfield Shire. I am unable, therefore, to conclude whether or not this particular matter is a contractual issue. My comments are in good faith as I am very much aware of positive improvements in our local environment under your watch! I also strenuously oppose increase in staff levels based on economic reasoning. My thanks to you and Mansfield Shire Councillors for the opportunity to record my response. Yours Sincerely Debbie Roberts 1/43 Highton Lane MANSFIELD 5775 1645 0499 751 646 (Former MPPAC member)
[email protected] I wish to record my opposition to the Mansfield Shire Council budget. Specifically, I object to the proposed rate increase and to the proposed expenditure of $400 000 per year for new director positions. I am also concerned that apart from adhering to local government rules, no real attempt has been made to consult and seek input from ratepayers for what is a critical decision. Having read the relevant documents I can find no attempt to justify this expenditure. When Mansfield Shire was deamalgamated it became one of Victoria’s smallest councils. The proposal is akin to arguing that a small business such as Marks Supermarket requires a CEO and Two assistant CEOs. This would be ridiculous as department managers already perform the roles of assistant CEOs In addition the proposed remuneration relative to that of most Mansfield employees is totally out of proportion and would not be regarded as fair. I fail to see we need or can afford an additional layer of management. Larger councils may believe that this additional layer of management is appropriate for them but, this is not a justification for a small council, like ours to follow in their footsteps. An increase in expenditure of $400000 may be justified if it was to result in increased income of at least this amount. There is no evidence that this is an intended result. I urge Councillors to reject the proposal David Scott Mansfield
From: Debbie Skinner <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 4:41 PMTo: FeedbackSubject: Mansfield non resident ratepayer feedback
Hi I have a property at Enoch’s Point which I have had for the last 10 years. Until a few years ago, when phoning the Mansfield Shire relevant to a survey, the shire were addressing and viewing Enoch’s Point the same as Woods Point, which it is not. We do not have any community facilities, garbage collection etc and I am curious as to what the Mansfield Shire attributes any of their budget allocation towards Enoch’s? I live in Taggerty (Murrindindi Shire) and do not attend the Melbourne based forum as it is 2/24 plus away. Thank you Debbie Skinner -Louis PO Box 289 Alexandra 3714
Dear Mr Green and Councillors Over the past few weeks the Mansfield Shire has again made headlines for reasons that as a ratepayer I am not proud of, dissatisfaction with the Council’s proposed budget. This seems to occur every year – budgeted expenses increase beyond what the community see as acceptable and no concrete plan is provided as to how the ever increasing deficit will be reduced and eventually repaid. This is not acceptable from a financial, or an ethical perspective. From an ethical perspective the council is responsible to the community who largely fund the council. The council is using ratepayer’s money to fund its activities and therefore has an obligation to answer to ratepayers on how these funds are spent not ignore their concerns. This is particularly true in regards to the proposal to employ two new directors within the council. If these proposed appointments are at the salary levels widely reported in the paper then nothing other than “Shame on You” is an appropriate response. From a financial perspective an ever increasing deficit may in the near future jeopardize the very existence of the council as we know it. The answer is NOT to apply to increase rates beyond the legislated amount, rather to use skilled financial and business professionals to prepare realistic, community supported budgets, aimed at delivering essential services, reducing the budget deficit and therefore securing the long term future of the Shire. Yours Sincerely Dr Elizabeth Duncan DBA, MBA(Executive), BBus (Accounting), CPA
1
Mandy Snell
From: Elliot Leventhal <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2019 10:21 AMTo: Council; Harry Westendorp; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Peter Olver; Paul VolkeringSubject: PROPOSED COUNCIL BUDGET 2019-2020
Subject: RE: PROPOSED COUNCIL BUDGET 2019-2020 To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> With respect to the proposed Council Budget 2019-2020: 1) I strongly oppose the appointment of the two new Directors. 2) I strongly oppose the addition of any extra staff above the current level of 97.7 FTE. Signed: Elliot Leventhal Address: 84 Kidston Parade, Mansfield 3722 Date: 12/05/2019
1
Mandy Snell
From: Alex GreenSent: Wednesday, 17 April 2019 10:10 AMTo: Elaine Irwin; Harry Westendorp; Marg Attley; Paul Sladdin; Paul Volkering; Peter OlverCc: Mandy KynnersleySubject: RE: Issues regarding proposed rate increases for Mansfield Shire 2019
Elaine, I saw your email this morning. The link to all of the budget information is here. All supporting information, the process of Council budget development, consultation information to date, opportunities for input are all detailed. I have copied in Mandy Kynnersley, Finance Manager, into this email and she will treat it as a budget submission. We will document all submissions and ensure you are kept up to date with the process. Mandy is on leave for a couple of days and will be back at work next week. Regards Alex Green
Alex Green Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Phone: 03 5775 8530 Fax: 03 5775 2677 Website: www.mansfield.vic.gov.au If you are deaf, or have a hearing or speech impairment, contact us throughthe National Relay Service. For more information, visit: www.relayservice.gov.au.
Sign up for Email
Notices
Mansfield Shire Council acknowledge the Taungurung people as the traditional owners of the land on which our offices are located. We pay respect to the Taungurung Elders, past, present and future and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Dear CEO and Councillors In your minutes for the Special Council Meeting of the 29th of March 2019 it was stated that the draft budget for 2019-2020 would be found on the Mansfield Shire Council home page . It is not and I have had to delve deeper into the minutes of Council minutes to find the draft budget.
2
How can you expect ratepayers to make a submission to the Council Budget when it is hidden from view?
I am writing this email after reading that Council has applied for a rate variation over and above the government recommended rate cap. In my view the Mansfield community is not benefiting from any extra services, in fact, the level of service has been reduced (eg. front line employees struggling to carry out their duties with more limited resources).
I understand that over the last several years we have been overcharged for waste services. In private business those responsible would have been asked to pay back what was overcharged. Why should the Council get away with this, reduce the waste charge but then significantly increase the rates way over the State Governments limits. Many rate payers are going to see a great increase in their rates for no benefit.
On top of this we see that the budget for 2019-2020 for employee costs increases from $8,179 million to $9,284 million, with 2 new directors adding $396,000 to costs. This is a 13.5% increase. How can this be justified? Why is the Shire employing 2 new directors when they have recently made redundant front line workers in 2018? What is the role of these directors and why do we need them? I would prefer this money to be spent on, for example, a drainage plan and implementation of such a plan for the Mansfield township which has suffered from aggravated flooding because of the various sub divisions that have taken place in the township over the last few years. I would prefer to see people employed who directly provide services to the community. I would appreciate it if you could address these issues and get back to me in a timely manner. Sincerely Elaine (Irwin)
1
Mandy Snell
From: Joanne Richmond <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, 13 May 2019 11:58 AMTo: CouncilCc: Harry Westendorp; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Peter Olver; Paul VolkeringSubject: Re: Feedback - Proposed 2019-20 Mansfield Shire budget
To CEO Mr Alex Green and Mansfield Councillors The situation in Mansfield is of the gravest concern. I have no faith in the CEO and the Councils ability to formulate a considered Mansfield community budget. This council has repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for rate payers concerns notably increased expenditure and sale of assets. This council has overcharged and collected extra revenue for years from council’s waste management levy and now proposes rate increases for the majority of ratepayers – REALLY! The CEO wants two extra Directors – do your job Mr Green and manage Shire business within our means, you must spend less! These are my concerns regarding the proposed 2019‐20 Mansfield Shire Budget.
I strongly oppose the appointment of two new directors
I strongly oppose the addition of any extra staff above the current 2018/19 level of 97.7 Full Time Equivalents
From: Judith Sellers <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, 13 May 2019 11:26 PMTo: CouncilCc: Harry Westendorp; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Peter Olver; Paul VolkeringSubject: Mansfield Shire Budget 2019-20
Mr Alex Green, CEO,
Mansfield Shire
SUBMISSION ‐ CONCERNED RATEPAYER 13 May 2019
These are my concerns regarding the proposed 2019‐20 Mansfield Shire Budget.
I strongly oppose the appointment of two new directors.
We don't need more executives, and not at that price.
If Council has $400,000 to spend I suggest it would be far better spent addressing practical, grass roots projects in
the Mansfield Shire. For instance, how about a team of street cleaners, working full‐time? The Mansfield‐Woods
Point Rd is a disgrace. It's beginning to look like roads in third world countries. Especially after holiday weekends
when the bogans from the burbs apparently just toss their garbage out their car windows. The sides of the road
are littered with discarded plastic bottles, beer cans, Coke cans, coffee cups, plastic straws and food wrappings. I
am sick of picking up their trash.
Someone has dumped a refrigerator on the roadside near Jamieson, with a sign saying it’s a free beer fridge that
still works. It’s been there for two weeks (since the ANZAC Day weekend). Nobody’s claimed it. How long will it
stay there?
And I strongly oppose any increase in Shire Council rates.
I’m struggling to pay my existing rates, and to get by on a single pension. If the rates keep increasing I'll be facing
homelessness.
Judith Sellers
Concerned ratepayer
23 Nash Street, Jamieson Vic 3723
1
Mandy Snell
From: Jean Shannon <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2019 1:37 PMTo: CouncilCc: Harry Westendorp; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Peter Olver; Paul VolkeringSubject: Submission
This is another concern not directly related to the Concerned Ratepayers Group although I agree with its concerns as listed in Courier dated May 8th. There are an enormous amount of subdivisions within the Shire currently approved or in the process of approval.. As each vacant block is sold within these subdivisions it is not rated separately until the next rate year. For example if block is sold and settled say 1st. August 2019 it is not rated separately until the beginning of next rate year 1st. July 2020. Why can’t a supplementary rates notice be issued from that settlement date.? As it stands it means the Shire has lost a considerable amount of revenue and in view of the current state of finances within the Shire, this would help alleviate its situation, particularly regarding the proposed increase in rates. I note as per the Weekly Times May 15th. issue Mansfield Shire rate increase is 23.37% residential and 2.71% farm rate, the highest in the state. Jean Shannon, 170 Dry Creek Rd., Bonnie Doon 3720 16th. May 2019.
1
Mandy Snell
From: Marg AttleySent: Friday, 10 May 2019 10:20 AMTo: Mandy KynnersleySubject: Fwd: New 2 "$200000 assistants"
Hi Mandy To be added to the process Thanks Marg
Cr Marg Attley Tolmie Ward Mansfield Shire Council 0400 256 035 VLGA President Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:
Dear council members I would like to see this money spent on fixing a couple of things instead of employing more administrative staff, letting the CEO go gallivanting about to other Shires (job hunting?) and socialising? 1. Rubbish dumped during peak holiday periods into the High Street bins to the point of overflow. Either more bins being employed or multiple pickups during the days. 2. Cleaning out the High Street drain, filling the base to draining height of the bridge, putting in a small outlet into wetlands to drain North High street drains at bridge drainage height and extension of width of the outlet in the wetlands allowing more flow to alleviate flooding in front of the dentist premises in High Street. If you have so much money you can afford for the CEO to go about socialising I would not mind if you returned some of my rates so I could too. Yours Sincerely Kelvin Kaye
2
Sent from my iPad On 15 May 2019, at 12:58 pm, Kym Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear all As a member of the Concerned Ratepayers Group, I find the proposed intent of the Council regards the application at the Essential Services Commission to increase rates is a matter that requires deeper consideration. Firstly, the fact the Council was caught overcharging ratepayers to the tune in excess of $1.2 million per year for waste charges so it could cook the books in other areas is nothing short of dishonest, disgraceful and a major overstep by way of Council integrity. CEO, Alex Green’s excuse, noted without apology of any kind, is that all these funds were spent on the community, is not acceptable. It is assumed you as Councillors did not know of this creative accounting, because if you did, you have not been open and honest in representing us as your electors with the purpose of representing our best interests. It also seems no punishment has been metered to the CEO nor those creative accountants who came up with the waste management strategy, which is even more gobsmacking as simultaneously many waste disposal activities in the Shire were being curtailed (i.e. closure of Lakins Road pre fire season green waste disposal; cancellation of tip tickets for the disposal of green and hard waste; refusal to remove or offer a location for disposal for roadside storm damage vegetation on Shire road verges). If the Shire is in such a dire financial position that the application has been put to the Essential Services Commission to seek to raise rates because it can no longer massively overcharge and then transfer waste funds to other purposes, then we are not in any position to even consider hiring two senior directors at $400,000 plus, nor absorb over $1 million of wages growth. However, funds aside, the need for these two new directors should be questioned. Mansfield is a relatively small Shire and does not have the luxury, nor need for deep staffing structures. Comparing Mansfield to all other Councils in the State is ridiculous. Mansfield is not Boorandara, nor is it Geelong for example, along with so many other Councils that are not comparable. Bigger Councils have a need and a financial competence to be able to sustain this type of corporate structure. They are not at all comparable to Mansfield. Mr. Green states the need to develop strategic direction; as CEO that should be a goodly proportion of his role in a Shire such as ours. I would like to remind the Councillors that there were approximately 4 senior strategic positions in the Shire until mid last year when they collectively left almost en masse by way of resignation, but perhaps CEO cleansing could also be attributed to make way for these two new directorships which were being considered by Councillors around the time, the outcome of which was shelving the proposition for a year. Now one year later, we find the appointment of two new directors on the agenda again. The grapevine has it that these appointments are likely to come from within existing Shire employees, which effectively means ratepayers are going to pay more for no better talent, or strategic ideas. This surely is not appropriate, the expenditure is not sustainable and the benefits of such appointments is not definable and indeed questionable. It seems there are four issues at hand that are being interleaved and conflicted:
3
The previous waste management overcharging assumed by Shire officers as acceptable because it is
claimed the Shire cannot support ratepayer services required any other way;
The dishonesty and deceptive action of the Council in laying this known overcharge on all
ratepayers;
The attempts of the CEO to appoint two new director positions at great expense;
The Council application to the Essential Services Commission to obtain permission to increase rates
whilst not recognising that the appointment of two new directors places the Shire under even
greater financial burden.
Having been asked in the budget survey put to ratepayers for comment, to choose what services we are prepared to forgo so that the Shire can remain solvent, it seems for example to say we can’t afford a lolly pop person for kids road safety, but we can afford two expensive new directors is not what ratepayers expect nor want. In fact these two new proposed directors salaries would pay for most if not all the list of services outlined in that survey. The matter before Councillors is now difficult. It is time for political correctness to be put behind good governance. Ratepayers deserve and expect good governance. What is being lobbied for by the CEO and what has occurred regarding the waste management debacle is completely the antithesis of good governance of the Shire. As Councillors you are the custodians of the Shire’s good governance. We hope you will act and vote accordingly. Kind regards Kym Lynch 641 Buttercup Road Merrijig Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1
Mandy Snell
From: Paul Sinclair <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 7:53 PMTo: CouncilCc: Harry Westendorp; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Peter Olver; Paul Volkering;
[email protected]: Concerned ratepayer about the proposed 2019-20 Mansfield Shire Budget
Dear Mansfield Shire Council. As a concerned rate payer, I am writing to you about the proposed 2019-20 budget. I strongly oppose the appointment of 2 new directors at an approximate cost of $400,000 per annum. I also strongly oppose an increase in staff costs of some $1,100,000 per annum. I quote the current CEO in relation to the appointment of these 2 new Directors in the Mansfield Courier May 8 2019. "To ensure council has the capacity to develop a strategic direction and apply it to all decisions it makes, and to ensure we are compliant with all legislative requirements and modern corporate standards." I note on the current Mansfield Shire Council website that the current CEO & his senior management already are tasked to undertake the above. In any workplace, if an employee is unable to perform their required duties they should be replaced by capable persons whom can perform said duties. For the current CEO requesting the appointment of 2 new Director positions to carry out duties already under his workplace agreement, and some of those duties of his senior management, is a blatant admission by him of his inability of himself and some of his senior management to carry out their said duties required of them. I'm appalled that the current Mansfield Shire Councillors have let this request by the CEO for the appointment of these 2 new Directors at some $400,000 cost per annum has got so far, as us concerned ratepayers are discussing, emailing each other that it is included in a proposed budget. The current CEO needs to resign his position, or be sacked, and those current Senior Managers whom are unable to perform their duties they signed up for in accepting such a position should resign, or be sacked. Their are many people in our community whom are able to fulfil said job description requirements, without the financial burden in this proposed budget of the appointment of 2 new Directors in excess of $400,000 per annum. I'm happy to discuss further my concerns with each councillor, and indeed I have other concerns which I choose not to include in this email. Signed, Paul Sinclair Blackheath 271 Long Lane Mansfield.
1
Mandy Snell
From: Martine K <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2019 7:33 AMTo: CouncilSubject: Att Alex Green CEO
My name is Rod Keep . I live at Woods Point and have done so for around 2 years, since leaving Phillip Island in the Bass Coast Shire. I left that Shire following their ongoing spending spree on Executives and proposed Art collection acquisitions. Their resultant rate rises were not tolerable. They appeared to lose sight of what their core business was and appointed people to all manner of exotic positions. When a council CEO earns more than the Prime Minister and noone cares, I deemed it time to leave. I hope Mansfield doesnt go the same way and keeps a tight rein on any Executive or Director appointments. Focus should always remain on things such as Roads, Parks and Gardens and Rubbish etc... We do nt need an assistant to the assistant to the deputy HR Manager! Rod Keep 8988 Woods Point Rd Woods Point 3723 0488 304832 Sent from the office of The Rod.
I fully endorse all topics of concern highlighted, by the “ Mansfield Concerned Ratepayers Group” especially the appointment of 2 directors at the reported salary range. I also understand our CEO has just recently had his tenure renewed at an annual salary in the vicinity of $238K. He should be earning his package doing the work for which he is engaged and has no need of, given the small Mansfield Shire size, two additional people at that salary range.
From: Rose Gilder <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2019 1:51 PMTo: CouncilCc: Harry Westendorp; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Peter Olver; Paul VolkeringSubject: Budget Submission
Dear Councillors, I strongly object to the CEO's proposed appointment of two new directors to lighten his workload so that he can swan around "networking" and "visiting other shires". The concept of employing two new extra people at over $450,000 is ridiculous and irresponsible for a Council in financial difficulties, and all councillors should object on behalf of the ratepayers to this motion going forward. If the current CEO is not coping with the job he is employed to do then he ought be told to move on, not go throwing our money around to lighten his own load with no regard to the financial sustainability of our shire. Why can't we find a CEO who is a local and actually CARES about our townships? I am not the only person who was astonished to find councillors had voted Mr Green in for a second term, when it seems to a great percentage of ratepayers that he has little regard for our sustainability or concerns. I also strongly oppose the suggested rate increases, which look disturbingly like offsets to avoid paying back the over‐charge on waste removal ‐ a dishonest and unnecessary reason to raise rates. I am also vehemently opposed to the increasing of staff costs of an extra $1.1million per annum ‐ again, this is a ridiculous proposal in the current financial situation we are in; a responsible council would be looking at REDUCING spending and finding ways to cut costs, not add to them. Finally, I agree with the majority of ratepayers in that the Council ought not be trying to sell the Sale Yards land, but rather retain this asset for a highly supported Emergency Services Precinct. If Mr Green's only answer to reducing debt is selling off all our shire/community‐owned assets, then we definitely need a new CEO, this time with business sense and a long‐term sustainable view for our community. I implore you all, as responsible councillors, to please vote against these submissions on behalf of the rate‐paying public. Sincerely, Rose Gilder.
1
Mandy Snell
From: Lesley & Simon <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 4:42 PMTo: CouncilCc: Paul Volkering; Peter Olver; Harry Westendorp; Marg Attley; Paul SladdinSubject: Council budget
To Mansfield Council, As ratepayers of the Mansfield Shire we are very concerned about the financial status of our council and the plan to incur more expense given the councils recognition that we were in financial trouble two years ago. Nominated councillors prime purpose is to represent the community and address their concerns and needs, under sound financial governance. It is apparent council is not doing this. How does the appointment of new Directors rectify our financial issues and community concerns, particularly in light of the fact council needs to reduce expenditure? One of our personal needs is the rectification of the poor state of our road (Blue Range Rd). Whilst the road is graded it does not remedy the situation and requires continual work to reduce the impact of the corrugations and pot holes. If there is money to be spent then community roads should be a consideration, not appointing directors. It is extremely disappointing to realise that those elected to represent us would see fit to agree to a budget recommending such a huge amount of money be spent on additional staffing. We strongly oppose the appointment of two new directors and additional staffing as we cannot see how this aligns with community needs, or directly assists rate payers, or rectifies the council expenditure issues. For Mansfield ratepayers it is a very disconcerting time and does not appear that Council is willing, or has a clear and transparent strategy, to address community concerns and the dire financial situation residents have been positioned in by council. Yours sincerely,
Simon Haugh and Lesley MacGregor‐Haugh
Cooindawood 322 Blue Range Rd Mansfield 3722 Email: [email protected]
1
Mandy Snell
From: Alex GreenSent: Monday, 6 May 2019 12:12 PMTo: Simon Hicks; Mandy KynnersleyCc: Harry Westendorp; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Peter Olver; Paul VolkeringSubject: RE: Proposed Council Budget 2019-20
Thanks for your submission Simon. I have forwarded on to Mandy Kynnersley to be included in the formal process. A link to all Council budget information including the process and budget document can be found here. Regards Alex
Alex Green Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Phone: 03 5775 8530 Fax: 03 5775 2677 Website: www.mansfield.vic.gov.au If you are deaf, or have a hearing or speech impairment, contact us throughthe National Relay Service. For more information, visit: www.relayservice.gov.au.
Sign up for Email
Notices
Mansfield Shire Council acknowledge the Taungurung people as the traditional owners of the land on which our offices are located. We pay respect to the Taungurung Elders, past, present and future and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
From: Simon Hicks <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 6 May 2019 8:49 AM To: Alex Green <[email protected]> Cc: Harry Westendorp <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Marg Attley <[email protected]>; Peter Olver <[email protected]>; Paul Volkering <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Council Budget 2019‐20 Hi Alex, From what I have read in the newspaper and other media, it appears you are looking to add a couple of extra, high paid positions ($400k+) to the council FTE count. Apparently this is to free some of your time up. This raises a number of concerns/questions:
1. Budgetary issues and the obvious impact to rates
2
2. How much you must be getting paid if they are to get $400k (hopefully not each)
3. Given what you are getting paid, you would think you would be doing a fair bit yourself without looking for extra people/cost. It should be your job to keep costs down and maximise productivity of existing staff.
4. Perhaps if the council stuck to roads and rubbish, and reduced ancillary services the costs would come down. I strongly oppose the appointment of the two new Directors and any extra staff above the 2018/19 FTE count. Regards, Simon Hicks M: 0408 110 771
2595 Mansfield-Woods Point Road, Howqua Inlet, Vic 3723
I wish to submit the following comments/observations/questions related to the above document,
which was approved by Council for public comment on 26 March 2019.
General comments:
The document is premised on receipt of approval for a variation in the current rate cap from 2.5% to
13.94%, an increase of 11.44%. Yet I note that the total amount raised by rates will increase by
15.63%. It is claimed that this is necessary to offset a reduction in waste management charges that
previously exceeded the costs incurred.
While Council is at great pains to claim that revenue raised will be cost neutral to the community, it
is clear there will be huge increases for many ratepayers due to rate assessments being based on
property values. While this is glibly dismissed in the Strategic Resource Plan 2019 (SRP) and the
Rating Strategy 2019-29 (RS) as reflecting “capacity to pay”, clearly this is not always the case. Many
residents have fixed incomes, are self-funded retirees etc, many who have lived all their lives in
properties that simply by virtue of development of the shire have seen values increase dramatically
and will be unduly penalised by this unwarranted increase. (To suggest as claimed in the RS that the
median residential CIV is $316,000 and the median Farm CIV is $790,000 is ludicrous!)
It is noted in the budget that support for executive management increases from $598,000 to
$1,050,000, an increase of $452,000. The bulk of this increase is attributed to the appointment of
two directors, so that the CEO is freed from the management of the Shire and is able to network,
develop relationships etc outside the Shire. How this can be reconciled with what the CEO’s position
description states is beyond me.
It is also interesting to note that an additional 1 FTE staff member is employed in the infrastructure
area to deal with asset management matters. This appears to be at odds with strategies behind
recent sackings/retrenchments which eliminated similar roles, and that the budget also proposes the
appointment of consultants to undertake asset management functions??
The Fair Go Rates System Application, March 2019 (FGRSA) states in part that:
‘’With the implementation of the LTFP Council shifted their capital expenditure focus to asset
renewal………...”
This stated intention seems to have been lost when this budget includes provision for New Asset
Expenditure of $7,695,000, which includes direct funding from Council of $2,113,000. It also fails to
acknowledge future obligations resulting from acquisition of these assets regarding staffing, annual
running costs and asset renewal demands.
I note that the Rating Strategy 2019-2020 that was distributed during the ‘drop in’ sessions was
amended prior to being adopted in the FGRSA. This was not clear, as the documents are not dated,
have no version control, and are identified only by the addition of the word ‘Draft’. However, the
content change is significant in that the revised document, now termed Draft Rating Strategy 2019-
2020 has deleted the original proposal “that the amount raised by the municipal charge be reduced
to a maximum of 10% of total Municipal Charge and General Rates combined.” and retained the
Municipal Charge at 20%. While this does not change the amount raised overall, it does reduce the
necessary increase in the Rate in the Dollar*.
However I note that in the Proposed Budget Report 2019-20, in spite of the reference to the Draft
Rating Strategy included as the basis for the FGRSA, including a reference to “financial modelling
performed that determined the optimal differential percentage for each rating category to ensure
minimal financial impact on the average rate assessment within” that the rates in the $ in the
Proposed Budget Report have been revised again, without any acknowledgement as to why, on
what basis etc, so presumably that financial modelling previously performed has been invalidated.
E.g. the increase in rates in $ 2018-19 to 2019-20 for Residential properties noted in the 3
documents are as follows:
Original Rating Strategy +29%
Draft Rating Strategy +14.9%
Proposed Budget Report +11.5%
It is difficult to follow the logic/reasoning behind these changes and provides little confidence in the
final outcome.
* What it also means is that should the proposed new Local Government Bill be legislated, as
predicted by Council in the original rating strategy and the Municipal Charge be limited to 10% then
to maintain the amount raised by General Rates and Municipal Charge the rate in the $ for property
classes will need to be revised again, with the lions share falling on Residential properties.
((While it is difficult to compare changes in rates in the $ should Municipal Charge be reduced to
10%, (due to the revised changes included in the Proposed Budget Report) a rough estimate
suggests that an overall increase in the General Rates Income required to maintain budget income
would be around an additional 12.5%. The bulk would almost certainly be applied to Residential
Class, so that a minimum increase of 11.5% + 12.5% = 24% (over 18-19 budget) would be required in
Residential Class.))
These potential increases are outrageous, and surely cannot be supported by any reasonable,
rational thinking Council.
Specific comments/questions requiring a response:
Page 3. Mayors Introduction. It states that Capital Works program for 19/20 will cost $13.4M, of
which $6.5M will come from grants, while Statement of Capital Works, Page 24 notes that grants for
Capital Works will total $5.582M. Which is correct?
Page 4. Mayor notes that “the budget is based on feedback received from the community through
various engagement and consultation….”. I am unaware of a single revision to either the budget or
the Rate Cap Variation application that resulted from any of the submissions/comments received
from the community as a result of any consultation.
Page 9. I note that expenditure on events such as TARGA High Country will exceed $300,000. Please
advise what benefit to the broader community this investment provides, as distinct from the benefit
to a very narrow sector and particularly organisations outside the shire boundaries.
Page 16. Governance. Statutory and corporate support - Budget for 19/20 is $1,050,000, up from
$598,000 in 18/19, an increase of $452,000! How can this massive increase be justified, regardless of
whether additional positions were approved previously by Council?
Page 21. Current Assets. “Other financial assets” fall from $6.123M to $3.045M. What is included
and why this massive change??
Page 23. Proceeds from the sale of property etc. $1.025M. What is included in the scope of these
sales? Does this include proceeds anticipated from the sale of Kitchen St land, and if so how much?
Page 25. Employee costs increase from $8.179M to $9.284M, an increase of 13.5%, yet staff
numbers increase by only 3.3%. Does this suggest that the additional 3.3FTE staff are costing
approximately $942,000, after allowing for a 2% increase across the board for the existing 97.7 FTE
staff??? Please explain.
The number of part time staff appears to be grossly excessive. While the numbers in Community
Services are possibly justified, the numbers in other areas are not. Eg, Development Services, where
Council is not achieving its performance targets the % of part time staff is over 40%. How can
efficiency and productivity targets be met with such a high part time %?? (Finance is even worse
with over 74% part time!)
Page 26. 4.1.1, last paragraph, states that (wrt rate cap variation) “This is an increase of 11.44 %
beyond the rate cap and generates $1.2M….”. Yet in 4.1.1(a) the table clearly shows the budgeted
increase in General Rates 18/19 – 19/20 is 15.65%! Please explain.
Page 27. 4.1.1(c) states the estimated amount to be raised by general rates in Residential class is an
increase of 23.37%, while in 4.1.1(d) the estimated increase in assessments in Residential Class
increases by just 2.69%. So, on top of a rate increase of a General Rate in Residential Class of 11.5%
it appears Council is anticipating a valuation increase of Residential properties of 7.7%. This amounts
to wholesale robbery of the residential class and is strongly opposed. Council must act to stop this,
particularly as these rises are not one offs but will impact ratepayers every year into the future.
Page 29. 4.1.1(m) Differential Rates
To argue that Rural Residential Class should receive an 11% discount compared to Residential Class
on the basis they are typically located further from the town centre cannot be justified. Indeed, the
cost to the Shire of servicing these properties is greater than for Residential. Often they are located
on unsealed roads which require regular costly maintenance, provision of waste collection is far
more expensive, roadside slashing, weed control &etc are far more demanding than the
maintenance required in Residential areas, yet those residents still make use of/access Council
services, Kindergartens, pool, sporting facilities, library, children’s health services etc etc. Removing
this unjustified discount would raise almost an addition $350,000. Please adjust this discriminatory
and arbitrary differential.
Page 32. Non-recurrent State Government capital grants. An amount of $1.254M is listed as “Heavy
vehicle safety productivity program.” What is this to be applied to?
Further, I note that the Heavy Vehicle Bypass Route (HVBR) has had significant $ expended on it
(Greenvale Lane Bridge, Greenvale Lane/Mt Battery Road intersection, Dead Horse Lane/Whitfield
Rd intersection, new bridge on Dead Horse Lane,) yet it is unclear when this bypass will be
completed. It seems a major folly that significant new assets are now on the books, yet the route is
unusable with no plans to complete it. Indeed, the Withers Lane section is the only route through or
around Mansfield town that is NOT designated for B-Double traffic! When will this be addressed?
(Refer also Page 38, under Roads.
As a result of this lack of action Heavy Vehicle traffic heading to the east/south of Mansfield are
forced to use Kidston Parade and Malcolm Street. This necessitates a right hand turn by heavy slow-
moving vehicles, including snow traffic buses, B-Double trucks from the highway (no dedicated right-
hand turn lane provided) against westbound traffic approaching from an 80 KPH zone. They then
travel through a residential zone, past a retirement village, a golf club and are required to make a
left hand turn into Malcolm Street, an intersection that is not designed to accommodate large
vehicles. (The original Heavy Vehicle Bypass Study required the relocation of significant electrical
assets and the acquisition of part of the golf club to allow this intersection to be constructed to a
suitable standard.) These vehicles then continue through residential zones, past the hospital and
past a primary school before clearing the built-up area. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation and
it is also causing rapid deterioration of pavements along this route. Yet a designated HVBR which
has had significant expenditure remains incomplete and attracts significant $ resources in asset
maintenance. See also comments re Page 38.
Page 33. 4.1.4 Employee costs. I have already commented on the issue of employee costs, but
reiterate that I cannot understand why Council would approve the creation of two new director
positions in a climate of cost reductions, economies across the organisation including reduction in
services, simply to provide the CEO with the opportunity to network, fraternise and create
opportunities outside the organisation and the Shire, when his role, particularly at this apparent
critical time for the Shire is to provide leadership, manage the organisation and support the Council.
To abdicate his role and entrust those critical responsibilities to others would beg the question as to
why is the position of CEO then necessary?
Page 34. 4.3.1 Reserves “……. Indicative proceeds from the sale of land in 19/20 ($0.9M)…” Is this
from the anticipated sale of Kitchen St., or where is it?
Page 36. Capital Works Program
4.5.1 Summary include $1.041M for Property, 19/20, yet 4.5.2 Current Budget, page 37 lists Total
Property at $281,000? Which is correct?
Page 38. Infrastructure
Roads – Street Renewal Program – Malcolm St. (Planning and Design). $100,000. (Presumably work
done by consultants?) Why is it necessary to spend $100K externally for what has been deemed to
be for Renewal? Would seem more likely to be for Upgrade works. Pls confirm scope of this work.
Page 39 Parks, Open Space and Streetscapes.
Playground Renewal – Botanic Park $500,000. For half a million dollars I would expect a NEW
playground, not just renewal. What is the proposed scope of work?
Page 41. Financial Performance Indicators
Obligations – Asset renewal. 19/20 shows at 94%, which in spite of aspirations in the SRP falls short
of min 100% target. This figure would be further impacted if classification of a number of projects as
Renewal were in fact New or Upgrade as suspected.
In conclusion it is disappointing that the Council Administration has taken this course of action to
develop the proposed budget with little regard for the real impacts it will have on large sections of
the community. In addition, Councillors either don’t fully understand the ramifications of this
proposed 2019 -20 budget (including the reliance on a massive rates cap variation) or have accepted
at face value the administration’s assurances that impacts on the community will be bearable and
will be accepted over time. This is a watershed moment in the history of Mansfield Shire Council,
and I am disappointed that there has been so little apparent resistance by Councillors to this
proposal.
CEOs come and go, but the legacy of this administration is something we will live with forever should
the Proposed Budget Report be approved in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
Phillip Alexander
144 Malcolm Street
MANSFIELD 3722.
13 May 2019 Alex Green CEO Mansfield Shire Council Private Bag 1000 Mansfield Vic 3723 Email: [email protected] PROPOSED COUNCIL BUDGET 2019-20 With respect to the proposed Council Budget 2019-20: 1) I strongly oppose the appointment of the two new Directors.
2) I strongly oppose the addition of any extra staff above the current 2018/19 level of 97.7 FTE 3) The Mansfield Shire Council needs to find more effective ways of informing
its ratepayers and broader community of issues such as the rate variation. Many ratepayers are unaware of what was applied for and how it may affect them. Most ratepayers do not understand or know an application was made to the Essential Services Commission. More specific information could have easily been relayed to the community through targeted articles (outside the usual advertising page) in the Mansfield Courier or even on our local radio station. Front page headlines capture’s people’s attention!
4) It is understood Council worked hard to reduce its staffing costings/levels etc.
in the last few years due to our dire financial situation to keep the Shire viable. To then ask for a rate increase and the sale of assets whilst wanting to lift staffing costs up by over $1 million, particularly for two directors, sends the wrong message and is not supported.
5) Although not a line item in the budget, I wish to express my strongest
opposition to the sale of the old Mansfield Sale yards site and want it retained for a Mansfield Emergency Precinct.
SUBMISSION TO MANSFIELD SHIRE COUNCIL ON PROPOSED BUDGET 2019-2020
From Shane Callahan
13-05-2019
I am a resident ratepayer who operates a farming business on rural land in the Mansfield Shire and a business from commercial premises in the Mansfield Township. I have read the 2019-2020 Draft Budget and Council Plan and would like to make a submission to the process as follows. Whilst Council has gone to great lengths to explain the situation and re-arrangement of the overcharging of the garbage charges and associated application for an increase to the rate cap, I and many others feel that the ratepayers have been duped by the whole process. The fact is that ratepayers have been overcharged for garbage services for some years and Council hasn’t addressed the problem until forced to do so, and now is asking for the ratepayers for more rates. That is totally unjust and should not happen. Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee numbers continue to rise and it is very difficult to understand the justification for this. According to the report associated costs are projected to rise by 14% which is far higher than both national wage growth and CPI. How can this be? We are a small shire and it is impossible to reconcile that we need more and more staff each year and yet at the same time see plenty that is not being achieved or maintained in our community. An important metric evidently absent in the report is the extent that staff are externally funded. The report at 4.1.4 notes that 22 staff are/will be fully or partially funded externally but does not say to what extent. There is a big difference in fully vs partially funded roles and it is important for transparency that this be identified so that the public are informed. Can this be identified and reported? For the past couple of years or more Council and management have stressed the need for financial reform in order to address the serious funding shortfalls that we are facing. Proposed asset sales have been restricted for various reasons which inevitably will affect our Shire’s viability. However, expenditure continues to increase whilst our underlying surplus decreases. Despite this ongoing problem Council has proposes the addition of 2 new upper management ‘Director’ roles at a cost of approx $400,000 per annum. I haven’t seen any plausible evidence for the justification of these new positions. These remunerations are about the same as what the CEO was being paid 5 years ago. How can possibly this be justified in the context of our current financial position? It beggar’s belief and there appears to be very little support for this proposal in the community, in fact quite the opposite, the main comment people choose to raise in discussions about Council matters is how ridiculous this is. Surely we can make do with the staff and resources that we currently have in an effort to demonstrate a modest degree of fiscal restraint to the ratepayers and this concept should be reconsidered and rejected.
2. I also wish to comment on the Budget process itself. I have been a regular contributor and participant in the formulation process for the past 5 years or more. Despite the efforts of many who take the time to attend meetings, write submissions and make well supported representations during the process, it is extremely rare that Council subsequently decides to make any significant change to a proposed budget. Indeed the standard response to written submissions last year raising queries or offering input is ‘For the reasons outlined above, Councillors did not make any changes to the 2018-19 Budget as a result of your submission.’ The CEO repeatedly advises that unless expenditure is budgeted for it will not happen, which is quite reassuring given what has happened in previous years. However, when it comes to making reasonable suggestions or trying to negotiate changes to a draft budget, no matter how valid, significant, appropriate or plausible they may be, it is rarely amended. This reinforces the widely held view in the community that the proposed budget routinely becomes the adopted budget and is a ‘fait accompli’ and the consultation process is nothing more than procedural. This issue is critical and needs addressing.
Mansfield Shire should take a look at two neighbouring shires Strathbogie and Alpine Shires and use them as an example. Strathbogie also has a long term plan for the future. Both their staff cost are way lower than Mansfield.The Mansfield CEO Alex Green is obviously out of his depth and incompetent. In private industry he would be terminated or the company would have gone into liquidation. We totally disagree with any secret rate increase. Disagree with the appointment of two new Directors, the CEO should be sacked and a new hard working, competent CEO appointed. Strongly oppose the addition of any extra staff. Regards Trevor and Annette Newman Sent from my iPad
11th May 2019
Mr Alex Green, Chief Executive Officer
Mansfield Shire Council
Private Bag 100, Mansfield, VIC 3724
NB: This submission supersedes any previous incomplete submission I may have sent
accidentally.
SUBMISSION RE 2019-20 BUDGET & COUNCIL PLANS
I wish to strongly oppose any increase in staff numbers as proposed in the upcoming
budget.
The shire simply cannot afford two directors at a cost of $450 000 without large increases in
rates.
Small shires have to operate within their means. In the present financial climate an increase
of $1.1 million in wages is fiscally irresponsible.
Mansfield does not live in a financial bubble and needs to respond to what is happening at
a State, National and global level .
Structurally the budget is unsustainable in the long term with these huge wage increases.
I would like to speak to my submission at the appropriate time.
Regards,
Tony Tehan
1
Mandy Snell
From: Joy Forrest <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 4:22 PMTo: CouncilCc: [email protected]; Paul Sladdin; Marg Attley; Peter Olver; Paul
VolkeringSubject: Another unhappy rate payer
Mr Alex green
The EFT workforce is 35% higher than when the new Shire was started in 2002. But the rate base has only risen by 10%. Also some departments such as planning have tripled their numbers while shedding jobs such as building inspectors etc.
This cannot go on.
I strongly oppose the appointment of the two new directors.
I strongly oppose the addition of xtra staff above the current 18/19 level of 97.7 full time equivalent.
We are ratepayers in Mansfield, at Lot 30, 150 Campagnolos Rd. We are writing to express our concern about the creation of two new staff positions, to be employed as Directors. Recently the council has been expressing a need to reduce expenditure, because of previous excesses, now it is creating a significant increase in wages expense. We would like to see a cost benefit analysis for this expenditure, showing tangible benefits to ratepayers. We would have attended the meeting to be held on 28th May, however we will not be in Australia on that date. Yours Sincerely Ivana (Yvonne) and Thomas Anthony
May 13, 2019 Mansfield Shire Council Private Bag 1000, MANSFIELD VIC 3723 Attention: Alex Green Subject: Opposition to the appointment of two new directors We submit the following objection to the proposed appointment of two new directors. We find it baffling to understand why Council would approve the creation of two new director positions in a climate of cost reductions and economies across the organisation including a reduction in services, especially front line staff. It’s extremely difficult to reconcile the need for these senior positions in a relatively small council. In a Shire that’s struggling to meet its debt, the appointment of these two positions with a combined salary of $450,000 per annum seems at odds with good management practice. To put the proposed salary increase into perspective, it would fund the suggested Grade Separation project at Withers Lane to return the rail trail to its original alignment. A budget estimate from Alpine Civil to carry out the necessary work came in at $440,000. This includes the extra cost to remove nearly 100 metres of spoil deposited into the cutting as a result of other Shire projects in recent times. Funding of this very worthwhile project or similar ones, would provide the community with a permanent asset ‒ not a recurring wages blowout!! Kind regards, Jennifer & Ross Vaughan
