"Fix the potholes. Fix the footpaths. Fix the funding model."
By Frank Schooneveldt
IN 2016, I wrote to then-councillor Neil Rankine expressing concern that my property rates were too low. He replied that approximately 45% of properties had stagnant property values between January 2014 and January 2016, resulting in only a 1.37% overall valuation increase across the Shire.
Why does this matter? Because rates are calculated based on the Capital Improved Value (CIV) of a property. If the CIV is understated, the rates are too – and this leads to an unfair burden across the community.
IN 2016, I wrote to then-councillor Neil Rankine expressing concern that my property rates were too low. He replied that approximately 45% of properties had stagnant property values between January 2014 and January 2016, resulting in only a 1.37% overall valuation increase across the Shire.
Why does this matter? Because rates are calculated based on the Capital Improved Value (CIV) of a property. If the CIV is understated, the rates are too – and this leads to an unfair burden across the community.
After repeatedly raising this with our council and seeing no action, I took the unusual step on September 3 2021 of lodging a formal objection with the Victorian Government – not to lower my rates but to increase them. On October 25 2021, I received notice that an 86.67% adjustment was warranted. No property inspection occurred; the whole process was conducted via email.
Sometimes you have to shoot yourself in the foot to get the message across: the council’s rating system is flawed.
I wrote to Bass Coast Shire’s chief financial officer David Filmalter on 4 November 2021, stating my expectation that rural, coastal, and lifestyle properties would see significant value increases, leading to higher rates for those properties and a fairer distribution of costs across the shire. This, in turn, should reduce rates for residential homeowners.
One policy I can’t understand: why do farmers receive a 20% discount on their rates? They operate businesses, aim to make profits, and claim rates as a tax-deductible expense. There is no clear justification for this preferential treatment.
What’s my point? If our council can’t get the rating process right, how can we trust it to get the budget right?
Bass Coast residents continue to face daily risks and disruptions due to poor roads, inadequate drainage, and a dangerous lack of footpaths. These are not minor inconveniences – these are life and safety issues. I remind councillors that footpath deficiencies have already contributed to tragic outcomes on our roads. It is unacceptable that this budget fails to reflect a serious, immediate response to such critical concerns.
As the council itself has acknowledged, “The unmade roads and inadequate drainage creates issues for the communities such as dust, mud, potholes, flooding, disconnected pedestrian networks and dynamic traffic safety.” Despite this recognition, the current budget and forward estimates do not demonstrate a genuine commitment to resolving these long-standing problems.
For years, I’ve argued that the council must tackle the serious infrastructure issues plaguing Bass Coast. In response, they released the Urban Roads and Drainage Improvement Policy 2024 – a plan that stretches all the way to 2090.
Sometimes you have to shoot yourself in the foot to get the message across: the council’s rating system is flawed.
I wrote to Bass Coast Shire’s chief financial officer David Filmalter on 4 November 2021, stating my expectation that rural, coastal, and lifestyle properties would see significant value increases, leading to higher rates for those properties and a fairer distribution of costs across the shire. This, in turn, should reduce rates for residential homeowners.
One policy I can’t understand: why do farmers receive a 20% discount on their rates? They operate businesses, aim to make profits, and claim rates as a tax-deductible expense. There is no clear justification for this preferential treatment.
What’s my point? If our council can’t get the rating process right, how can we trust it to get the budget right?
Bass Coast residents continue to face daily risks and disruptions due to poor roads, inadequate drainage, and a dangerous lack of footpaths. These are not minor inconveniences – these are life and safety issues. I remind councillors that footpath deficiencies have already contributed to tragic outcomes on our roads. It is unacceptable that this budget fails to reflect a serious, immediate response to such critical concerns.
As the council itself has acknowledged, “The unmade roads and inadequate drainage creates issues for the communities such as dust, mud, potholes, flooding, disconnected pedestrian networks and dynamic traffic safety.” Despite this recognition, the current budget and forward estimates do not demonstrate a genuine commitment to resolving these long-standing problems.
For years, I’ve argued that the council must tackle the serious infrastructure issues plaguing Bass Coast. In response, they released the Urban Roads and Drainage Improvement Policy 2024 – a plan that stretches all the way to 2090.
At the current rates, many Bass Coast roads will not be sealed in the next half century.
The plan relies on “special charge schemes,” requiring property owners in targeted areas to fund upgrades themselves, even though sealed roads, footpaths, and drainage benefit the entire community. The council says it contributes where there is wider benefit – but clearly, the whole community benefits from well-maintained infrastructure.
It’s time for a better funding model. I propose:
Additionally, the shire’s forward estimates show $114 million in depreciation expenses. At least half of this should be reinvested into infrastructure, particularly under the Urban Drainage Improvement Plan.
Council should also:
Unmade roads, poor drainage, and missing footpaths are unacceptable. They are safety, health, and accessibility issues, and they must be fixed.
Fix the potholes. Fix the footpaths. Fix the funding model.
Frank W Schooneveldt is a former finance director of the A G Coombs group, one of Australia’s biggest building services contractors.
It’s time for a better funding model. I propose:
- Council commits 33% of infrastructure upgrade costs.
- The State Government matches with 33%.
- The Federal Government contributes the final 33%.
Additionally, the shire’s forward estimates show $114 million in depreciation expenses. At least half of this should be reinvested into infrastructure, particularly under the Urban Drainage Improvement Plan.
Council should also:
- Borrow to the maximum allowed under local government regulations.
- Aggressively pursue state and federal grants for special infrastructure needs.
Unmade roads, poor drainage, and missing footpaths are unacceptable. They are safety, health, and accessibility issues, and they must be fixed.
Fix the potholes. Fix the footpaths. Fix the funding model.
Frank W Schooneveldt is a former finance director of the A G Coombs group, one of Australia’s biggest building services contractors.