Property and
User Charges at
Alpine Resorts and
Victorian Municipalities
August 2008
Published by the Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council, July 2008. An electronic copy of this document is also available on www.arcc.vic.gov.au.
Reprinted with corrections, August 2008
© The State of Victoria, Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council 2008. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
This report was commissioned by the Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council. It was prepared by Saturn Corporate Resources Pty Ltd.
Authorised by Victorian Government, Melbourne. Printed by Typo Corporate Services, 97-101 Tope Street, South Melbourne 100% Recycled Paper
ISBN 978-1-74208-341-4 (print) ISBN 978-1-74208-342-1 (PDF)
Front Cover: Sunrise over Mount Buller Village.
Acknowledgements: Photo Credit: Copyright Mount Buller / Photo: Nathan Richter.
Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and the Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Victorian Government or the Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities
A Comparison of Occupier and User Charges at Ski Resorts and Municipalities
Report prepared for: Alpine Resorts Co‐ordinating Council
By: Bill Unkles Saturn Corporate Resources Pty Ltd July 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 2 Methodology 2
1 VICTORIAN RESORTS 4 1.1 Selected Resorts 5 1.2 Resort service levels 5 1.3 Entry fees, service charges and other income 6 1.4 Rents 6 1.5 Consumer Price Index 7 1.6 Mount Baw Baw 7 1.7 Mount Buller 9 1.8 Falls Creek 10 1.9 Mount Hotham 11 1.10 Lake Mountain 13 1.11 Mount Stirling 13 1.12 Key Findings 13
2 VICTORIAN MUNICIPAL CHARGES 14 2.1 Selected Municipalities 14 2.2 Charging Methods 15 2.3 Rents 15 2.4 Comparisons 15 2.5 Key Findings 18
3 VICTORIAN MUNICIPAL AND ALPINE COMPARISONS 19 3.1 Key Issues of Comparison 19 3.2 Key Findings 20
4 NEW SOUTH WALES RESORTS 21 4.1 Selected Resorts 21 4.2 Entry fees 21 4.3 Rents 22 4.4 Service charges and other income 22 4.5 Thredbo 23 4.6 Perisher Range Resorts 25 4.7 Charlotte Pass 27 4.8 Selwyn 28 4.9 Key Findings 28
5 COMPARISONS BETWEEN VICTORIAN AND NEW SOUTH WALES ALPINE RESORTS 29 5.1 Key Issues of Comparison 29 5.2 Key Findings 35
References 36
Appendix 1: Data ‐ ski resort benchmarking comparisons 38
Appendix 2 Data for municipal comparisons 40
Appendix 3 IPART recommended charges for Perisher Range Resorts 2005‐06 42
Disclaimer Saturn Corporate Resources Pty Ltd has taken due care in collecting and presenting accurate information and in making accurate deductions in this report. No responsibility can be accepted for any errors based upon incorrect information provided to the author and used in compiling the report, nor for any misinterpretation by readers of material presented in the report.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The analysis shows that Victorian Alpine Resort Management Board charges compare favourably with equivalent charges imposed by adjacent Victorian municipalities and the New South Wales alpine resorts.
The various resort and municipal entities provide different scope of services and apply different charging regimes, making comparisons difficult. Bed‐based comparisons have been determined to be the most valid. Property charges in resorts in both Victoria and New South Wales cover land rental as well as service charges. In Victoria, land rental subsidises service charges. Victorian alpine resort rentals are comparable to the cost of land rental or funding freehold land purchases outside those Resorts, however, the cost of land rental (or purchase) is not generally included in the income of municipalities, this rental income (real or imputed) accrues to property owners not service providers. Thus the full cost of holding property outside alpine resorts is not reflected in any comparison that only includes fees and charges for municipal‐type services and facilities. Property charges by municipalities and water authorities only include service charges.
Charges related to provision of municipal type services and water and sewerage at Victorian alpine resorts are competitive with those charged in the surrounding municipalities and in a selection of likely home base municipalities of alpine resort visitors. The average of total income per bed for the resorts was $1,467 compared to $1,083 for the selected municipalities. While the resort income average was higher than the selected municipalities, it is noted that the average total income for the selected rural municipalities was $1,586. Thus the resorts have slightly lower charges than their adjacent municipalities.
In 2005‐06 per capita grant income was lower in Victorian resorts ($113) compared to Victorian municipalities ($168). In that year, grant income as a proportion of total income was 7.8% of total resort income but 19.8% of total Municipal income. Over the decade, grant income in Victorian resorts represented 19.8% of total resort income, thus indicating the long‐term proportional grant income is similar to municipalities.
Since 2001‐02, there has been some restructuring of gate entry charges within the Victorian resorts with a greater proportion of funds now being raised through gate entry charges, this change has been largely attributable to changes at Mount Hotham and Mount Buller. In NSW a surcharge has been applied to winter season visitors to Kosciuszko National Park. Notwithstanding, the gate entry charges per visitor day in Victoria are higher than those in New South Wales. However, in Victoria, all the gate entry charges are used to provide services directly related to the resorts, whereas in NSW most of the charges (59%) are applied generally to the National Parks throughout the state. Between the Victorian resorts there are some notable differences in the revenue structures. Mount Baw Baw, has the highest combined gate entry and trail charges per capita but the lowest rental and service income. At Falls Creek the opposite structure applies.
With respect to a comparison of property charges between Victorian and NSW resorts, in NSW resorts, average total of property related income per bed was an estimated $1,368, including rents. The comparable figure for Victorian resorts was an estimated $743. The Victorian resorts appear to be more than competitive with those in NSW.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 2
INTRODUCTION
The Alpine Resorts Co‐ordinating Council (ARCC) commissioned Saturn Corporate Resources Pty Ltd (SCR) to undertake a comparative study of charges (including rates, rents, service charges, fees and contributions) at selected Australian Ski Resorts and in selected Victorian municipalities.
The study provides an independent assessment of the relative charges and aims to provide a basis for the comparison of the net charges imposed on residential leaseholders/landholders. Each resort has its own specific method of charging leaseholders for the delivery of services, while the range of services offered by the resorts also varies. Hence it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the charges, as the publicly available data does not always separate operational expenditures in sufficient detail.
While every effort has been made to provide comparisons on a similar basis, this approach may tend to simplify the issue as each resort provides a different set of services and/or service standards. The study aims to identify the major sources of occupier and user income, differences between resorts in application of charges and other issues that may impact on the use of these charges.
The study builds on a similar study undertaken by SCR in 2003 for the then Mount Buller Alpine Resort Management Board.
Methodology The information in the study has been compiled through interviews with representatives of each of the land managers, responsible authorities or head lease holders in the alpine areas, a review of the various land manager annual reports and reviews of annual reports of the municipalities, holding companies and authorities supplemented by information gathering from appropriate officers. The information gained is based on the 2005‐06 financial year, as, at the time of commencement of the study, that was is the last year for which audited accounts were available for the alpine resorts in Victoria.
The expression ‘charges’ is used as a generic term to mean rates, rents, development fees, contributions and service fees imposed on occupiers of land. The use of charges linked to a specific function implies the cost/charge for delivery of that specific function e.g. development charge.
The simplified results are presented in terms of total income per bed or in the case of municipalities, total income per resident as it is assumed one resident is equivalent to one bed. The residential totals are based on the 2006 Census of Population and Housing counts of persons counted within the local government area on Census night. This may slightly underestimate the number of beds, as it does not include beds in accommodation establishments not used for guests on census night, thus slightly overstating the averages per bed/resident for municipalities.
From published and otherwise available information, it was not possible to separate commercial rents and service payments from non‐commercial rents and service payments for each Victorian resort. Therefore the comparative numbers include total rents and service fees on a per bed,
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 3
per site and per winter visitor day basis. While property related charges have been measured on a per bed or per site basis, the use of per site comparisons may be misleading as the property sizes vary considerably.
As the alpine resorts are also responsible for distribution of water and the collection and treatment of waste water, and their charges include the provision of these services, costs associated with these services in the selected municipalities have also been included. These charges have been derived from the annual reports of the applicable urban water authorities (metropolitan and regional) and per resident estimates based on the stated number of residents within their service areas, as provided by approximate figures in the annual reports. These averages of per resident water costs have been combined with municipal averages to provide a basis for comparison with the resort charges.
Each Victorian Alpine Resort Management Board (Board) tends to use a different formula for the estimation of its service charges. Mount Buller uses a combination of Capital Improved Value (CIV) and per bed rates, Falls Creek uses bed rate for accommodation and a per metre rate for commercial areas, Mount Baw Baw uses a bed charge only, while Mount Hotham bases its charge on a rate per square metre of Fully Enclosed Covered Area (FECA). The Mount Hotham charge has been reduced to a bed charge equivalent, for purposes of comparison. It has been assumed that each 14m2 of FECA is equivalent to one bed. Where charges are compared on the basis of averages of operating income per bed/resident, the operating income is deemed to include rates, rents, fees and fines and user charges and contributions and specifically exclude interest received, revenue from asset disposals and/or revaluations.
Each Victorian Board provides an annual report to the Minister using a common accounting basis that identifies the different structure of operations and enables financial comparisons between the resorts. However, similar data is not publicly available for municipalities or the New South Wales resorts. Thus, it was not possible to effectively compare the efficiency of resort operations with similar administrative operations.
Unlike in Victoria, where each resort has separate entry gates and visitation data is able to be collected by individual resort, the New South Wales (NSW) resorts are located within the Kosciuszko National Park and visitation is not separately reported. As a consequence, the consultant has made estimates of the value of relevant gate entry charges based on methodologies and information sourced from the Economic Significance of Australian Alpine Resorts (ARCC, June 2007) and the Victorian Alpine Resorts, Winter 2006, End of Season Report (ARCC, April 2007), and the published charge rates. Similarly rents have been estimated for the Perisher Range by reference to the NSW Department of Conservation and Environment Annual report 2006‐07, the Kosciuszko National Park 2006 Plan of Management and other information gathered in the development of the report.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 4
1 VICTORIAN RESORTS
There are six Victorian Alpine Resorts, Falls Creek, Lake Mountain, Mount Baw Baw, Mount Buller, Mount Hotham and Mount Stirling, four of which have villages offering on‐mountain residential accommodation and associated services and facilities, namely Falls Creek, Mount Baw Baw, Mount Buller and Mount Hotham. All are managed by an Alpine Resort Management Board (Board) established under the Alpine Resorts (Management) Act 1997.
The Boards are responsible for the management of their respective alpine resorts, with Mount Buller and Mount Stirling Alpine Resorts managed by the one Board, the Mount Buller and Mount Stirling Alpine Resort Management Board, hereafter termed the Mount Buller Board.
Major objectives for each Board are:
“To act as committee of management for land in the resort deemed permanently reserved under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978; to provide services in the resort such as garbage disposal, water supply, gas, drainage, electricity, roads, transport services, snowmaking; to collect fees prescribed by the regulations under the Alpine Resorts (Management) Act 1997; and to attract investment for the improvement of the resort for which the Board is established.”
These objectives provide a clear authority for the Boards to control the provision of services and infrastructure and to influence the development within the resort. Planning authority resides with the Minister for Planning, with day to day planning decisions delegated to the Alpine Planning Unit of the Department of Planning and Community Development. The Boards are referral agencies in relation to servicing requirements and obligations and also provide comment on each development. Board responsibility extends to the provision of snow and ski safety and they typically make contributions to, or provide snow‐making services for, the respective resorts.
While the Victorian resorts, except Mount Buller, are surrounded by the Alpine or other National Parks, they are not faced with the clear contradictions of management objectives experienced by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).
None of the north eastern Boards operate ski lifts, but the Mount Baw Baw Board operates lifts and also provides some accommodation and retail services. In the north east resorts the lifts are operated by separate commercial enterprises, which have other commercial interests on their respective mountains. On Mount Buller, the ski lift company provides the ski patrol service; Mount Hotham and Mount Baw Baw operate this service, while at Falls Creek the service is operated by the Board, with some funding support from the lift company.
Other differences between the resorts include the responsibility for snow clearing. Only at Mount Hotham does VicRoads take responsibility for snow clearing (The Great Alpine Road between the road shoulders). The main access road to each Resort is otherwise maintained by VicRoads. Local roads within each Resort are maintained by the Boards. Mount Hotham also operates a high frequency free intra resort shuttle bus service.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 5
1.1 Selected Resorts As the purpose of this study is to provide a comparison of relative charges imposed on residential landholders/leaseholders in selected resorts and municipalities, the four Victorian resorts with villages and on‐mountain accommodation, namely Falls Creek, Mount Baw Baw, Mount Buller and Mount Hotham have been selected for comparative purposes in this study. Falls Creek, Mount Buller and Mount Hotham had been reviewed in the 2003 study. 1.2 Resort service levels Each of the resorts provides a different range of services and service standards, comparisons based on primarily revenue data do not adequately reflect these differences. Table 1 attempts to illustrate the different range of services offered by Boards in the Victorian Alpine Resorts. These services are generally provided by the Boards directly, though in some cases private operators provide these services under contract to the relevant Board.
Table 1 Service Profiles of the Alpine Resort Management Boards
Falls Creek Lake Mountain Mt Baw Baw Mt Buller/Mt Stirling Mt Hotham Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Alpine Resort (Management) Act 1997 S 38(1)(d) services and related services Garbage Cont Cont Water Supply Gas Cont ES Cont Drainage Sewerage Electricity ES ES ES ES Roads (internal) Fire Protection CFA DSE DSE CFA CFA Snowmaking Lift Lift Lift Transport (on mtn) Transport (to mtn) Carpark Control Snow Clearing Cont Ski Patrol Lift On-mountain commercial services Ski Hire Ski Lifts NA Ski Lessons Food & Beverage Accommodation NA Municipal-type' services Building Surveying LG LG Cont LG LG Health Surveying LG LG LG LG LG Town Planning PMin PMin PMin PMin PMin Libraries NA NA NA NA NA Child Care NA NA NA NA NA Community Health NA NA NA NA NA Aged Care NA NA NA NA NA Abbreviations CFA Country Fire Authority LG Local Government (Municipality) Cont Private Contractor Lift Ski Lift Company DSE Dept Sustainability & Environment PMin Minister for Planning ES Electricity Supplier RWA Rural Water Authority Source: Alpine Resorts Co‐ordinating Council
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 6
As the Table shows, the smaller resorts of Lake Mountain and Mount Baw Baw provide a greater range of on mountain services including skier services such as ski lessons, catering among other services.
Each Board makes a contribution to the ARCC which provided whole‐of‐sector policy, strategy and co‐ordination services. Contributions by the Boards at Falls Creek, Mount Buller and Mount Hotham are based on visitor day numbers; the Boards at Lake Mountain and Mount Baw Baw contribute a nominal amount 1.3 Entry fees, service charges and other income Each resort in Victoria can, and does, directly charge a resort access and use (gate entry) fee. The gate entry fees enable the Boards to directly capture revenue both from day trippers and overnight visitors, although Mount Hotham may lose some revenue as it sits astride the Great Alpine Road and through traffic does not have to pay the gate entry fee. This revenue should be used to maintain the services related to visitors, rather than those related to property management. However, the distinction between these items can be easily blurred. The collection of gate fees effectively reduces the costs directly passed through to property, and ensures day visitors also contribute to related infrastructure services costs.
Property service charges are based on a combination of bed charges and Capital Improved Value (CIV), similar to Municipal Councils, or based on either bed numbers or a charge per square metre of FECA. The Office of the Valuer‐General (Victoria) undertakes CIV valuations as required, although this is to be moved to a regular three year cycle for Service Charge assessments.
The Boards are generally self sustaining. However, each Board occasionally receives State Government grant funds for specific purposes. Total Board expenditure for the selected resorts (which is roughly equivalent to income) is around $27 million per annum, of which over the past decade an average of $5.3 million per annum, i.e. 19.8%, was sourced from State Government grants1. The most notable capital works grants in recent years have been for geotechnical works following the Thredbo landslide, Victorian Water Trust funding for waste water re‐use (at Mount Buller and Mount Hotham), and Regional Infrastructure Development Fund grants for public infrastructure (at Falls Creek, Lake Mountain and Mount Baw Baw). In the case of Lake Mountain and Mount Baw Baw, there have also been ad hoc operating grants.
In setting fees and charges Boards are required to be cognisant of the Victorian Government’s whole‐of‐government policy framework, which require the adoption of cost recovery designed to deliver both equity and efficiency benefits to the Victorian community. 1.4 Rents The Boards act as the landlord for the State Government. Under the Alpine Resorts (Management) Act 1997, land within alpine resorts cannot be sold, however, Boards have the authority to lease land for periods of up to 99 years and charge lease rental. Boards retain the income of any lease, including any public benefit income arising from the initial site release. State government policy since 2002 requires the use of market rentals. In the Alpine areas, this has been equated to a charge of 3.5% of Site Value (SV). The Office of the Valuer‐General
1 Based on review of relevant Board annual reports and unpublished records complied by the ARCC
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 7
(Victoria) undertakes these valuations in accordance with the conditions specified in the applicable lease.
However, different terms for long term leases within each of the Victorian Resorts have enshrined large discrepancies in site rent charges as these reflect a combination of historic and current values. These pre‐existing leases had their genesis in agreements between the former Alpine Resorts Commission (ARC) and the Victorian Ski Association, now Victorian Snow Sports Association (VSA). The terms of these leases are still applicable; therefore progress on achieving the Government’s policy objective has been slow. Rent increases are restricted to no more than 30% at the time of revaluation for affected ARC/VSA leaseholders. Between valuation periods the site rental can be increased by a Consumer Price Index equivalent factor. The average rental currently being received for all sites is approximately 2.7% of Site Value2.
Alpine resort rentals are a charge for the use of the land and are effectively a charge on the landholder for access to a location, which has the services, facilities and amenity of an alpine resort. Unlike most rentals outside of Resorts, in the alpine areas these are applied to the provision of infrastructure and other property services. They do not accrue to consolidated revenue (i.e. to the Crown as land owner) as would rental payments to the government in other areas. Alpine resort rentals are comparable to the cost of land rental or funding freehold land purchases outside alpine resorts, however, the cost of land rental (or purchase) is not generally included in the income of municipalities. Thus the full cost of holding property outside alpine resorts is not reflected in any comparison that only includes fees and charges for municipal‐type services and facilities. 1.5 Consumer Price Index The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is widely used to track and compare price movements in Australia. It is also commonly used, by both the private and the public sector, to make annual adjustments fees, charges and rents. In the case of site rent determined in accordance with the rental agreement referred to above, annual adjustments between rent reviews are made using the Melbourne All Groups CPI. Over the comparison period of this report, the CPI increased by a total of 11.2%, or 2.7% per annum.
1.6 Mount Baw Baw Mount Baw Baw is the lowest and smallest of the Resorts in Victoria that contain villages offering on‐mountain residential accommodation and associated services and facilities. The reliability of snowfall at Mount Baw Baw is not as good as at the higher Resorts and there is less snowmaking capacity. The smaller scale of the village and ski‐field results in lower visitor numbers and the smaller scale of the operation may affect the costs of providing services within the resort. However, the rental fees are based on the same 3.5% of SV used at the other resorts.
The Mount Baw Baw Board provides substantially more services than the Boards at other residential Resorts, including the operation of all ski‐field facilities on the mountain and provision of significant retail, commercial and accommodation functions. Operation of these commercial services may provide some economies of scale for the Board, although income from
2 Sourced from an unpublished ARCC document, which has analysed Board data.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 8
these activities during the study period would have been adversely affected by the poor 2006 snow season.
Mount Baw Baw predominantly has ARC/VSA leases and only a few of these have been renegotiated in recent years. Average site rental for all sites at Mount Baw Baw is 3.4%. In 2005‐06, the per bed rate for service charges at Baw Baw was $256 and the gate entry fee per car was $30.
The attributes and selected charges ratios are detailed in Table 2.
Table 2 Attributes and Charges Ratios – Mount Baw Baw 2005‐06 and 2001‐02 2005‐06 2001‐02 Average annual change Attributes Number of visitor days 2005‐06 (5yr av) 2001‐02 (single year) 41,032 42,527 n.a. Total expenditure $3,293,106 $2,151,862 11.2% Total sites with Beds 27 29 ‐1.8% Number of beds 738 735 0.1% Average beds per site 27.3 25.3 2.0% Financial Ratios
Per Visitor Day Gate entry and trail fees per winter visitor day $7.44 $4.99 10.5% Total Income per winter visitor day $70.88 $52.99 7.5% Total expenditure per winter visitor day $80.26 $50.60 12.2% Per Property Average rental income per rateable property with beds $2,284 $1,233 16.7% Average services income per rateable property with beds $8,442 $6,097 8.5% Average total rental and services income per rateable property with beds $10,726 $7,330 10.0% Average development and/or infrastructure charges per rateable property with beds (one‐off charge) $0 $0 n.a. Per Bed Average rental income per bed $83.56 $48.67 14.5% Average service charges per bed $308.87 $240.59 6.4% Average rental and services Income per bed $392.43 $289.26 7.9% Government funding (non recurring) per bed $2,537.99 $1430.16 n.a.
As a percentage of all income, entry fees were 4.6%, service charges 7.8%, grants 64.4% and rental income 2.1%.
The key changes at Mount Baw Baw since 2001/02 have been an average annual increase of 10.5% in the value of gate and trail fees per visitor day, an average annual increase in rental and services income per bed of 7.9% and rental income per property rising by around 16.7%. The large real increases in costs reflect a management efforts towards making the resort more self sufficient.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 9
1.7 Mount Buller As for all the Victorian resorts, the Mount Buller Board is responsible for the operations and development of the resort.
Mount Buller has the largest number of beds and the highest number of visitors of the Victorian Resorts. The Board provides a comprehensive range of services to visitors and property at Mount Buller Alpine Resort and also provides day visitor services at Mount Stirling Alpine Resort.
Since 2002, Mount Buller has reduced the leases subject to ARC/VSA Agreement rental provisions by 12, to 86 leases out of a total of 176 residential sites. 1.7.1 Charging method Mount Buller used a combination of site rentals and service charges.
The service charges had two components –
• a rate based charge of $0.068313 per dollar of CIV of the properties, plus • a bed charge of $120.00.
Site rental is based on a rate of 3.5 per cent of site value, although actual site rental is dependent upon the specific lease conditions. Average site rental for all sites at Mount Buller is 2.8%.
Mount Buller is moving away from the use of bed based charges. In 2006‐07 this charge was set at $80, and it will be $40 in 2007‐08, and after that year no bed based charge is proposed.
In addition to the above charges, a ”one‐off” capital works levy, $3,240 per bed, applies for the installation of new beds on a site, usually in conjunction with redevelopment, extensions works or other changes on the site resulting in additional beds.
The attributes and selected charges ratios are detailed in Table 3.
Table 3 Attributes and Charges Ratios – Mount Buller 2005‐06 and 2001‐02 2005‐06 2001‐02 Average annual change Attributes Number of visitor days 2005‐06 (5yr av) 2001‐02 (single 445,756 451,671 n.a. year) Total expenditure $8,758,000 $8,088,308 2.0% Total sites with Beds 176 158 2.7% Number of beds 7,812 7,264 1.8% Average beds per site 44.4 46.0 ‐0.9% Financial Ratios
Per Visitor Day Gate entry and trail fees per winter visitor day $6.08 $3.65 13.6% Total Income per winter visitor day $22.37 $17.10 6.9% Total expenditure per winter visitor day $19.65 $17.91 2.3%
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 10
Per Property Average rental income per rateable property with beds $15,892 $13,017 5.1% Average services income per rateable property with beds $16,989 $12,485 8.0% Average total rental and services income per rateable $32,881 $25,502 6.6% property with beds Average development and/or infrastructure charges per $767 n.c. n.c. rateable property with beds (one‐off charge) Per Bed Average rental income per bed $358.04 $283.14 6.0% Average service charges per bed $382.74 $271.56 9.0% Average rental and services Income per bed $740.78 $554.71 7.5% Government funding (non recurring) per bed $2.56 $33.04 n.a.
As a percentage of all income, entry fees were 18.9%, service charges 30.0%, grants 0.2% and rental income 28.1%.
Between 2001‐02 and 2005‐06, the gate entry fees per visitor day rose by 13.6%, while the total rental and service charges per bed rose by 7.5%.
1.8 Falls Creek Falls Creek has the second highest number of sites but the third highest number of beds. Of the 101 sites Falls Creek now has 33 leases subject to the rental provisions of the ARC/VSA Agreement, a reduction of 4 since 2002. The total residential leases at Falls Creek in 2005‐06 were 101. Hence a third of all leases were subject to the ARC/VSA rental constraint.
Falls Creek had experienced a relative downturn in visitation compared to Mount Buller and Mount Hotham over the years to 2001‐02, which tended to increase the relative costs per bed or per site. Since then winter visitor day growth at Falls Creek has been stronger than at the other resorts3.
1.8.1 Charging method Falls Creek property charges are based on the application of a per bed rate for residential properties and a per square metre rate for commercial areas.
For the 2005‐06 financial year service charges were $442.77 per bed for accommodation and a spatial charge of $26.56 per square metre of commercial space.
Site rental is based on a rate of 3.5% of site value, although actual site rental is dependent upon the specific lease conditions. Average site rental for all sites at Falls Creek is 2.4%.
The attributes and selected charges ratios are detailed in Table 4.
3 The ARCC advises that this may be due to that fact that visitation in 2003 and 2004 may have been over‐ estimated during these years because of significant changes in the pricing policy for season entry passes (ARCC, April 2008).
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 11
Table 4 Attributes and Charges Ratios – Falls Creek 2005‐06 and 2001‐02 2005‐06 2001‐02 Average annual change Attributes Number of visitor days 2005‐06 (5yr av) 2001‐02 353,903 274,621 n.a. (single year) Total expenditure $6,898,948 $5,706,692 4.9% Total sites with Beds 101 100 0.2% Number of beds 4,934 4,700 1.2% Average beds per site 48.9 47.0 1.0% Financial Ratios Per Visitor Day Gate entry and trail fees per winter visitor day $4.62 $4.27 2.0% Total Income per winter visitor day $19.24 $19.91 ‐0.9%. Total expenditure per winter visitor day $19.49 $20.78 ‐1.6% Per Property Average rental income per rateable property with $15,074 $12,152 5.5% beds Average services income per rateable property $23,257 $19,561 4.4% with beds Average total rental and services income per $38,331 $31,713 4.9% rateable property with beds Average development and/or infrastructure $0 $0 0% charges per rateable property with beds (one‐off charge) Per Bed Average rental income per bed $308.56 $258.56 4.5% Average service charges per bed $476.08 $416.20 3.4% Average rental and services Income per bed $784.64 $674.76 3.8% Government funding (non recurring) per bed $36.40 $112.84 n.a.
As a percentage of all income, entry fees were 20.6%, service charges 34.5%, grants 2.6% and rental income 22.4%.
Between 2001‐02 and 2005‐06, the gate entry fees per visitor day rose slightly, rising by only 2.0%, while the total rental and service charges per bed rose by 3.8%. Falls Creek was the only one of the three larger resorts to increase bed related charges more than gate entry fees.
1.9 Mount Hotham Mount Hotham has the third highest number of sites but the second highest number of beds, following significant investment in new accommodation over the last decade. Of the 83 sites Mount Hotham now has 32 leases subject to the rental provisions of the ARC/VSA Agreement.
Mount Hotham has a relatively low share of day visitors and has traded strongly on its reputation for reliable snow cover; however, in 2005‐06 it was badly affected by the poor snow season due to a lack of water for snow‐making. This has now been largely resolved by the introduction of a major water recycling program, which should be fully operational in the 2008 season.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 12
1.9.1 Charging method Mount Hotham uses FECA to determine service charges. In calculating the number of beds, the resort estimates approximately 14 square metres of FECA is equivalent to one bed space.
The attributes and selected charges ratios are detailed in Table 5.
Table 5 Attributes and Charges Ratios – Mount Hotham 2005‐06 and 2001‐02 2005‐06 2001‐02 Average annual change Attributes Number of visitor days 2005‐06 (5yr av) 2001‐02 330,279 294,894 n.a. (single year) Total expenditure $6,525,799 $5,396,362 4.9% Total sites with Beds 83 80 0.9% Number of beds 4,813 4,529 1.5% Average beds per site 58.0 56.6 0.6% Financial Ratios Per Visitor day Gate entry and trail fees per winter visitor day $5.11 $4.14 5.4% Total Income per winter visitor day $21.64 $20.37 1.5% Total expenditure per winter visitor day $19.76 $18.30 1.9% Per Property Average rental income per rateable property with $13,206 $10,801 5.2% beds Average services income per rateable property with $30,827 $26,411 3.9% beds Average total rental and services income per rateable $44,033 $37,212 4.3% property with beds Average development and/or infrastructure charges $5,478 n.c. n.c. per rateable property with beds (one‐off charge) Per Bed Average rental income per bed $227.74 $190.79 4.5% Average service charges per bed $531.61 $466.51 3.3% Average rental and services Income per bed $759.35 $657.31 3.7% Government funding (non recurring) per bed $0.42 $54.10 n.a.
Total rental and services and income accounted for slightly less than half of the total revenue of the Mount Hotham Board.
Gate entry fees provide 22.2% of total income for Mount Hotham. While this is slightly higher than for the other resorts, the gate entry fee covers the provision of a comprehensive intra village transport system of buses with an approximate headway of only 10 minutes for 21 hours a day in season.
As a percentage of all income, entry fees were 22.2%, service charges 35.8%, grants 0.0% and rental income 15.3%.
Between 2001‐02 and 2005‐06, the gate entry fees per visitor day rose by 5.4% per annum, while the total rental and service charges per bed rose by only 3.7%.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 13
1.10 Lake Mountain Lake Mountain is a non‐residential Resort. Marysville, 28 km away at the base of the mountain, offers approximately 3000 tourist beds4 and acts as a de facto resort village. Due to its proximity to Melbourne, a large proportion of Lake Mountain’s visitation is day visitation from Melbourne.
Gate entry fees have increased from $22.00 in 2001‐02 to $27.00 in 2005‐06, an increase of 5.3% per annum. .
1.11 Mount Stirling Mount Stirling is a non‐residential resort. Since 2004, the Mount Buller and Mount Stirling Alpine Resorts have been operated by a single Board responsible for both. Gate entry fees provide access to both Resorts.
Gate entry fees for Mount Stirling are the same as for Mount Buller, as it is managed as a single entity.
1.12 Key Findings Each Victorian Resort has a unique set of fees and charges, which to some extent reflects their respective range of services provided. Between 2001‐02 and 2005‐06 the total selected resort revenues increased by 5.3% per annum. Excluding site rental they increased by 4.9% per annum. These increases are above CPI which rose by 2.7% per annum over the same period.
In 2005‐06 resort average rental incomes per site were between $2,284 and $15,892 with the average charge was $14,153.
The average income from service charges in 2005‐06 was $20,996 per site.
Government funding per bed for non recurring activities in 2005‐06 was $113.39 or 7.8% of average total resort income, compared to the long‐term average of 19.8% of average total resort income.
All Resorts apply rental income towards the general provision of services and facilities with the Resort. The Government as the landlord allows the Boards to collect these fees and apply them to the provision of infrastructure and services with the resorts rather than claiming the funds for consolidated revenue.
4 Source: Marysville Visitor Information Centre, estimate refers to the Triangle area, i.e. the area bounded by Marysville, Narbethong and Buxton.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 14
2 VICTORIAN MUNICIPAL CHARGES
Comparisons of rate and service charge income with municipal areas adjoining the alpine resorts provide a useful indicator of the relative charges between these two groups of service providers.
While the service conditions and range of services differ considerably there is substantial common ground between the Boards and the Municipal Councils.
The municipalities selected for comparison include: the Alpine, Indigo and Delatite Shires, which surround the north east Victorian alpine resorts; and, the Gippsland municipalities of Baw Baw and Latrobe. In addition the urban Councils of Boroondara, Bayside, Whitehorse and Monash were also surveyed.
The Boards all provide water reticulation, sewerage and drainage as part of their rates/service charges. To ensure a meaningful comparison these costs have also been included in the analysis using the appropriate urban water authority charges for each municipality examined in this report.
Data are based on the relevant authorities’ Annual Reports for 2001‐02 and 2005‐06, although data was extracted from the 2006‐07 Annual Reports for Indigo, Alpine and Monash municipalities as the 2005‐06 reports were not available at the time of this survey. The relevant 2005‐06 rate for each area was determined by discussion with staff of the relevant authority.
The key comparisons of rates per resident are based on the values of rates per residential assessment divided by the average number of residents per dwelling as of August 2001 and 2006 (census data). The value of ordinary income per resident is based on the value of income from ordinary operating activities divided by total population as of August 2001. Ordinary income is defined as including all revenue sources less Government Grants.
Councils rely on regular government grants for a significant proportion of their income. These are determined primarily by the State Grants Commission and reflect the specific means and needs of Council areas, partly based on a resource equalisation policy.
In comparing rates and service charges, it has been assumed that the number of residents counted on Census night in a particular area will closely approximate the number of beds in the area. This has been used as it provides the most effective basis for comparison between resorts with different residential patterns and relatively small permanent populations within resort areas.
2.1 Selected Municipalities The selected municipalities are adjacent to the relevant Victorian ski resorts or are considered to be representative of where significant numbers of the resort accommodation owners reside. These selections were largely made by the client of the initial 2003 study but the number of municipalities was expanded in the current study to provide a more comprehensive comparison, after examination of postcode based data of visitors from Mount Hotham and Mount Buller and discussions with resort management. The selected municipalities and associated urban water boards were grouped by locality:
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 15
5 Rural shires: • Alpine and Indigo Shires serviced by the North East Regional Water Authority • Mansfield Shire (previously combined with the Rural City of Benalla as Delatite Shire) serviced by the Goulburn Valley Water Authority. • Baw Baw Shire and Latrobe City serviced by Gippsland Water.
4 Urban Cities: • Boroondara City, Monash City and Whitehorse City serviced by Yarra Valley Water • Bayside City serviced by South East Water
2.2 Charging Methods Council revenues are typically based on a range of rates and fees. Rates, which typically are based on a charge per dollar of Capital Improved Value (CIV) of property, account for almost 50 per cent of Council revenue, the balance chiefly comprises government grant income, service fees (for planning and other permits) and fines.
2.3 Rents It is unusual for a municipal council to be a landlord and there is no obvious method to compare the land rentals of Boards with charges made by Councils. Occupiers may well pay rent to a landowner, but these rents are not used to provide municipal services. Rather they are retained by the landowner for maintenance, improvement or profit.
2.4 Comparisons
The Department of Victorian Communities (now Department of Planning and Community Development) publishes an annual summary of key Local Government Rate statistics, based upon the Council’s annual reports but with some adjustments. For each of the comparison years a few features in the report relating to the selected Councils are worth noting, these are detailed on Table 6.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 16
Table 6 Average Rates and State wide rankings of selected municipalities 2001‐02 and 2005‐06 Municipality Average Rate per Average Average Rates and Average Annual residential Annual charges per assessment Percentage assessment change change 2001‐02 to 2001‐02 to 2005‐2006 2005‐06 2005‐06 2001‐02 2005‐06 2001‐02 Alpine Shire $926 $690 7.6% $1,013 $809 5.8% Indigo Shire $890 $651 8.1% $937 $739 6.1% Mansfield $910 $686 7.3% $929 $726 6.4% Shire/ Delatite Shire Bayside City $1,107 $834 7.3% $1,109 $827 7.6% Boroondara $1,218 $870 8.8% $1,230 $882 8.7% City Monash City $769 $599 6.4% $799 $641 5.7% Whitehorse $723 $562 6.5% $770 $594 6.7% City Baw Baw Shire $851 $684 5.6% $1,012 $826 5.2% Latrobe City $970 $645 10.7% $1,149 $927 5.5%
Source: Local Government in Victoria 2002 and 2006 Attachments, # Note Delatite Shire was split in 2005 becoming Mansfield (S) and Benalla (RC) making 77 LGAs.
The figures in the Table 6 differ slightly from those stated in each municipality’s annual report, due to rounding and some adjustment for standardisation.
Between 2001‐02 and 2005‐06, average rate per residential assessment rose by 7.9% per annum, while the average rate per assessment rose by 7.6%, based on the Department’s estimates.
Overall, the average value of residential rates and water and sewerage for the selected municipalities per assessment was $1,471 for 2005‐06. (As the mix of selected municipalities has changed from those used in the previous report, it is not appropriate to provide estimates of the change in this average).
Figure 1 illustrates the average total municipal (rates and service charges) and water charges per assessment and per person for the selected municipalities. Details of the data upon which this table is based are provided in Appendix 2 of the report.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 17
Figure 1 Total municipal and water charges per assessment and per person selected municipalities 2005‐06 $2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0 Total Water and Municipal residential rates & Residential rates and charges per assessment Total ordinary municipal (Excl grants) and charges per residential assessment water income per bed/person Alpine (S) Indigo (S) Mansfield (S) Bayside (C) Boroondara (C) Monash (C) Whitehorse (C) Baw Baw Shire Latrobe Shire
The 5 rural municipalities tended to have higher combined average municipal and water charges than the urban municipalities. This is partly due to the costs of water supply per person, with the average residential water and sewerage charge on the North East Region being $345 for North East Water and $166 for Goulburn Valley Water and $550 for Gippsland Water compared to only $202 in the Yarra Valley Water area. The Goulburn Valley estimate excludes revenue associated with commercial use. This could not be excluded from the other data and may lead to overestimates for these figures.
Government grants provide a regular source of municipal income. This can be money from the Grants Commission process and/or money granted for specific purposes (e.g. under grounding power on major roads, road funding and community service provision). In 2005‐06 Government Grants represented 19.8% of the total income for the selected municipalities. The relative importance of these grants is illustrated on Figure 2.
Recommendations for grant funding are based on assessment by the Victorian Grants Commission (VGC) of the relative costs of operating in each Local Government Area. The grants comprise General Purpose Grants, provided as Equalisation Grants and Natural Disaster Allocations, and a Local Roads Funding component.
It is worth noting that the level of grants for the North Eastern Shires is relatively high. This partially reflects the impact isolated nature of these areas and the mountainous terrain they operate in on their infrastructure maintenance and provision costs. The Alpine Boards face similar though more extreme conditions of infrastructure operation.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 18
Figure 2 Grant income per person 2005‐06
$900
$800 $786
$700
$600 $582
$500 $454
$400 $344 $300 $300
$200
$135 $124 $107 $100 $85
$0 Alpine (S) Indigo (S) Mansfield (S) Bayside (C) Boroondara Monash (C) Whitehorse (C) Baw Baw Shire Latrobe Shire (C)
2.5 Key Findings Rates and other charges vary greatly across municipalities, as well as within the selected rural and urban groupings. The rural municipalities typically receive larger level of grant funding per capita due to the higher costs of roads per capita, the typically lower income levels of rural residents and higher costs of access to and provision of human services.
Government grant income varies significantly (from $85 to $786 per person with an average of $168 per person in 2005‐06). The value of municipal income derived from grants also varies significantly (from $1.6m to $16.6m in 2005‐06)5. This difference reflects the relative size of council areas and the level of need as determined by the VGC.
5 Excludes grants to the exceptionally small local areas of the Borough of Queenscliffe and the Docklands Authority.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 19
3 VICTORIAN MUNICIPAL AND ALPINE COMPARISONS
3.1 Key Issues of Comparison Major differences in the operations of Councils and Boards include: • Councils are democratically elected in contrast to appointed boards; • Councils have the no responsibility for snow clearing and snow safety; • The higher costs of operating in remote and alpine areas for the Boards; • Councils tend to operate more comprehensive social programs; and, • Council charges do not include land owner rent.
The Boards also face difficulties due to the short period of high service demand and revenue generation; the high costs of maintenance and construction in the alpine areas exacerbated by the limited construction season (November to May); and the sensitive natural environments surrounding the resorts and the need to use specialist services with expertise in Alpine environments. The Boards also face extreme conditions of infrastructure operation.
For Local Government, State Grants provide a regular and significant component of municipal revenues in Victoria as a subsidy for road construction and other services. These are regularly determined by the application of formulas thorough the Victorian Grants Commission. On the other hand, Resort access roads are constructed and maintained at no cost to those Resorts and Boards do not provide municipal‐type community services.
In comparing the data for the resorts against municipal standards, it is clear that the basis of the comparison can directly impact the conclusions to be drawn. On a per site/property basis, resorts charges would appear to be quite excessive with the average value of ordinary income per site being $65,849 per site compared to an average of $2,097 the selected municipalities.
A comparison of equivalent property service charges ‐ municipal rate income and the resort service charges – per bed/person, indicates the resort charges ($444) are significantly lower than those of the municipalities ($689), see Table 7. However, with the alpine resorts site rentals are included in the total income of the resorts and are used to provide property and other resort services. The municipalities do not have an equivalent income stream6.
However, most properties in the alpine resorts are not normal house size but offer many more beds. Therefore per bed/person comparisons are more appropriate. The total income excluding Government grants per bed in the alpine resorts averaged $1,353 per bed, while for the municipalities including water rates it averaged $916 per person. Once government grants were included the average income for the alpine resorts was $1,467 compared to $1,083 for the selected municipalities. This figure ranged from $1,661 to $2,002 per person for all the municipalities surrounding the alpine resorts.
6 The median average rent per person for the selected municipalities (according to the 2006 Census) was $6,024, this includes rental for both sites and dwellings. Resort rentals charged by the Boards are only based on site values. To strictly compare municipal and resort property incomes a component of the property rents should be allocated to the municipal charges. It is for this reason that a comparison is made between resort service charges and municipal rate income.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 20
As the municipalities typically raise more than half their funds through revenue other than rates, it is more appropriate to compare municipal and water rate income per capita with the rent and service income per bed in the selected resorts. These comparisons are provided in Table 7.
3.2 Key Findings
The data would indicate that the municipal services and water charges in the alpine resorts ($1,467) are more than competitive with the surrounding area municipalities ($1,588), but higher than the average for all selected municipalities ($1,083). The difference between the rural average and the average for all selected municipalities is due to the lower operating costs associated with urban municipalities for both water and municipal services. This is related to the economies of scale and greater population densities in the urban areas. More detailed data are shown in Table 7.
For 2005‐06 Government grant funding to resorts ($113) is less on a per bed/person basis than the grant funding to the selected municipalities ($168).
Government grant funding to resorts comprises a low 8% of total all selected Victorian resorts’ income in 2005‐06, compared to 20% for all selected municipalities and 31% for rural municipalities. Long‐term grant funding of the selected resorts has been estimated at approximately 20% of total income (see section 1.3 above).
Table 7 Comparative rates and water charges for Victorian alpine resorts and selected municipalities 2005‐06 Ordinary Ordinary Average Property Ordinary Gov’t Total income per income plus beds/ income income grant income site/ water income persons (rates) plus funding per bed assessment per site/ per site per bed/ water per bed/ person assessment person income person per bed/ person Selected Victorian Resorts $63,977 $63,977 47.3 $444 $1,353 $113 $1,467 Municipalities Selected Rural – average $2,093 $2,613 2.5 $938 $1,209 $379 $1,588 Selected Urban average $1,652 $2,172 2.6 $642 $858 $114 $972 All selected municipalities $2,265 $2,695 2.6 $689 $916 $168 $1,083
Notes: 1 Ordinary income includes: rentals, user fees and charges, contributions and service fees for alpine resorts; and rates, contributions, charges fees and fines for the municipalities; it does not include revenue from water and sewerage services.
While the average total income per bed for the alpine resorts was higher than that of all the selected municipalities, it was 7.6% lower than the average for the surrounding rural municipalities.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 21
4 NEW SOUTH WALES RESORTS
The New South Wales (NSW) resorts of Thredbo, the Perisher Range complex and the smaller resorts of Charlotte Pass and Selwyn Snowfields (Selwyn) are all within the Kosciuszko National Park (KNP), which is managed by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).
Thredbo is managed and serviced by Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd (KT) trading as Thredbo Alpine Village. KT has a head lease agreement with the NPWS. All sites within the village are held under sub leases from KT, with sub lessees proving a wide range of commercial, retailing and accommodation services.
Similarly the smaller fields of Charlotte Pass and Selwyn also operate under a head lease agreement. Unlike, Thredbo and Charlotte Pass, Selwyn has no visitor accommodation within the resort (i.e. it only serves day visitors)
The Perisher Range fields (Perisher Valley, Smiggin Holes, Guthega, and Mount Blue Cow) are serviced and managed by the NPWS. All the properties in these areas are leased from the NPWS. Perisher Blue Pty Ltd (PB), the largest operator, operates the ski lifts within and between the fields, the ski tube, which provides day access to Perisher and Blue Cow, and the core commercial sites within the Perisher Range. PB has a range of leases on selected properties, which are then licensed (sublet) to other retail operations. Other smaller operators provide commercial services, retailing and accommodation. .
4.1 Selected Resorts Thredbo and the Perisher Range resorts, both of which comprise villages and on‐mountain accommodation, have been selected for comparative purposes in this study. Both had been reviewed in the 2002 study. 4.2 Entry fees The NPWS collects all gate entry fees to the KNP. Some of this revenue is hypothecated for service delivery related to skier’s park use. Prior to July 2005, these fees were treated as consolidated revenue for the State.
In June 2004 the NSW government requested the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) to review the infrastructure pricing on the Perisher Range resorts. The initial terms of reference did not include IPART’s consideration of the KNP entry fees. This effectively suggested that day visitors should not make a contribution to the infrastructure services provided within the ski field areas of the KNP. This situation was remedied during the hearing process.
The recommendations of the IPART review in relation to entry fees were included in the final report handed down in June 2005. The recommendations were applied in 2005‐06. A key recommendation was that a surcharge be applied to the KNP per car gate entry fees of $11 (including GST) so that the total cost was $27.00 (similar increases were applied to other vehicle types). IPART recommended that the majority of the surcharge be applied to meeting Perisher Range infrastructure costs related to day visitors (IPART,p5). The part of the $11 that is not specifically allocated to Perisher Range infrastructure has been allocated to a Centenary Fund. While the resort managements can make recommendations as to how this money is spent, they
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 22
are not part of a formal trust management structure. NPWS retains effective management of this fund.
This surcharge was seen as “a preferable way of recovering costs from day visitors to Perisher” (IPART, p46, 2006). While the NSW resorts were willing to provide indicative estimates of skier days, some resorts suggested that day visitor numbers have fallen since the imposition of this surcharge.
Gate entry to the resorts is controlled by the NPWS. There are no accurate figures on total visitor numbers to the resorts as gate entry provides access to the whole of the KNP. There are separate gates for Thredbo, the Perisher Range and fees from ski tube passengers are included in the tube ticket cost. The Economic Significance Study (ARCC, p5, 2006) suggested that there were some 1.8 million days spent in the New South Wales resorts in 2005.
However, the NPWS estimates that an average of 600,000 persons visit the resorts, based upon a belief that 65% of all KNP visits being in the winter season. The actual numbers in 2005‐06 are likely to be lower than this. This figure would suggest that each visitor to the KNP in winter spends some 3 days there. As many people stay outside the KNP and as the resorts estimate the average overnight stay for users of accommodation in the KNP is some 2.5 days, it is possible that the NPWS may be inadvertently underestimating the level of winter visitation. The winter visitation figures for the NSW resorts for 2005‐06 have been derived from information in the Economic Significance Report (ARCC, June 2006) and advice by the Thredbo and Perisher resort management.
Unlike in Victoria, where the Alpine Resort Management Boards have a clear obligation to realise their tourist potential and largely control operations within their areas of responsibility; the NSW resorts operate in association with the NPWS, which has a stated objective of protecting the environment. This objective does not always fit well with the operations and development of the ski fields. Understandably the working relationships between the resort operators and the NPWS are occasionally affected by their different objectives. There is some concern by the operators that fees collected by the NPWS from the ski industry may be subsidising other park operations, the NPWS believes there is no basis for this concern.
As the NSW resorts all use a standard (July‐June) financial year, the figures are not directly comparable with the Victorian resorts, which use a November to October year. The equivalent year used for NSW resorts was 2006‐07. 4.3 Rents Rentals collected by the NPWS for all Perisher Range leases and the Thredbo head lease are attributed to the NPWS revenue accounts. This revenue is then used to fund the operations of all National Parks in New South Wales. The KNP provides the major source of park fee revenue for the NPWS, it is also the most expensive park to operate.
4.4 Service charges and other income As there are different leasing and management arrangements applying at NSW resorts, service charges and other income are addressed by resort in the following sections of the report.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 23
4.5 Thredbo The Thredbo area is subject to a head lease agreement between the NPWS and KT. This lease was originally entered into in 1962 and expired on the 28 June 2007. KT has exercised a further 50 year option on the property, to 2057. The new lease is largely the same as the previous lease. All sites within the Thredbo area are held under sub leases to KT, with sub lease rentals payable to KT. Most of the sub leases are subject to the same timeframe as the head lease.
KT provides all municipal type services within the Village area including road maintenance and construction, water supply treatment and distribution, waste water management, waste management, leisure services, resort marketing, sub lease management, planning and development control and other aspects of winter operations including skier safety.
KT also operates the ski lifts and various commercial outlets and accommodation services throughout the village. The lower commercial services fees at this resort may be partially offset by the ability of the resort management to integrate the full costs of managing the resort. Also as commercial rent details were unavailable, they have not been included in this analysis whereas they were not able to be separated out in relation to the Victorian resorts. Thus the Thredbo income estimates may be a little understated.
While Thredbo operates under a head lease with the NSW Government there are effectively some operational similarities to the operations of the Victorian resorts with KT controlling all operational and most land management issues within the resort boundary. Although planning responsibility ultimately resides with the NSW Government
Gate entry fees are payable to the NSW NPWS, none of these fees are collected by, or retained by, the resort. No money from the gate entry fees is spent within Thredbo for resort services by the NPWS. Nor has the resort accessed government grants for works in the resort.
Thredbo estimate that the 5 yearly average of skier days spent on their slopes is around 450,000 skier days. Using the formula applied in the Economic Significance Report, this would equate to 666,000 visitor days.
4.5.1 Financial aspects
In 2005‐06, the then lease required KT to pay the NPWS a minimum of $8,000 p.a. for the lease or 5 per cent of taxable income whichever is the greater. In recent years, KT management advise that the annual payment has averaged around $1.5 million. The last time the minimum payment of $8,000 was made, was in 1997.
Total income for resort management services was estimated at $4.7 million for 2001‐02. In 2006‐07, the management estimated the income resort management services at $4.5 million, a surprising fall from the 2001‐02 level. However, as the detailed accounts for Thredbo’s operations are not available, it is possible that this estimate was provided on a different base to that given for 2001‐02.
Income from rental and service charges is largely applied to the operating expenses of the village area. It is estimated the cost of these services in the 2006 season was $4.8 million). These costs exclude the operation of the swimming pool/leisure centre (which in a municipal
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 24
area would typically be operated and /or funded by the council). Snow making and grooming costs have not been included in this estimate but are paid out of lift ticket sales. No specific information is available on lift ticket sales or visitation for the financial year.
KT combines its rental and service charges into a single bed charge.
Within Thredbo no developer contribution or one off levies are imposed. However, KT retains the initial sale moneys from any new subdivision in the village. Approximately one third of this is applied to the development and replacement of requisite infrastructure.
Depending on circumstances KT can raise funds through irregular service charge imposts. While these have not been imposed in any major way, they are available to meet specific costs related to changes in statutory requirements. 4.5.2 Charging method Rental and services charges are combined into a per bed charge of $1,014 p.a. (2006) indexed to inflation. Since the new lease agreement this rate has been lifted to $1,200 per bed for 2007‐08 for commercial lodges and other beds will be charged at $1,300, both rates are subject to CPI adjustments for subsequent years.
No one‐off capital charges are imposed but revenue from the initial release of sites is retained by KT.
The estimated gate fees per capita included in Table 8 have been derived by using the estimated average visitor numbers per resort as derived from the Alpine Economic Significance Study (ARCC, June 2006) and advice on skier day numbers from the resort, the average conversion ratio of visitor days to visitor numbers based on the Victorian resorts nine year average (ARCC, April 2007) the average and the current fee per vehicle, the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority estimate of the number of persons per vehicle. This estimate of $4.59 per visitor day would increase to $5.32 if the NPWS estimate of persons per vehicle was used. A similar approach was used to calculate this cost for the Perisher Range resorts.
Retail lease rentals vary from $300 to $600 per m2 with lease costs higher for smaller commercial areas than for the larger ones. This is partly to encourage the continued operation of services such as the supermarket, which are marginal operations outside of the winter season.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 25
Table 8 Attributes and Charges Ratios ‐ Thredbo 2006‐07 and 2001‐02 2006‐07 2001‐02 Average annual change Attributes Number of Visitor Days (2001‐02 NPWS based 666,000 300,000 n.c. estimate 2006‐07 KT and SCR estimate) 1 Total Income2 $000s $51,259.8 n.a. n.c. Total sites with Beds 3 700 750 ‐1.7% Number of beds 4,427 4,138 1.7% Average beds per site 6.32 5.5 3.6% Financial Ratios
Per visitor day Gate entry and trail fees per winter visitor day4 $4.59 n.a. n.c. Total Income per winter visitor day $76.97 $15.69 n.c. Total expenditure per winter visitor day n.a. n.a. n.c. Per Bed Average rental income per bed $1,014.00 $1,137.61 ‐2.8% Average service charges per bed Average rental and Services Income per bed $1,014.00 $1,137.61 ‐2.8% Government funding per bed $0.00 $0.00 n.a.
1. Based on skier day average for last 5 years as supplied by resort and ratios in Economic Significance Report (AARC, June 2006), 2001‐02 figures derived from NPWS estimates provided at the time of preparing SCR 2002 report and they appear to be a significant underestimate of visitation. 2. Expenditure details not available, hence Income is provided as an approximation 3. Method of calculating property site numbers had changed between studies. 4. Estimate based on $27 per car divided by RTA estimates of passengers per vehicle (3.128), multiplied by the number of visitor days 450,000 skier days multiplied by 1.48 (ARCC, June 2006) divided by ratio of visitor days to visitor numbers (1.88) (ARCC, April 2007, p6). n..a. not available n.c not calculated
As a percentage of the estimated income received by KT and the NPWS, entry fees were 6.0%, service charges 8.8%, grants 0.0% and other income 85.3%. As the 2001‐02 data was limited and of variable quality no meaningful estimates of changes in the ratios have been able to be provided for the NSW resorts. 4.6 Perisher Range Resorts The Perisher Range Resorts are a compilation of 4 resorts, 3 with accommodation within the resort area: Perisher Valley, Smiggin Holes, Guthega; and Mount Blue Cow, which is a day visit resort.
The NPWS leases the land to a range of lessees. The NPWS provides resort management services, safety services, water supply and treatment and land management. PB has a number of leases with the NPWS covering their commercial buildings, the rail terminals, rail right of way and ski lift paths. All other land holders also lease directly from the NPWS.
PB operates the ski lifts, major commercial outlets and the ski tube (a rail access tunnel linking Perisher Valley and Blue Cow). This provides the main source of day visitor access to these areas. The ski tube encourages a high level of day visitor use at the Perisher Resorts. Transport within the resort is provided by fee for service over snow vehicles.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 26
The lack of a strong unifying management body, and the potential conflict within the NPWS between the conservation values necessary to manage a National Park and the commercial requirements of the alpine resorts, continues to create tensions in the general management and operation of the Perisher Range Resorts.
4.6.1 Financial aspects The NPWS collects both rents and service charges. The State Government treats rent monies as consolidated revenue and this is not related to the provision of infrastructure and other services within the park. The value of the annual commercial services charge is retained by the NPWS to fund operations in the Perisher Range.
The NPWS was not prepared to directly provide a definite figure on the total rentals drawn from the Alpine Resorts in the Kosciuszko National Park. The estimates were based on indicative information from park management and information contained in the Department of Environment and Conservation7 Annual Report 2005‐06, which indicated that some $10.8 million was collected in site rental and rentals from Departmental properties. Estimates have been made of the approximate rentals likely to be derived from each resort. SCR cannot guarantee the accuracy of these estimates but believes they provide a reasonable assessment.
NPWS manages the resorts as part of the Kosciuszko National Park and no separate accounts are published for the Park or resorts. Capital works within the area are funded from rates, a proportion of the park entry fee and developer contributions.
The operational costs of the Perisher Range Resorts are considerably higher than for Thredbo and probably the Victorian resorts partly due to the dispersed nature of the resort villages. The lodges and other buildings are spread over large distances within the 4 resort areas. 4.6.2 Charging method The Perisher Range Resorts’ charges are based on a combination of service charges and rentals.
The 2005 IPART review it recommended that fees and charges (including gate entry but not site rentals) should be “designed to remove taxpayer subsidies of perisher infrastructure, fund necessary capital works and operating costs, and ensure Perisher can compete fairly with other ski resorts.” (IPART, 2005)
IPART recommended that the following charges be applied in the Perisher range for 2005‐06 and subsequent years. These charges were fully adopted by the Department of Environment and Conservation. The charges have been subject to a consumer Price related indexation. The only change from the IPART recommendation was that the gate entry fee, which comprised of $16 plus an alpine surcharge of $11 was accepted for winter visitors, while summer visitors were only charged the $16.
Following the IPART review, the NPWS has introduced a fixed bed based rates system as well as fixed water and sewerage availability charges and metered water and sewerage charges. These charges are detailed in Appendix 3. The charges are subject to an annual increase of CPI plus
7 Now the Department of Environment and Climate Change, following machinery of government changes in April 2007,
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 27
2.5%. Hence in 2006‐07 the Municipal Services Operating Charge would have been $136.63. The gate entry surcharge has not been subject to this price inflator.
Rentals for commercial properties and lodges are based on a payment of 6 per cent of annual gross turnover or 6 per cent of land value whichever is the greater. Site values are reassessed every 10 years by the Valuer‐General. All funds from the rental charges are retained by NPWS as consolidated revenue.
Estimates of the financial ratios and other attributes of the Perisher Range operations are provided in Table 9.
Table 9 Attributes and charges ratios – Perisher Range Resorts 2006‐07 and 2001‐02 2006‐07 2001‐02 Average annual change Attributes Number of Visitor Days 1 (Estimate only) 1,036,000 300,0002 n.c. Total income $’000s $10,978 n.a. n.c. Total sites with Beds 155 155 0.0% Number of Beds 3,405 3,577 ‐1.2% Average beds per site 22.0 23.1 ‐1.2% Financial Ratios ` Per visitor day Gate entry fees per winter visitor day (estimate only) 3 $4.59 n.a. n.c. Rental and Service Income per winter visitor day $10.60 $21.163 n.c. Total expenditure per winter visitor day n.a. n.a. n.c. Per Bed Average Rental Income per bed $1,166 $1,062 2.4% Average Service Charges per bed $661 $712 ‐1.8% Average Rental and Services Income per bed $1,827 $1,775 0.7% Government funding per bed $0 $0 n.a
1. Based on skier day average for last 5 years as supplied by resort and ratios in Economic Significance Report (AARC, June 2006) ), 2. 2001‐02 figures derived from NPWS estimates and appear to be a significant underestimate of visitation. 3. Estimate based on $27 per car divided by RTA estimates of passengers per vehicle (3.128), multiplied by the number of visitor days 450,000 skier days multiplied by 1.48 (ARCC, June 2006) divided by ratio of visitor days to visitor numbers (1.88) (ARCC, April 2007, p6). n..a. not available n.c not calculated
As a percentage of all entry and property related income, entry fees were 43.3%, service charges 20.5%, grants 0% and rental income 36.2%. As the 2001‐02 data was limited and of variable quality no meaningful estimates of changes in the ratios have been able to be provided for the NSW resorts.
4.7 Charlotte Pass Charlotte Pass operates under a head lease with the NPWS. Charlotte Pass has some 609 beds. Details for the charges made to sub lessees were not available from the management. The resort’s head lessee is responsible for all infrastructure services provided within the resort.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 28
4.8 Selwyn Selwyn is day trip only resort with some limited accommodation for ski resort staff. All infrastructure related to day visitors is provided by the resort management and funded from the lift ticket, retail sales and other activities such as ski schools. While, the park entry gates near the Selwyn field are only staffed in the winter season, visitors to the park should have a valid park entry ticket. The Selwyn management have some concern that park entry revenues are not matched by commensurate expenditures on visitor infrastructure related to the Selwyn area, but did not substantiate this claim for the purposes of this report.
4.9 Key Findings The complicated relationship between the NPWS and the resort operators and the operation of the NSW resorts by private operators requires a high degree of estimation of financial and operational detail. The two resort areas offer quite different styles of accommodation with the Perisher Range being dominated by larger lodge and commercial premises while the Thredbo area is largely dominated by apartment type accommodation.
The lack of published data specifically relating to resort operations makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions about the costs applying to property holders and skiers in the NSW resorts. The IPART recommendations and their subsequent adoption have provided greater clarity regarding government costs and charges.
Bed based comparisons appear to be the most valid for the NSW resorts. Average rental and service income per bed for the selected resorts was $1,367 in 2006‐07 compared to $1,433 in 2001‐02. This represents a decrease of 1.2% per annum between 2001‐02 and 2006‐07.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 29
5 COMPARISONS BETWEEN VICTORIAN AND NEW SOUTH WALES ALPINE RESORTS 5.1 Key Issues of Comparison Comparisons of rates and service charges between different resorts are problematic, as it is difficult to find a common basis for the comparisons.
This report has used costs per bed and costs per visitor day as the best possible basis. While bed numbers do not directly equate to resident numbers in the resorts, it is indicative of the potential resident population. It is recognised the total number of beds in the resorts tends to be underestimated. The use of resident populations for municipalities under‐estimates bed numbers, as hot beds will not be counted nor would spare beds in houses. Despite these difficulties beds and population provide a reasonable basis for comparison.
For Victorian Resorts and municipalities, comparisons are also provided on per site/assessment basis. However, the higher densities of the alpine sites or the significant differences in day visitor numbers require care in making comparisons between resorts and municipal areas.
In the case of NSW resorts, the site sizes are quite different, thus a per site comparison is not really suitable, though in examining this data the ratio of beds per site provides a useful reference point 5.1.1 Bed Based Comparisons On a per bed basis, Mount Baw Baw appears to have the lowest costs for services and, in particular rental, while Perisher appears the highest. It should be noted the rental figure for Perisher is a consultant’s estimate as no details on rents collected from the Perisher range were directly provided by NPWS. Nevertheless on this basis, the NSW resorts appear to be more expensive when considering both service and rental charges as well as total charges.
Within Victoria, the rental and service costs at Mount Baw Baw are significantly lower than at the other resorts, with Mount Buller being the next cheapest. The differential between Mount Baw Baw and the other Victorian resorts is almost $400.00 per bed. Table 10 provides details of property costs on a per bed basis. The average rental and service costs of the selected Victorian resorts per bed ($743) are apparently 54% of those at the NSW resorts ($1,368).
Table 10 Rental and service charges for alpine resorts – Bed based comparisons 2005‐06 Mount Mount Mount Perisher Falls Creek Baw Baw Buller Hotham Range Thredbo Total beds 4,934 738 7,812 4,813 3,405 4,427 Rental income per bed $309 $84 $358 $228 $1,166 $0 Total services income per bed $476 $309 $383 $532 $661 $1,014 Total rental and service income per bed $785 $392 $741 $759 $1,827 $1,014
These comparisons are illustrated on Figure 3.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 30
Figure 3 Alpine resort rental and service charges per bed, 2005‐06
$2,000.00 20,000 Rental income per bed
Services income per bed $1,800.00 18,000 Rental and Services Income per bed
Total number of beds (RH axis) $1,600.00 16,000
$1,400.00 14,000
$1,200.00 12,000
$1,000.00 10,000 Bed numbers $800.00 8,000
$600.00 6,000
$400.00 4,000
$200.00 2,000
$0.00 0 Falls Creek Mt Baw Baw* Mt Buller*incl Mt Hotham Selected Vic'n Perisher Range Thredbo Selected NSW Stirling Resorts Resorts
5.1.2 Visitor Day Based Comparisons Mount Buller has an advantage of the other resorts in that it has a significant day tripper trade. While this imposes some costs and can increase the risks associated with mountain operations, it does provide a good stream of gate revenue. Detailed comparisons of gate entry and trail charges and total income are provided in Table 11.
The NSW resorts do not directly collect gate revenue, this is collected by the NPWS for park management services, though a surcharge is now applied for specific use in the Kosciuszko National Park for services related to service provision in the Perisher Range. The lack of a specific entry point for each of the ski resorts prevents a systematic evaluation of visitor day numbers in these resorts. Table 10 contains estimates of visitor numbers derived by the consultant using the methodology previously detailed (See Note 1, Tables 7 & 9). However, they represent a longer term average of visitor numbers, rather than a specific estimate for 2005‐06, as the resort operators preferred to provide skier day estimates on this basis.
Table 11 Gate entry and trail fees and resort income 2005‐06 – Visitor Day based comparisons Falls Mount Mount Mount Selected Perisher Thredbo Creek Baw Buller Hotham Victorian Range Baw Resorts Gate entry per visitor $4.62 $7.44 $6.08 $5.11 $5.32 $4.59 $4.59 day Total resort income per $18.73 $25.33 $22.32 $21.63 $21.14 $10.60 $76.97 visitor day (5 year average)
Source: Saturn estimates based on discussions with NSW NPWS staff and Annual Reports for 2005‐06
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 31
As Thredbo offers a fully integrated operation including ski lifts and tows and resort facilities their total income (as reported in the AHL Ltd Annual Report) is considerably higher than that of the other resorts. Mount Baw Baw also offers a wide range of services hence their ratio of other resort income is higher than the other Victorian resorts. Mount Baw Baw also has the highest gate entry and trail fee costs per visitor day, these higher charges are necessary to recoup some debt and the generally low ratio of operating income to operating expenses. Government grants represented a high share of Mount Baw Baw’s income in the 2005‐06 financial year.
Of the three larger Victorian resorts, Mount Buller has the highest gate fee per visitor day numbers in the 2005‐06 season. This is the most valid way of approaching this ratio. However, given that the 2005‐06 season was poor and that property related income is not affected by visitor days, the use of longer term average visitor days provides a more useful basis of comparison of total income and fees. The ratio enables some approximation of the cost of property fees to the relative use made of each resort.
On this basis, Mount Buller’s rents are relatively high and Mount Hotham’s are relatively low. In relation to service income Mount Hotham’s costs are high. This may reflect the costs associated with very high service level for resort transport services on this mountain8.
These comparisons are illustrated on Figure 4.
Figure 4 Alpine resort gate entry and trail fees and resort income 2005‐06 – Visitor Day based comparisons
$80.00 $76.97 Gate entry and trail fes per visitor day
Total resort income ex gov't grants per visitor day (5 year $70.00 average)
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00 $25.23 $22.32 $21.63 $21.14 $20.00 $18.73
$10.60 $10.00 $7.44 $6.08 $4.62 $5.11 $5.32 $4.59 $4.59
$0.00 Falls Creek Mt Baw Baw* Mt Buller*incl Stirling Mt Hotham Selected Vic'n Perisher Range Thredbo Resorts
8 Mount Hotham Board believes the service level for free on mountain transport is considerably higher at this resort (pers. communication.).
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 32
5.1.3 Site Based Comparisons In making these comparisons, it should be noted that site sizes are quite different between the resorts. These form a poor basis for comparison of costs between resorts and are included purely to provide a comparison with previous report on this issue. Table 12 provides a comparison of rentals and service charges for the main alpine resorts.
While Thredbo has the lowest total of services and rental income per site the average number of beds per site is very low (i.e. site numbers are relatively high), reflecting the structure of sub‐ lease holdings at the resort. However, KT operates a fully integrated resort and the fees may well be compensated for by the generation of income in non‐residential sites and through other village activities. Hence the comparison is not directly relevant.
Of the Victorian resorts, Mount Baw Baw appears to be most cost efficient for the lease holders followed by Mount Buller. Mount Baw Baw revenues on a per site basis are quite low, but like Thredbo the average bed numbers per site are also low. Rental income is slightly higher at Mount Buller. This is offset by significantly lower service charges per site. Mount Hotham, which has the highest ratio of beds per site, also has the highest ratios of total service and rental income per site.
Table 12 Rental and Service costs for alpine resorts ‐ Site based comparisons 2005‐06 Falls Mt Baw Mt Buller Mt Perisher Thredbo Creek Baw Hotham Range Total sites with beds paying 101 27 176 83 155 700 service charges Average beds per site 48.9 27.3 44.4 58.0 22.0 6.3
Rental Income per rateable $15,074 $2,284 $15,892 $13,206 $25,621 $01 property with beds Total services income per $23,257 $8,442 $16,989 $30,827 $14,519 $6,413 rateable property with beds Total rental and service $38,331 $10,726 $32,881 $44,033 $40,140 $6,413 income per rateable property with beds
1. No separate detail is available on the make up of the Thredbo charges.
These comparisons are illustrated on Figure 5.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 33
Figure 5 Alpine resort rental and service charges per residential site, 2005‐06 $50,000
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0 Rental income per rateable property with Services income per rateable property with Rental and Services income per site with beds beds beds Falls Creek Mt Baw Baw* Mt Buller*incl Stirling Mt Hotham Selected Vic'n Resorts Perisher Range Thredbo
5.1.4 Sources of Income for alpine resorts The variations between the revenue structures of each resort are detailed in Table 13. The services charges at Mount Hotham and Falls Creek are quite high, while this is compensated for at Mount Buller by a high relative share of rental income. The high dependence of Mount Baw Baw on government funding is illustrated in Table 13. At this resort, 64.4% of funds were received from government grants in 2005‐06. This combined with the relatively low share of gate income compared to the other large resorts would indicate there is no systematic cross subsidy from day visitors to property holders. The high share of other revenue at Thredbo relates to the income from the rest of the resort’s operations, including ski lifts, hence it is not a consistent basis for comparison.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 34
Table 13 Share of income by type by alpine resort, 2005‐06 Falls Mount Mount Mount Perisher Thredbo Creek Baw Baw Buller Hotham Range Annual Rent Collected 22.4% 2.1% 28.1% 15.3% 36.2% 0.0% Annual Services 34.5% 7.8% 30.0% 35.8% 20.5% 8.8% Charge Subtotal Rent and 56.9% 10.0% 58.0% 51.1% 56.7% 8.8% services share State Government 2.6% 64.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Funding Gate Entry, trail fees 21.7% 11.2% 18.9% 22.2% 43.3% 6.0% other visitor fees 1 Other Revenue 2 18.8% 14.4% 22.8% 26.6% 0.0% 3 85.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% Total Revenue by $6,808 $2,908 $9,971 $7,146 $10,978 3 $51,259 Value ‘$000s
1 Gate revenue in NSW is collected by the NPWS not the individual resorts. 2 Other revenue includes ski patrol fees (Falls Ck), capital development charges and income from other operations eg gas sales etc. At Thredbo it includes all village operations including ski operations. 3 No details are available for other revenues at Perisher Blue resorts, these would include Ski tube and over snow transport services and ski ticket sales, hence the total income is low compared to Thredbo. 5.1.5 Charge Rates and Methods
Each resort uses a slightly different method of charging for municipal‐ and water‐type services, one‐off capital works/development/infrastructure levies, and rental. These are detailed in Table 14.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 35
Table 14 Rentals and service charge rates by alpine resort 2005‐06 ACTUAL CHARGE RATES Falls Mount Mount Mount Perisher Thredbo Creek Baw Buller Hotham Range Baw Municipal‐ and water‐type Commercial Services Charge/CIV n.a n.a $0.0068313 n.a n.a n.a (1) Commercial Services Charge/m2 $26.56 n.a. $32.44 n.a n.a Annual Fixed Services Charge per $442.77 $256.00 $120.00 n.a n.a $1,014.0 bed 0 Water and sewerage charges per n.a n.a n.a n.a $7.00 n.a kilolitre Water and sewerage charges n.a n.a n.a n.a from n.a fixed by size of connection $1444 to $16491 One‐off levies Capital Works Levies per bed n.a n.a $3,240 n.a. n.a n.a (one off) (2) Capital Works Levies per m2 (one n.a n.a n.a $300.00 n.a n.a off) (2) Rental Annual Rental as per approved 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 6.00% n.a policy (% of Site Value) (4) Limit on increase in rentals at 30% 30% 30% 30% n.a. n.a lease negotiation (3) Date of revaluation 2004 2004 2004 2,004 n.a. n.a.
Notes: 1 CIV Capital Improved value 2 Double bed counts as 2 beds 3 Agreement pertaining to selected leases in all Victorian resorts aimed at restricting increases in Site Rents. 4 Actual rentals vary from policy – fpr all Victorian resorts the average site rental is 2.7% of site value.
5.2 Key Findings Total charges are cheaper in Victoria and the service and rental costs at Victorian resorts are lower than at NSW resorts. In part this may be due to the ability of the Victorian resorts to collect gate entry fees and apply the sum of these to resort operations. The difference may also reflect the need for the private resort operators of the New South Wales resorts to generate a commercial return on their capital investments.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 36
References
Amalgamated Holdings Limited, Annual Report 2006‐07.
Annual Report 2005‐06 and 2001‐02 for the following municipalities and water authorities: Boroondara City Council Delatite Shire Council (2001‐02 only) Mansfield Shire Council (2005‐06 only) Monash City Council Whitehorse City Council Bayside City Council Goulburn Murray Water North East Regional Water Yarra Valley Water
Annual Reports 2005‐06: Baw Baw Shire Council Latrobe City Council Gippsland Water
Annual Report 2006‐07 and 2001‐02 for the following municipalities and water authorities: Indigo Shire Council Baw Baw Shire Council Latrobe City Council Alpine Shire Council (2006‐07 only)
Annual Reports 2005‐06 and 2001‐02 for the Alpine Resort Management Boards at the Victorian Alpine Resorts of: Falls Creek, Mount Baw Baw Mount Buller Mount Hotham
Australian Bureau of Census and Statistics, Census of Population and Housing 2006, “Quick Stats” drawn from the relevant Basic Community Profiles.
Alpine Resorts Co‐ordinating Council, The Economic Significance of the Australian Alpine Resorts, compiled by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, Melbourne, June 2006.
Alpine Resorts Co‐ordinating Council, Victorian Alpine Resorts, Winter 2006, End of Season Report, April 2007.
Alpine Resorts Co‐ordinating Council, Victorian Alpine Resorts, Winter 2007, End of Season Report, April 2008.
Department of Environment and Conservation, NSW, Annual Report 2006‐07.
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 37
Department of Environment and Conservation, Kosciuszko National Park 2006 Plan of Management, NSW, Dec 2006.
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, Media Release, 5 November 2005.
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, Review of infrastructure Pricing at Perisher Range Resorts, Final Report, June 2005.
Local Government 2002, Attachments, Department of Infrastructure Victoria, February 2003.
Local Government 2006, Attachments, Department of Victorian Communities Victoria, 2007.
Saturn Corporate Resources Pty Ltd, Rates, Rents, Charges and Contributions – A Comparison of Occupier Related Charges at Ski Resorts and Municipalities, a report to the Mount Buller Alpine Resort Management Board, April 2003 (unpublished).
Property and User Charges Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 38
Appendix 1: Data ‐ ski resort benchmarking comparisons Ski Resorts 2005‐06
Mt Buller*incl Selected Vic'n Selected NSW 2005-06 Falls Creek Mt Baw Baw* Stirling Mt Hotham Resorts Perisher Range Thredbo Resorts Attributes Total Rental Income $1,522,425 $61,664 $2,797,000 $1,096,116 $5,477,205 $3,971,250 $3,971,250 Total Services Income $2,349,001 $227,945 $2,990,000 $2,558,628 $8,125,574 $2,250,450 $4,488,978 $6,739,428 Development charges Infrastructure fees $0 $0 $135,000 $454,688 $589,688 $0 $0 Total Property Income $3,871,426 $289,609 $5,922,000 $4,109,432 $14,192,467 $6,221,700 $4,488,978 $10,710,678 Total gate entry $1,403,582 $134,514 $1,889,000 $1,586,859 $5,013,955 $4,756,625 $3,057,830 $7,814,456 Trail fees/other levies $28,060 $14,466 $0 $0 $42,526 $0 Other visitor charges $46,332 $177,809 $0 $0 $224,141 $0 Total visitor charges $1,477,974 $326,789 $1,889,000 $1,586,859 $5,280,622 $4,756,625 $3,057,830 $7,814,456 Land sale of development rights $27,000 $0 $1,287,000 $0 $1,314,000 $0 Gov't geo-tech funding $127,779 $0 $0 $0 $127,779 $0 Other government funds $51,818 $1,873,033 $20,000 $2,000 $1,946,851 $0 Other income $1,252,224 $418,934 $853,000 $1,447,844 $3,972,002 $43,713,022 $43,713,022 Total Income $6,808,221 $2,908,365 $9,971,000 $7,146,135 $26,833,721 $10,978,325 $51,259,830 $62,238,156 Total expenses $6,898,948 $3,293,106 $8,758,000 $6,525,799 $25,475,853 Total Ordinary Income (Ex Gov't Grants) $6,628,624 $1,035,332 $9,951,000 $7,144,135 $24,759,091 $10,978,325 $51,259,830 $62,238,156 Net Income -$90,727 -$384,741 $1,213,000 $620,336 $1,357,868
Share of Income Entry Fees 20.6% 4.6% 18.9% 22.2% 18.7% Service charges 34.5% 7.8% 30.0% 35.8% 30.3% Rentals 22.4% 2.1% 28.1% 15.3% 20.4% Grant Income 2.6% 64.4% 0.2% 0.0% 7.7%
Total sites with beds 101 27 176 83 387 155 700 855 Total number of beds (RH axis) 4,934 738 7,812 4,813 18,297 3,405 4,427 7,832 Average beds per site 48.9 27.3 44.4 58.0 47.3 22.0 6.3 9.2 Ave winter visitor days 5 year ave 353,903 41,032 445,756 330,279 1,170,970 1,036,000 666,000 1,702,000 Winter visitor days numbers 05-06 309,677 20,028 310,867 310,496 951,068 1,036,000 666,000 1,702,000 Ratios Per Site Rental income per rateable property with beds $15,074 $2,284 $15,892 $13,206 $14,153 $25,621 $0 $4,645 Services income per rateable property with beds $23,257 $8,442 $16,989 $30,827 $20,996 $14,519 $6,413 $7,882 Rental and Services income per site with beds $38,330.95 $10,726.26 $32,880.68 $44,033.06 $35,149.30 $40,140.00 $6,412.83 $12,527.11 Development/Infrastructure charges per rateable property with beds $0 $0 $767 $5,478 $32 $0 $0 Total Ordinary Income per site $65,630 $38,346 $56,540 $86,074 $63,976.98 Per Bed Rental income per bed $308.56 $83.56 $358.04 $227.74 $299.35 $1,166.30 $0.00 $507.05 Services income per bed $476.08 $308.87 $382.74 $531.61 $444.09 $660.93 $1,014.00 $860.50 Development/Infrastr. charges per bed $0.00 $0.00 $17.28 $94.47 $32.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Rental and Services Income per bed $784.64 $392.42 $740.78 $759.35 $743.44 $1,827.22 $1,014.00 $1,367.55 Total Ordinary Income per bed (excl Grants) $1,343.46 $1,402.89 $1,273.81 $1,484.34 $1,353.18 Government funding per bed $36.40 $2,537.99 $2.56 $0.42 $113.39 Total Ordinary Income per bed $1,379.86 $3,940.87 $1,276.37 $1,484.76 $1,466.56 $3,224.18 $11,578.91 $7,946.65 Per Visitor Day Rental and Service income per winter visitor day $12.50 $14.46 $19.05 $13.24 $14.92 $6.01 $6.74 $6.29 Gate entry and trail fees per visitor day 05-06 $4.62 $7.44 $6.08 $5.11 $5.32 $4.59 $4.59 $4.59 Total income per visitor day $19.24 $70.88 $22.37 $21.64 $22.92 $10.60 $76.97 $36.57 Total income per visitor day ex grants $19.09 $25.23 $22.32 $21.63 $21.25 $10.60 $76.97 $36.57 Total Expenditure per visitor day $19.49 $80.26 $19.65 $19.76 $21.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
# Source. ARCC Winter 2006 End of season report * incl ski field income and ski lift expenses
Property and User Charges Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 39
SKI RESORT BENCHMARKING COMPARISONS (2002)
Resort or Municipality Perisher Thredbo Mt Buller Falls Creek Mt Hotham Range Approx Ests only
Criteria 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
INCOME Annual Rent Collected $3,800,000 $3,507,415 $2,056,763 $1,215,241 $864,092 Annual Services Charge Residential $2,548,000 $1,200,000 $1,972,630 $1,956,127 $2,112,843 Annual Services Charge Commercial (If avail.) $895,426 State Government Funding $240,000 $530,356 $245,000 Gate Entry $1,648,626 $1,241,001 $1,504,553 Other Revenue (1) $1,806,128 $523,904 $1,280,038 Total Operating Revenue $7,243,426 $4,707,415 $7,724,147 $5,466,629 $6,006,526
Annual Rent Collected 52.5% 74.5% 26.6% 22.2% 14.4% Annual Services Charge 35.2% 25.5% 25.5% 35.8% 35.2% Annual Services Charge Commercial (If avail.) 12.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Subtotal Rent and services share 87.6% 100.0% 52.2% 58.0% 49.6% State Government Funding 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 9.7% 4.1% Gate Entry 0.0% 0.0% 21.3% 22.7% 25.0% Other Revenue 0.0% 0.0% 23.4% 9.6% 21.3% Total Revenue 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Ski lift tickets sold 350,000 350,000
INCOME EQUIVALENTS Number of Beds A48(2) 3,577 4,138 7,264 4,700 4,529 Number of Visitor Days 300,000 300,000 451,671 274,621 294,894 Total sites with Beds paying service charges 155 750 158 100 80 Resort provided estimates Average beds per site 23.1 5.5 46.0 47.0 56.6 Resort provided estimates Rental Income per rateable property with beds $24,516 $4,677 $13,017 $12,152 $10,801 Resort provided estimates Total services Income per rateable property with beds $22,216 $1,600 $12,485 $19,561 $26,411
Rental Income per Bed $1,062.34 $847.61 $283.14 $258.56 $190.79 Service Charges /bed $712.33 $290.00 $271.56 $416.20 $466.51 Rental and Services Income per Bed $1,774.67 $1,137.61 $554.71 $674.76 $657.31 Govt funding per bed n.a. n.a. $33.04 $112.84 $54.10
Rental and Service Income / vis day $21.16 $15.69 $8.92 $11.55 $10.09 Total Income per Vis day $24.14 $15.69 $17.10 $19.91 $20.37 Total Income per bed (3) $2,025.00 $1,137.61 $1,063.35 $1,163.11 $1,326.24
Thredbo Perisher Approx Ests ACTUAL CHARGE RATES Range only Mt Buller Falls Creek Mt Hotham Actual Commercial Services Charge/CIV (4) $0.010536 Actual Commercial Services Charge/m2 $22.27 Annual Bed Rights Charge nil nil sale value of unknown as Capital Works Levies per bed (one off) (5) $854 site $3,100 yet Annual Services Charge per bed (6) $462.00 $920.11 $126.68 $371.07 nil Annual Rental (% of Site Value) 6.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% Annual Rental per bed Limit on increase in rentals at lease negotiation (7) none none 15%-30% 15%-30% 15%-30% Number of assessments Date of revaluation per lease per lease 2,000 2,001 2,001
1 Includes capital development charge for Mt Hotham 2 Assumes 1 bed per 16 sq m FECA at Mt Hotham, Double bed counts as 2 beds. 3 Excludes gate entry to Kosciusko National Park 4 CIV = Capital Improved Value 5 $3,100 per new bed, only for private development, not for hotels. Also charged for clubs but amortised over 10 years. At Thredbo service charge represents apprximately 1/3 of bed rental collected. Cost p.a. $1.2m Source for 2001‐02 Tables Saturn Corporate Resources Pty Ltd (2003)
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 40
Appendix 2 Data for municipal comparisons Municipalities 2005‐06 Goulburn Valley Water Baw Baw Boroondara Whitehorse Selected Rural Urban (Resid Est) 06- North East Gippsland South East Yarra Valley Selected Criteria Alpine (S) Indigo (S) Mansfield (S) Shire Latrobe Shire Bayside (C) (C) Monash (C) (C) muncipalities muncipalities muncipalities 07 Water Water Water Water Water Total Rural Water Urban Water Residential rate per CIV $0.004813 $0.003168 $0.003520 $0.003841 $0.005051 $0.00143183 $0.001856 $0.003062 $0.0019297 Total residential rates $5,473 $2,805 $3,108 $9,654 $19,307 n.p. $65,501 $48,190 $42,972 $197,010 $40,347 $156,663 Total Municipal charges $000 $10,093 $8,612 $7,186 $23,018 $53,426 $55,876 $108,847 $72,270 $26,439 $365,767 $102,335 $263,432 Total Garbage charge $000 $1,070 $1,167 $1,193 $2,243 $5,136 $0 $10,012 $0 $20,821 $10,809 $10,012 Total Civ $000 $2,097,029 $2,718,277 $2,041,477 $4,692,928 $4,987,031 $39,024,186 $58,646,013 $23,602,221 $13,701,093 $151,510,255 $16,536,742 $134,973,513 Average municipal charge $ per CIV $0.004813 $0.003168 $0.003520 $0.004905 $0.010713 $0.001432 $0.001856 $0.003062 $0.001930 $0.002414 $0.006188 $0.001952
Water Megalitres delivered 14105 17539.0 64,347 155,344 175,784 427,119 95,991 331,128 No of customers '000s 48.144 41.822 61.392 605 706 1462.24 151.358 1310.882 Water service $000 $9,632 $10,090 $19,843 $124,385 $125,912 $289,862 $39,565 $250,297 Sewerage service variable $000 $5,310 $24,427 $84,268 $82,936 $196,941 $29,737 $167,204 Fixed charges $1000 $10,326 $15,019 $27,232 $106,529 $114,281 $273,387 $52,577 $220,810 Total Income $22,089 $41,841 $59,197 $378,050 $333,083 $834,260 $123,127 $711,133 Water use per kilolitre $0.68287 $0.57529 $0.30837 $0.80071 $0.71629 $0.67864 $1.56653 $1.51699 Waste disposal per kilolitre $0.00000 $0.30275 $0.37961 $0.54246 $0.47181 $0.46109 $0.68237 $1.01427 Fixed per kilolitre $0.73207 $0.85632 $0.42321 $0.68576 $0.65012 $0.64007 $0.54773 $0.66684 Total water and sewerage rate $1.41493 $1.73436 $1.11119 $2.02893 $1.83822 $1.77981 $2.79663 $3.19810 Estimated average water and sewerage charge per property $414.54 $727.34 $1,164.68 $520.96 $457.77 $519.88 $805.23 $486.93 Estimated average water and sewerage charge per person $165.82 $342.54 $550.02 $242.45 $201.96 $234.69 $359.35 $220.11 Contributions $000 $6,335 $10,847 $1,306 $50,226 $50,226 $1,306 $18,488 $100,452
Average annual mortage payment 2006 $11,436 $12,996 $12,000 $12,480 $10,404 $22,968 $22,104 $2,760 $16,896 $14,408 $11,396 $15,180 Ave ann mortgage per bed/person 2006 $4,765 $4,998 $5,217 $4,800 $4,335 $8,834 $8,502 $1,022 $6,498 $5,579 $4,610 $5,827 Share Total rate revenue $000 $8,701 $7,055 $6,282 $19,742 $39,730 $43,768 $83,523 $54,783 $49,323 $312,907 $81,510 $231,397 53.5% User fees and and fines $000 $1,392 $1,557 $904 $3,276 $13,696 $12,108 $25,324 $17,487 $26,439 $102,183 $20,825 $81,358 17.5% Contributions $000 $1,048 $689 $226 $6,276 $1,782 $0 $1,720 $18,158 $300 $30,199 $10,021 $20,178 5.2% Grants $000 $5,452 $8,607 $5,653 $12,777 $20,770 $9,382 $13,141 $21,757 $17,965 $115,504 $53,259 $62,245 19.8% Other revenue $000 $732 $4,342 $137 $697 $1,040 $1,128 $4,438 $5,905 $5,455 $23,875 $6,949 $16,926 4.1% Total operating income $000 $17,325 $22,250 $13,202 $42,769 $77,018 $66,386 $128,146 $118,090 $99,482 $584,667 $172,563 $412,104 100.0% $0 $0 Total Ordinary Income (Tot Inc less grants) $11,873 $13,643 $7,549 $29,992 $56,248 $57,004 $115,005 $96,333 $81,517 $469,163 $119,304 $349,859 80.2%
Rate share 50.22% 31.71% 47.58% 46.16% 51.59% 65.93% 65.18% 46.39% 49.58% 53.52% 47.23% 56.15% User fee fees and charges share 8.03% 7.00% 6.85% 7.66% 17.78% 18.24% 19.76% 14.81% 26.58% 17.48% 12.07% 19.74% Per Assessment/Property Residential rates and charges per assessm $926.00 $890.00 $910.00 $851.00 $851.00 $1,107.00 $1,218.00 $769.00 $866.00 $951.13 $951.37 $951.97 Total Water and Municipal residential rates & charges per residential $1,653.34 $1,617.34 $1,324.54 $2,015.68 $2,015.68 $1,627.96 $1,675.77 $1,226.77 $1,323.77 $1,471.01 $1,471.25 $1,471.85 DPCD figures Total Ordinary Municipal Income per assessment $2,374.40 $2,397.00 $2,414.50 $2,097.39 $1,947.17 $1,685.43 $1,935.99 $1,531.36 $1,464.03 $1,745.29 $2,092.87 $1,651.74 Total Ordinary Municipal Income plus water per assessment $3,101.75 $3,124.34 $2,829.04 $3,262.06 $3,111.85 $2,206.40 $2,393.75 $2,052.32 $1,921.79 $2,265.17 $2,898.10 $2,138.67 Total Municipal Income plus water per assessment $4,192.06 $4,636.62 $4,637.12 $4,155.58 $3,830.85 $2,483.79 $2,614.97 $2,398.18 $2,244.44 $2,694.84 $3,832.39 $2,432.54 Pre Person/Bed Municipal property related charges per person $725.02 $476.75 $873.59 $531.00 $573.06 $497.73 $540.78 $339.76 $340.70 $454.22 $580.15 $421.95 Municipal property related charges plus water per person $1,067.56 $1,026.77 $894.59 $1,081.02 $1,123.08 $740.17 $742.73 $582.21 $542.66 $688.90 $939.50 $642.06 Total Municipal ordinary income per bed/person $989.33 $921.92 $1,049.78 $806.69 $811.32 $648.24 $744.61 $597.45 $563.09 $681.04 $849.15 $637.97
Total Municipal ordinary Income plus water income per bed/persons $1,331.87 $1,264.46 $1,215.60 $1,356.70 $1,361.34 $890.69 $946.57 $839.89 $765.04 $915.73 $1,208.50 $858.08 Median rent per property $7,038.90 $7,299.60 $7,299.60 $15,642.00 $15,642.00 $13,608.54 $13,035.00 $11,992.20 $15,642.00 $15,642.00 $15,642.00 $15,642.00 Median rent per bed/person $2,932.88 $2,807.54 $3,173.74 $6,016.15 $6,517.50 $5,234.05 $5,013.46 $4,441.56 $6,016.15 $6,023.89 $6,335.69 $5,948.88 Grant income per person $454 $582 $786 $344 $300 $107 $85 $135 $124 $168 $379 $114 Total ordinary municipal (incl grants) and water income per bed/person $1,786.17 $1,846.11 $2,001.72 $1,700.36 $1,660.92 $997.38 $1,031.65 $974.83 $889.14 $1,083.39 $1,587.58 $971.58 Attributes Est resident pop Population as of August 2006 12,001 14,798 7,191 37,179 69,329 87,936 154,450 161,241 144,768 688,893 140,498 548,395 120,360 88,805 130,000 1,300,000 1,600,000 3,239,165 339,165 2,900,000 Ave persons per household 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.7 Total households/properties 5,000 5,692 3,127 14,300 28,887 33,822 59,404 62,907 55,680 268,818 57,005 211,812 48,144 34,105 54,167 448,276 615,385 1,200,076 136,415 1,063,660
Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 41
Municipalities 2001‐02
Resort or Municipality Delatite Mansfield Goulburn Indigo North East Boroond-arra Monash White-horse Yarra Valley Projections Valley Water Water Water Residential (1) only Criteria 2002 2003 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
Rates Residential Rate per $ per $ CIV Benalla $0.005170 Residential Rate per $ per $ CIV $0.003580 $0.003740 $0.003905 $0.002028 $0.003881 $0.002325 Total Rates $'000 $6,405 $2,951 $3,468 $51,108 $42,328 $37,039 Total Municipal Charge $'000 $1,534.00 $842.30 $832.60 Total Garbage charge $'000 (1) $1,733.00 $1,060 $913.27 $7,536.00 $0.00 Developer contributions Average Residential Rate incl garbage from reports $685.93 $688.00 $642.94 $869.69 $587.00 $561.51 Water Water Service (3) $128.10 $131.62 $55.16 Sewerage Service (6) $207.00 $241.22 $118.00 Water usage per kl $0.415 $0.377 $0.723 Water Disposal per kl or fixed $207.00 $251.110 $0.839 Approx ave water use kl (4) 165 165 165 Estimated average water charge per property (5) $610.58 $610.58 $686.16 $686.16 $385.90 $385.90 $385.90 $385.90 Total Water and Municipal Charges per residential assessment $1,296.51 $1,298.58 $1,329.10 $1,255.59 $972.90 $947.41 Population Census night (2) 21,841 8,515 105,000 13,919 90,000 150,233 157,516 141,367 1,500,000 Total Dwellings Census 10,866 4,991 5,667 61,716 60,140 57,904 Ratio of persons/beds per property 2.01 1.71 2.46 2.43 2.62 2.44
Rates and water charges per person $645.02 $761.15 $541.13 $515.80 $371.46 $388.06
Average annual mortgage payment 2001 $8,913.00 $9,416 $12,208 $16,845 $12,969 $12,941 Average annual mortgage payment per bed 2001 $4,434.26 $5,518.86 $4,970.22 $6,919.91 $4,951.60 $5,300.66 Revenue based estimates
Total Rate Revenue $'000 $9,672 $5,214 $59,685 $42,328 $37,039 User fees charges & contribs $'000 $1,876 $7,480 $21,323 $13,114 $22,992 Total Operating Income $000 Ex grants $11,548 $30,680 $12,694 $24,918 $81,008 $55,442 $60,031 $334,933 Rate Share 83.8% 41.1% 73.7% 76.3% 61.7% User fees & charges share 16.2% 58.9% 26.3% 23.7% 38.3% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total Ordinary income per bed/person $528.73 $292.19 $912.00 $276.87 $539.22 $351.98 $424.65 $223.29 Total Ordinary income per bed/person Municipal and Water $820.92 $1,188.87 $762.50 $575.27 $647.94
Imputed rent per property $11,496 $9,879 $25,730 $9,075 $14,494 Imputed rent per person $5,719 $4,022 $10,570 $3,465 $5,937
Rents rates fees & charges per bed/person $6,364 $4,563 $11,086 $3,836 $6,325
Grant Income $000 $9,105 $7,561 $12,170 $16,020 $16,636 Grant income per person $417 $543 $81 $102 $118 Total Ordinary Income plus grants per person municipal $945.61 $1,455.25 $620.22 $453.68 $542.33 Total Ord Income plus grants per person municipal & water $1,766.53 $2,644.12 $1,382.73 $1,028.95 $1,190.26 1 GVW Ann rep for 01-02 unavailable as yet 00-01 used 1 Garbage charge based on 80 litre bin, for all but mansfield where shire data confirms 140 ltr bin is most common. 2 Assume 1 bed per resident 3 Based on meter size 25mm 4 Based on GV Water estimates for unmetered properties 5 Includes average seasonal factor for sewerage of .75 and discharge factor of .9 See YV Water 6 NEWRA Wastewater charge based on charge in Kiwa catchment 7 This limit applies to the revaluation of a site but will increase to 30% over a three period from Oct 01 8 Service charge represents approximately 1/3 of rental collected. Cost p.a. $1.2m 9 Water service area populations as provided in respective annual reports. Property and User Charges at Alpine Resorts and Victorian Municipalities 42
Appendix 3 IPART recommended charges for Perisher Range Resorts 2005‐06
Leaseholder Charge Units Price per unit nominal $ Municipal services operating charge per bed per annum $130 Municipal services capital charge per bed per annum $171 Water usage charge per kL $3.50 Water fixed charge 25mm per connection per year $1,401 32mm per connection per year $2,296 40mm per connection per year $3,588 50mm per connection per year $5,606 80mm per connection per year $14,351 Sewerage usage charge per kL $3.50 Sewerage fixed charge 25mm per connection per year $1,562 32mm per connection per year $2,559 40mm per connection per year $3,999 50mm per connection per year $6,248 80mm per connection per year $15,995 Visitor charges Gate entry per car $27.00
www.arcc.vic.gov.au