Melbourne Water Post Forum Survey

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Additional feedback you provide will be used to help Melbourne Water’s decision making process for its 2016 Price Submission, and to evaluate the consultation process.

Please start the survey now by clicking Continue below.

* 1. How we pay for the Victorian Desalination Project

Please indicate your final recommendation to Melbourne Water in terms of which option for paying for the Victorian Desalination Project you would ultimately prefer Melbourne Water to adopt for the next 5-year pricing period (2016/17 – 2020/21). You may feel exactly the same way as you did in the forum, or you may feel differently since the forum.

Feel free to have another look at the table below to see what the various options would mean for your household or business, based on your property ownership status and average daily water use.

Scenario 1: Spread the charges over 60 years, at the HIGHER price reduction for the next five-year period – e.g. a home owner with medium water use would pay $16 less per year in 2016/17 – 2020/21, and this would mean a slightly higher price increase later; for a medium water use home owner this would equate to an average of $2.58 extra per year over the remaining 50 year life of the plant

Scenario 2: Spread the charges over 60 years, at the LOWER price reduction for the next five-year period – e.g. a home owner with medium water use would pay $8 less per year in 2016/17 – 2020/21, and this would mean a lower price increase later; for a medium water use home owner this equates to an average of $1.30 extra per year over the remaining 50 year life of the plant

Spread over 60 years, but some other option (please specify)

Leave it as how we pay now: Within the existing 27-year contract (no spreading of the payments over the longer period; i.e. no price reduction in 2016/17 – 2020/21, therefore no additional payments in the remaining 50 year life of the plant)

I really don’t know / need more information

* 2. Have you changed your mind on this option since the forum?

Yes

Can’t remember/Not sure

3. Please outline why you think Melbourne Water should take that approach, including any reasons you may feel differently now.

* 4. The Waterways and Drainage Charge

Thinking again about the Waterways and Drainage Charge, please indicate which of the following options is your ultimate recommendation for Melbourne Water to adopt for the Waterways and Drainage Charge – specifically for non-residential / business customers.

Property impact charge: Non-residential customers should be charged based on their property’s estimated impact on waterways and flood risk – i.e. more of a ‘user pays’ approach

Flat-rate: Melbourne’s non-residential customers should be moved to one or more flat charges, like the approach that is in place for most of Melbourne Water’s customers

Update property values: Retain the property value approach, but update property values from 1990 to 2014 estimates

Leave it as is: The charge for non-residential customers should be kept as it is.

Or something else (please specify)

* 5. Have you changed your mind on these options since the forum?

Yes

Can’t remember/Not sure

6. Please outline why you think Melbourne Water should take that approach, including any reasons you may feel differently now.

* 7. If the flat-rate approach were to be adopted for non-residential customers (and as mentioned in the forum, this is by no means decided), which price point do you think Melbourne Water should consider introducing? The chart below shows different options for what the non-residential rate would be compared with the residential rate in order for Melbourne Water to secure the same amount of money to provide the waterways and drainage services.

(Red dot) Only non-residential / business customers should be affected, which means a single flat rate would be $574 per year for non-residential / business customers, while residential customers would remain at their current flat rate of $96 per year. This means that at the end of a 10-year phase-in period around 72% of businesses would be paying $224-$464 more per year, while the remaining 28% would be paying about the same or less than they do now.

(Green dot) The non-residential rate should be 1.5 times the residential rate, which reflects the fact that, from an engineering perspective, the average stormwater run-off rate for non-residential properties is 1.5 times that of residential properties. This means at the end of a 10-year phase-in period, flat rates of $185 for non-residential customers and $123 for residential customers – a $27 rise in the annual rate for residential customers, or $6.75 per quarterly bill.

(Blue dot) ALL properties should pay the same rate for the waterways and drainage services because everyone benefits from healthy waterways and flood protection - both residential and non-residential / business customers within the metropolitan area would be charged $127 per year by the end of a 10-year phase-in period. This means a $31 rise in the annual rate for residential properties, or $7.75 per quarterly bill.

Or something in between (please indicate what you think the rate should be for residential and/or non-residential customers based on the chart above)

8. Feel free to offer any additional comments about the potential flat rate approach here.

The remaining questions are about the session itself. Please give us your honest feedback so we can make these sorts of sessions better in future.

9. How would you rate the overall quality of the Melbourne Water research forum you attended?

10. And how would you rate the following aspects of the research forum?

* 11. Do you think the length of the session was…?

Too short

About right

Too long

12. What would have been the ideal length of time for this research session?

13. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

14. Do you have any final comments or questions about the research session or the topics covered, including suggestions for improving future sessions or the way Melbourne Water engages with people?