Residents from four retirement villages unite in plea
Geelong retirement village residents push for council rate cuts
- Resident push: 550+ villagers seek rates cut of up to one-third
- Double payment claim: Residents say they fund their own roads and maintenance
- Fairness debate: Calls grow for a dedicated retirement village rate category
- Council pressure: Other Victorian municipalities already apply discounted rates
The residents, who live across four retirement villages within Victoria’s City of Greater Geelong, have joined forces to raise their concerns.
Petitions from Keyton’s Abervale Retirement Village in Grovedale, Baldwin Living’s Kensington Hill Retirement Village in Leopold, Australian Unity’s Geelong Grove Retirement Village in Marshall and Barwarre Gardens Retirement Village in Barwarre urge the Council to cut their council rates by up to a third to account for city services they do not use.
City of Greater Geelong charges differential rates across property categories including residential, farm, vacant, mixed-use, commercial and industrial based on capital improved value, which reflects the total market value of a property including land and buildings.
Across the four petitions, more than 550 residents are seeking the introduction of a specific retirement village rate from the 20260-27 financial year.
Speaking at a Council meeting on Tuesday, 28 April, Abervale’s Silvana Benacchio said her petition called for a reduction of up to 33%, stressing the request was not for special treatment but for a more accurate reflection of services received.
“The basis for this request is simple: retirement village residents currently pay full residential rates, yet we do not receive the same level of services as standard residential properties,” she said.
“Within our villages, residents are responsible for funding and maintaining essential infrastructure.
“This includes roads, kerb and channelling, footpaths, street lighting and general upkeep such as pothole repairs and garden maintenance, services that are typically provided by council in other residential areas.”
Silvana said many internal roads were privately owned and maintained, while residents still contributed to broader road networks through their rates.
“This creates an inequitable situation where residents are effectively paying twice for similar services,” she said.
She also noted retirement village properties were generally smaller in both land size and dwelling footprint, but remained subject to the same residential rating structure.
Other municipalities had applied a differential rate to retirement villages, including the City of Brimbank.
“We believe this is a fair, practical and achievable approach, one that better aligns rates with the level of service received and acknowledges the unique nature of retirement village living,” she said.
Geelong Grove’s Anne Daniel said she found it “insulting” that part of the city’s initial response to the petition included the statement: “If people can afford to buy into a retirement village, they can afford to pay rates.”
“This is quite an erroneous and moreover provocative statement,” she said.
“What was affordable a few years ago has increasingly become a struggle, with retirement incomes not keeping pace with inflation.”
Ministerial guidelines published in 2013 do not require Councils to apply differential rates to retirement villages, but state that they must consider whether such a rate is appropriate.
