Results from the survey have been compiled, after the council resolved to notify the Essential Services Commission (ESC) of its intention to apply for a rates variation above the cap of 2.5 per cent set by the Local Government Minister.

Before making a final decision on whether to proceed with an application the council undertook community consultation to help it make a final decision.

The survey asked the community to consider the full range of council services; the cost of providing those services; the importance of the services; whether some services should be reduced; and, alternative funding options for services in the event of a funding shortfall.

"Overall the survey results and commentary indicate a reluctance on the part of most respondents to cover funding shortfalls through an increase in rates," the report says.

"There was, however, some resistance to having council reduce or cut services. The option of fee increases received more support than a rate increase with some of the commentary suggesting council should move towards more of a user pays model for some services."

The report showed younger people aged 18 to 49 years identified cutting services and seeking alternative providers as the most preferred means of addressing the funding shortfall. Those aged 50 years and older were more reluctant to see services cut and favoured increasing fees.

On average only 5.5 per cent of all respondents across all age groups supported a rate increase.

Public correspondence to the council was included in the report, with people saying it needed to operate more efficiently.

"I do not support any rate increases, given the increasing utility costs and general living costs, parking fees (which I do not support), lower salaries in the region, I would not afford a rate rise," one respondent wrote.

"I am an owner of a small business and always struggle to pay my rates in full and one time. Please don’t raise the price of rates," another said.

There was an example of a person in favour of an increase.

"Council manages diverse activities well and I would rather increased rates than service cuts," the respondent said.

The report showed all age groups placed a high value on waste management and roads.

Warrnambool mayor Tony Herbert said further community consultation would be conducted.

"Council will now go out to focus groups to thrash the issue out a bit further," he said.

"It's easy to say to the community 'do you want a rates rise?' The overwhelming answer will always be no. It's about making sure there is clear and concise understanding about what we are after and what the information is gathered for.

"There is definitely no intention to try and encourage people to think a certain way, it's just to ensure that people are fully informed. We have gathered some really valuable information that is complemented through the W2040 plan as well. There is some forward thinking ideas and suggestions from our community.  It's really valuable."

A city council spokesman said the results report had been compiled by council officers.

The overall cost for the community consultation is around $30,000, with outside consultants working with the council. 

The report said the council sought quotes from qualified and experienced companies for the design and delivery of the community engagement process that would satisfy the requirements of the Essential Services Commission.  Melbourne-based firm Capire was appointed. The city spokesman said focus group sessions to discuss budget options had been scheduled for March 13 and 14. The Standard asked if 780 respondents to the survey was enough people for an accurate representation of the municipality.

"It is a significant representation of ratepayers," the spokesman said.

"It is almost twice the number used by the Victorian Government for its annual Council Community Satisfaction Survey (400 per municipality)."

INCREASING fees is preferred over a rate rise, the city council survey has shown.

Data revealed there was moderate support for rate increases to cover infrastructure including roads, parks and gardens, footpaths, street lighting and bridges and for the service of school crossing supervision. 

Respondents said the top three groups of people the city council should prioritise service delivery for were older people, people with a disability and children while the service categories considered highest to lowest priority were: community health and wellbeing; caring for the environment; urban development, infrastructure and transport; sport, recreation and culture; economic development and regional leadership; and corporate services.

Highly valued services included the provision of tangible infrastructure and services such as roads, bridges, footpaths and parks and gardens.

The least valued was equipment and vehicles, Warrnambool Gymnastics Centre and community services. 

The report said there "was little correlation between the value of services and whether they were funded by council rates or by external funding".

"For example home and community care, in the top 15 most valued services, sources just two per cent of its total budget from general rates," it said.

"Conversely, the Warrnambool Gymnastics Centre, the least valued council service, is funded by user fees, not general rates and therefore operates at no cost to general ratepayers."

The survey showed support for the Lighthouse Theatre, Warrnambool library and AquaZone, who respondents ranked Flagstaff Hiull Maritime Village, youth services and local laws down the bottom of the service list.

Have you signed up to The Standard's daily newsletter and breaking news emails? You can register below and make sure you are up to date with everything that's happening in south-west.