Planned Resources recruit across the niche markets of planning, engineering, architecture and design, property, and government support. We operate across private and public sectors in Melbourne, Victoria, and Australia. Here, Cindy Tran looks at the differences between local government salaries across Victoria, when compared to housing affordability.
Two main themes have emerged amongst the discussion around the current cost of living crisis: salaries and housing affordability. Councils and their employees are not immune to these impacts, and increasingly candidates are considering affordability rather than salary when looking at roles.
To look at this further, Planned Resources’ report ‘Salaries and Housing Affordability: How do Victorian councils compare?’ highlights the salary differences between regional and metro Victorian councils – when compared against house and rental prices, as well as employee commute times – and ranks councils from highest to lowest.
Salary vs house prices
The analysis shows that median three bedroom house prices vary by $2.17M between the most and least expensive suburbs tested. This figure far outweighs the $21k difference between salaries for an ‘average employee’ (determined as a band 6 officer earning the mid-point of their band) employed at the highest and least paying councils across Victoria.
Predominantly, councils within the Grampians and Loddon Mallee scored best when comparing salaries to local housing prices, while La Trobe (Gippsland), Southern Grampians (Barwon southwest), and Moira Shire (Hume) lead their respective regions in housing affordability. Predictably, metro councils ranked lower due to the impacts of higher house prices.
For example, the salary value (the ratio of house price to salary) for an average council employee was 2.46 for Yarriambiack Council compared to 24.43 for Stonnington Council with head offices in Malvern – which highlights why some candidates may consider a tree change for a new role.
In similar tests across band 5, 7 and 8 salaries, while the rankings changed slightly, the results remained relatively consistent.
Salary vs rental prices
When looking at rental prices, again regional councils predominately scored well when comparing rent-to-net income ratio for employees across bands 5-8. Notably, Melton and Wyndham councils scored very well for metropolitan councils.
Some regional councils especially those in tourist hotspots showed similar rental affordability when compared to metro councils, due to the lack of available long-term rentals caused by Airbnb and similar short-term vacation rental sites. When attracting and retaining employees, one council CEO pointed to the pragmatic ways in how councils have softened the relocation for candidates – ranging from providing short-term transition accommodation, discounted rentals via shared accommodation, and increased childcare provisions.
Cost of commuting
When comparing all metropolitan councils’ salaries against an employee’s standard ‘work-time’ which includes commute times – unsurprisingly, commute times become an important factor in a candidate’s career choice, especially for those who are not considering relocating.
The analysis assumes an ‘average employee’ commutes from Melbourne’s CBD; and while commute times are specific to where an individual lives in relation to a particular council’s office, the findings aim to reflect how likely a council (especially a fringe metropolitan council) will attract talent from further afield and provides a base for councils to compare to their neighbours. For example, councils that have higher employee commute times could promote strong flexible work policies.
Outcomes
Regional councils are often very good at promoting the liveability and tourist highlights of their region, but less so affordability.
Housing is often brought into conversations at the final interview or offer stages of the recruitment process; therefore promoting affordability earlier in the process, especially at the advertising stage, has the potential to increase the pool of candidates. Regional affordability should be nuanced to ensure the message comes across as “affordable” and not “cheap”, but providing links to local real estate agents, general information on house prices, along with information on schools, employment, economy etc in application packs may be an option.
For councils that rank lower, of course there is limited scope to change major factors – as a council has no control over house prices within their municipality. Yet conversely, many of them are actually higher paying – which could indicate that some employees are potentially commuting into the municipality rather than living within it. Therefore, options like staggered starting times to avoid peak commute times, along with flexible working might be a strategy to attract and retain staff.
When considering commute times which affect fringe councils more, it is worth considering how a council compares to neighbouring councils and the establishment of working from home policies are essential.
And finally for candidates: affordability, and commute times are only part of the picture. While moving to a new location needs to be carefully considered against lifestyle impacts, finding a supportive employer that invests in professional development will have a greater impact on long-term earning potential than short term gain.
For a full copy of the report and council rankings, contact: cindy.tran@plannedresources.com.au
About Planned Resources
Planned Resources has assisted in recruitment campaigns for Victorian local councils and state agencies for over13 years. Our expertise in built environment recruitment – including town planning, engineering, design and property – has enabled us to become a trusted partner for public sector organisations.
Local Government Contacts
Cindy Tran, Business Manager – Public Sector Recruitment
0406 849 717
cindy.tran@plannedresources.com.au
Ash Fajerman, Local Government Recruitment Consultant
0449 938 399
ash.fajerman@plannedresources.com.au