Tension only seemed to grow as the night went on at the Gunnedah community information session last week on Wednesday night.
The session was one of many throughout the shire that focused on information and discussion regarding the proposed 38.88 per cent rate increase over two years.
The Gunnedah Town Hall saw more than 100 people in attendance and wrapped up at about 9.15pm.
It started with a presentation by the Gunnedah Shire Council that detailed why it was being proposed and touched on some common concerns.
Rural roads were largely discussed on the night. A person stated their road had gone 18 months without being graded and was unable to fit two trucks while wet.
She honed in on her point by saying, all that farmers receive from rates is the roads.
Gunnedah Shire Council general manager Eric Groth stated the largest issue is the lack of money to maintain, not just roads but many other services.
The resident also witnessed a car with a camera drove by to take pictures of the potholes.
The council needed to provide photographic proof for external auditors and the Audit Office of NSW of flood-affected roads. This is now required by the council, which was not a necessity 10 years ago.
Mr Groth also stated the council has changed the methods for maintaining the road, meaning it needed to be done less, however, will need many cycles to see the improvements.
The council addressed concerns that the shire would end up having the same discussion in upcoming years. Mr Groth said these massive jumps will continue until the rate peg changes appropriate to the cost of delivering services.
“The only way we can guarantee we are not here again … is to fix the system,” Mr Groth said.
Other concerns at the meeting were for the financially vulnerable. One crowd member stated that, “as a pensioner, I can only pay about half of what you are proposing”.
Council said this is one of the reasons why it is advocating against the large catch ups in the future, so the impact can be minimised on people with fixed incomes.
They mentioned the council is also trying to get a better deal from the state government on the pensioner’s rebate.
Anyone genuinely struggling was encouraged to talk to council about options.
The general consensus from the crowd was to see the council “tighten its belt”.
One of those people was Kevin Martin, who believed there could be other cost savings, which included looking at wages.
“[Staffing] is 34 per cent of the total budget this year, and that is really alarm bell time,” he said after the meeting.
Mr Groth mentioned at the meeting that not all council staff wages were paid for with rates. GoCo staff are currently grant funded.
Council said employees had been hired to match the increasing services being offered, with cost shifting also playing a role in staff resources.
Mr Martin acknowledged that cutting wages would go hand-in-hand with culling services.
“I do not think there is any other way to do it but we certainly, I do not think, want to get to the point where an administrator is appointed to council and we have to be very careful we remain a viable operation,” he said.
He recognised the difficulty in keeping people in Gunnedah when opportunities arise in the city and suggested a possible resolution of training people in the area to keep them local.
Richard Gallen was also at the meeting and told the Gunnedah Times while he has been mostly pleased with this council, he disagreed with the potential rate increase.
“As distasteful as it is, looking at staff cuts is horrible but certainly any business [would look into that during a] rough time,” he said. “Especially if there is going to be a massive increase in rates like that.
“If the rate of income equals just the salary responsibilities, it does not set a good look.”
He recognised from working in real estate that the general public is struggling.
“It is just the wrong time to do it,” he said. “I do not know if there is a right time, but it is certainly not now, and that is why there has been a massive backlash over it,” he said.
“To the millionaires, it doesn’t matter so much, but it is just the average wage earner that is really going [to be affected]. Even if they are renting, it is going to be projected in a rent increase because it has to be passed on.”
His solution combined staff cuts and culling some non-essential services for a period of time.
“If [the people at council] are smart managers of particular departments, they should go in and analyse that,” he said.
One member of the crowd made it known she felt the Wolseley Park sign was unnecessary and had asked if it cost $40,000. Council clarified the number was actually $120,000. The statement was met with uproar from the crowd.
People had an issue with the word “transparent” being used by council, one person went as far as to say they were being fed a “sales pitch” where either the public would need to “suck it up or [council] will take away the services”.
Toward the end of the night, a select few were disgruntled at not just the council, but each other.
Some chose to speak without turn, which others did not appreciate.
“Alright, you made your point,” came from the crowd when another was speaking out of turn.
The last statement of the night came from outgoing councillor Murray O’Keefe who was attending as a crowd member. He suggested that people wanting to make a difference should have a go at being on council.
This was met with uproar, someone calling him “an idiot” but others commented they were angry with staff and not councillors.
Cr O’Keefe clarified that councillors make the final approvals for many items.
To order photos from this page click here
