Gunnedah Shire Council decided on a Special Rate Variation (SRV) last Wednesday, different from the originally proposed 38.88 per cent.

A 37.67 per cent cumulative SRV over two years was chosen, however, residential, business and farmland ratepayers will be capped at 32.25 per cent (cumulative). This would be 15 per cent per year for the three categories.

The remaining balance would be sourced from mining, making it a total of 87 per cent over the two years for the ratepaying category.

The decision will help determine council’s position to make an application to IPART.

The community will be able to make a feedback submission to council by Thursday, December 19.

Six scenarios were tabled at the extraordinary meeting after councillors received an extra workshop on the matter.

There was debate from councillors but only between scenarios four and five.

Cr Robert Hoddle and Cr Cameron Moore stood for option four which would have been a permanent 38.88 per cent cumulative SRV over three years.

This would be capped at 33.1 per cent for residential, business and farmland with mining bridging the gap.

The three years would split the total SRV into 11.57 per cent for each year.

This would however mean council would be collecting a lower revenue than the originally proposed SRV and it would need to find about $930,000 in the first three years.

Councillors who wanted this motion were motivated largely to lessen the burden of the rate increase in residential, business and farmland even further than other options.

This option would have had a cumulative increase to mining at 92 per cent over three years.

Cr Hoddle said option four addresses the main issues that were raised by the community during the SRV consultation.

“It was very clear from the surveys, from the town hall meetings and from the villages that … people did not want an SRV but they wanted services maintained,” Cr Hoddle said.

“That puts this council in a difficult situation where they have to balance between providing services and increasing rates. I think option four is the best because it makes it less difficult for ratepayers.

“I think to go back to the community and say it is still over two [years] is not listening, we have to listen.”

Cr Moore felt that council was continuing to cost shift onto the community, just as the governments had done to the council.

He argued there could be further shifting down the chain, with renters being left to shoulder the burden with rent increases.

“I do acknowledge it is quite a bit of money, $930,000 over three years but that comes out to $850 roughly per day across the economy that we have to find,” Cr Moore said.

“No one is going to be 100 per cent happy with this, but I think we are shifting it fairly across the entire community as a burden and not just taking the easy option.”

Mayor Colleen Fuller also stated her favour for option four, stating it best reflected what the community wanted to see in her opinion.

All other councillors were in favour of scenario five, which was the 37.67 per cent cumulative SRV over two years, which eventually won out.

Cr Kate McGrath felt that option five was still guided by the community, pointing out the total cumulative amount is less than what was first proposed with residential, business and farmlands categories paying even less.

“It also has the additional benefit of not leaving us in the hole $929,000,” she said.

“As much as I understand there is an appetite to spread the impact as much as we possibly can, I really do feel that scenario five manages to provide the outcome we sought in that consultation but also manages to substantially reduce the actual financial impact on our ratepayers and that really must be the priority here – how do we have financial viability into the future and also minimise any impact on the community that we are here to represent?”

Cr Tammey McAllan pointed out that option five would mean council would be less likely to need another rate rise long term “which the community definitely didn’t want”. She requested an explanation of the cumulative increase impact under the option four.

Gunnedah Shire Council director corporate services Kelly Stidworthy confirmed option four would raise less revenue in the earlier years but was “doable”.

“By spreading the SRV over a longer period of time it will alleviate some of those rating impacts that were identified in the community engagement process from different categories of ratepayers,” Ms Stidworthy said.

“The key difference … is that immediate cash flow projection.”

Cr Rob Hooke labelled making a decision on the rate rise as an “awkward situation and one of compromise”.

“Option five gives us the ability to move forward whereas option four leaves us in a situation of risk,” he said.

Cr Hooke reminded the council of the risks identified in scenario four, such as, further cost shifting that council would potentially be unable to absorb; the possibility that no financial capacity is generated to manage growth-related infrastructure; that proposed measures to savings are not accepted by the council because of the impact on services and community and; the funding to address the backlog of infrastructure work is reduced making the conditions of the asset worse.

He acknowledged the community wanted the SRV over three years but option five was for two years.

He added an additional point for council “strive to achieve $930,000 through efficiency gains and operational savings over the three-year period 2025 to 2028 with a report to council by May 30 annually”.

Cr Linda Newell was also in favour of number five, noting the council would have funds to do things quicker.

“My concern with option four is if council cannot find those efficiency savings, we are all going to be back here in three years doing another SRV which is more challenging for our community and this way we can move forward and grow and develop,” she said.

Cr Juliana McArthur further advocated for five, describing the option as “bang for buck”.

“A little bit of pain in the first two years but then it drops significantly, whereas in the third year there is still more pain under scenario four,” she said.

“We really need a [council] that can do things for its community groups, its schools, for its businesses, for all ratepayers.

“If we are just treading water and we are prepared to ask for an SRV where ratepayers pay more for less, that is not a scenario that I would support.

“I think that ratepayers want to see their council make a decision that shows leadership and shows

responsible financial management so that this Special Rate Variation truly is special.

“So we don’t have to come back in a couple of years’ time and say ‘look we couldn’t find those efficiency gains’.”

Cr McArthur pointed out that if council was unable to find those gains it may need to borrow the funds, which would create more costs.

The annual reporting to council would put the pressure on for further cost improvements and efficiency gains.

Cr Ann Luke reminded the council of the constraints from cost shifting from state government and the reduction of funds from the federal government from state to run local government.

She stated this was originally one per cent of taxes raised but is now down significantly, solidifying her reasoning for choosing option five

“It [pulls] the pressure back on the council’s financial position a lot less, it means we have more flexibility of doing the things and providing the services that I believe our community wants and needs,” she said.

To order photos from this page click here