The Council's Administration is patting itself on the back for reducing the Operating Result deficit from $9 million in 2014 to $0.9 million in 2016.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
During that period, the total Operating Result is a deficit of $15.32 million. That is in addition to a further deficit of $9.9 million in the previous 2 years making a total 'loss' of $25.2 million over the last 5 years. And yet, on the front page of the Courier-Sun edition 30 November 2016, it was reported that the Council had made a healthy profit of $4.4 million in 2015/2016.
So what is the actual situation? Good question. Local Government Financial Statements can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on whether you're looking for bouquets or brickbats. If the Council has accumulated $25 million in losses over the last 5 years, how could it be assessed as Fit for the Future?
If the Council made a profit of over $4 million last year, why does it think it necessary to slug ratepayers for another Special Rate Variation (SRV)?
Given that the Council's total rate income for 2015/2016 was $12.7 million, the total deficit is a significant amount. The Council has provided what it has called achievements for the so-called improvement in the Operating Result. Some of those 'achievements' are what I would term changes in accounting policies that have affected non-cash items such as depreciation.
In fact an examination of the Annual Statements reveals that Depreciation and Amortisation (expense) decreased by $2.5 million. RMS charges (income) increased by $1.35 million.
Those two items accounted for the bulk of the decrease in deficit from 2015 to 2016. It is telling that Employee Costs increased by 5.4% while all other expenses remained relatively stable. Employee costs increased despite the number of employees supposedly declining from 135 to 124 during the year (?)
I will continue to oppose any proposal for a SRV until the Council can demonstrate that it is capable of the same belt-tightening that it has imposed on its ratepayers.
The Council has produced a SRV Fact Sheet which seems to indicate that Urunga Residential ratepayers will be put at an even greater disadvantage compared to their Bellingen counterparts if the SRV proceeds.
The Council must reform its rating system to remove this discriminatory rating practice. It also needs to look at the distribution of the burden between Residential and Business categories. Bellingen Shire has one of the highest Residential and one of the lowest Business average rates in its peer group.