On one side there is council arguing that the Special Rate Variation is needed for the community, and to meet the state government’s ‘Fit for the Future’ criteria.

Within the pages of the SRV Agenda, council argues that the proposed SRV will allow for urgent road resurfacing works that have been assessed and prioritised.

“This will also allow a greater focus on the strategic management of its infrastructure while putting steps in place to ensure that any renewal requirements are addressed,” the document states.

“The SRV will assist in facilitating a refocus from reactive maintenance to proactive renewal of its transport infrastructure.”

In addition, “there remains a major financial commitment that needs to be made” in order to address infrastructure renewal.

Council has outlined seven years of rate increases in its Fit for the Future resubmission and it says it is taking an incremental approach.

That is, “council over time and in consideration of its community, will only apply for future SRVs if the other financial sustainability strategies to increase savings and efficiencies ... do not provide the appropriate level of funding to assist in delivery of its Long Term Financial Plan and required infrastructure renewal”.

A strategy for 2017-18 is the application of a 6 per cent SRV focused on transport infrastructure.

Another is to just sign off on the 1.5 per cent rate peg increase as stated by Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).

A 1.5 per cent rate peg generates $103,256, while the 6 per cent (rate peg + 4.5 per cent) proffers $413,023.

With respect to the latter, council says $103,256 would go into general revenue, with $309,767 used for the road resurfacing program.

So what are the budget implications if councillors do not sign-off on the 6 per cent rate rise?

From a budgetary point of view, council states: “in the event that the additional funds anticipated by the proposed SRV are not realised, this will impact the ratios within the Fit for the Future projections negatively and the long term implications for this need to be considered.

… “Both in terms of council’s long term financial sustainability and the ability to appropriately maintain its asset base.

“Apart from the impact on the ratios this may place council in a vulnerable position in terms of loan borrowings as with the current ‘Fit’ status ...

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the revenue generated from the proposed SRV of 6 per cent for 2017-18 is to undertake a targeted 10-year road resurfacing program of works representing an investment of $310,000 within an annualised $800,000 per year.”

So should the proposed SRV not be approved then it would be necessary for the council to address the following:

1. Reduce the proposed resurfacing program by the amount of $310,000 per annum in recognition of the unavailability of funds.

2. Should the council wish to complete the proposed resurfacing program, reallocate $310,000 from another budget item to the resurfacing program.

3. Revise its Fit for the Future ratios.

So that’s what we give up, and it leads to the next question – can we afford the rise?

Well according to council – yes we can. 

“In consideration of making an application for a SRV, council has considered the community’s capacity to pay based on the SEIFA Index of Advantage and Disadvantage, level of proposed increase and other cost indices,” council states.

“Given that many comparisons were made with neighbouring councils by respondents to the engagement process, the following information is provided.

“Bellingen Shire’s SEIFA index, in comparison with some neighbouring councils, states Bellingen (950.1) has a higher capacity to pay compared to other like councils, e.g. Nambucca (900.0) that ranked higher in terms of their level of disadvantage. Kempsey also ranks higher with an Index of 879.7.

“ When comparing residential rates across neighbouring councils, Bellingen Shire ratepayers pay less on average. While each council uses different multiple rate categories, the following information outlines comparative differences across Bellingen, Nambucca, Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie local government areas”.

Comparative to other council regions, Bellingen has lower   business rates, with Nambucca nearly twice as high and Coffs Harbour non-CBD more than three times higher.

“Further comparisons between the four councils indicate that (Bellingen Shire) farmland and sewer rates are higher.

“When comparing Bellingen Shire residential rates to Coffs Harbour, including seven years of a 6 per cent SRV, it should be noted that Bellingen Shire rates remain lower than that may occur on average. It should be noted that this also does not include any future rate rises from Coffs Harbour.”

Council says it has also considered the Bellingen Shire average weekly household income.

“The 2011 ABS Census Data states that 31.5 per cent of Shire residents earn between $600 - $1249 a week compared to the NSW Regional average of 27.1 per cent and the Mid North Coast average of 30.8 per cent.”

While council argues residents can pay these increases, the Bellingen Shire Courier-Sun has been contacted by a number of people, and has made public a number of letters disputing this claim. It is also worthwhile noting an online petition asking mayor Dominic King to vote against the rate rise is being circulated.  

That said, who has formally complained? Or offered feedback and what have they said?

According to council 98 submissions were received across all mediums and are broken down as follows:

Of the 98 SRV submissions received and registered, “73 were proactively sought by councillors and staff during the face to face consultation at the community drop in sessions”.

Feedback from all submissions provided a number of views with respect to the proposed SRV. Of the opposition submissions that were made regarding the SRV, many reflected factors “outside of council’s control”, including:

Comments were received regarding council internal costs and administration including:

Other comments generally included:

Council said it received neutral and positive responses for the proposed SRV, including:

So where to now? 

Formal feedback has closed, but locals still have until Wednesday at 9am to contact the seven councillors who are tasked with vetoing or otherwise the 6 per cent rate rise.

It’s a difficult balancing act trying to pay for essential services – and non-essential but worthy council ventures – and not cutting into the budgets of locals.

Whatever you think, it’s democracy in action – so make sure your voice is heard.