A large turnout of concerned residents attended a public meeting on Wednesday, seeking clarity and voicing anxieties regarding Glen Innes Severn Council’s proposed financial measures, including a Special Rate Variation (SRV) and other increased fees. The meeting, intended to be a comprehensive overview, quickly transitioned into a robust question-and-answer session as residents pressed Council officials on the rationale and impact of the proposed increases.
Council representatives opened the evening by highlighting the shire’s precarious financial state, stating the Council is not currently financially sustainable and faces a projected average general fund deficit of around several million dollars over the next decade. They stressed that achieving financial sustainability is a legal requirement under the Local Government Act and that this financial stress is not unique to Glen Innes, with around 40% of NSW Councils reporting similar financial difficulties, many being regional like Glen Innes.
Factors contributing to the deficit were outlined, including significant increases in operating costs such as increased insurance costs, cyber security expenses, and significant increases in audit costs. Council also cited increased depreciation linked to asset renewal and revaluations, limited population growth restricting the ratepayer base, and cost shifting of services from state and federal governments.
A key point of vulnerability identified was the Council’s historical heavy reliance on grant funding, which is now reducing with fewer grant opportunities being available. While grants are “terrific” for funding new assets Council couldn’t otherwise afford, such as the indoor sports centre and airport runway upgrade, they come with a “warning sticker” – they increase depreciation, and result in an increase in costs for maintenance, creating ongoing liabilities that local revenue must cover.
Council detailed steps already taken to mitigate the situation, including identifying approximately $600,000 in savings already achieved, scrutinising recruitment, deferring some projects like the water plant upgrade, and planning to address losses in ventures like the “Life Choices” business. They also mentioned exploring a public-private partnership with Seata as a potential revenue opportunity.
Despite these efforts, Council maintained they are “still not enough to achieve long-term financial sustainability”, necessitating the difficult decision to propose rate and fee increases.
The floor was then opened to the community, leading to a series of pointed questions and comments that dominated the latter half of the meeting.
Questions and Concerns from the Community:
- Rate Affordability and Representation: A core concern was the affordability of the proposed rate increases, particularly for pensioners and those on low or average incomes. Council stated that they understood the difficulty for residents, but did not provide specific solutions for those with limited capacity to pay. Questions were also raised about the availability of a “capacity to pay” report.
- Waste Management Fees and Landfill Issues: Residents questioned where money previously paid in waste charges had gone. Council clarified there is currently $4 million in waste reserves earmarked for facility maintenance, operation, and collection services. The proposed fee increases, they explained, are intended to fund capital projects over the next 10 years, including planning for mandatory FOGO services by 2030, landfill remediation, and exploring new technologies. Concerns were also raised about the lifespan of the Glen Innes landfill, given varying reports over the years. Council stated that a recent analysis using new technology indicates the landfill has a longer lifespan than a previous report suggested. Residents also pointed out the potential of a partnership with Seata as an alternative way to handle waste and potentially generate revenue instead of relying solely on fee increases. Council confirmed they had recently resolved to explore a potential public-private partnership with Seata.
- Council Management and Transparency: Several residents voiced frustrations, attributing the current financial state partly to perceived past “mismanagement” or a failure to anticipate issues like the reduction in grant funding. Specific Council property acquisitions, such as the old power station or quarry land, were cited as adding costs that residents felt were unnecessary or poorly planned.
- Alternative Solutions and Community Input: A resident proposed a direct democracy approach, suggesting the Council hold a town-wide ballot on the four SRV options to give the community collective ownership of the decision. Council acknowledged it was a “good concept” but highlighted that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has the final say on SRV applications, meaning that even if a ballot was held there would be no guarantee that IPART would approve the most popular option. They also noted IPART conducts its own consultation process. Another suggestion made by a resident was that the community might need to lower its expectations and Council should cut back on services and be more flexible in managing finances, akin to how residents manage their own budgets.
- Consequences of Inaction: Residents asked directly what would happen if the community could not afford the increases or if the Council “goes broke”. Council outlined some of the potential consequences: drastic cuts to services, inability to maintain infrastructure, and the potential for the state government to appoint a financial administrator who would make decisions “without regard to the community’s views”.
The meeting concluded with Council reinforcing that the proposed rate and fee changes are currently on exhibition and encouraging community members to make formal submissions. While the Council reiterated the necessity of the proposed increases to ensure long-term sustainability and avoid worse outcomes, the meeting underscored the significant community concern over affordability, transparency, and the impact on residents and local businesses.
Further community information sessions are planned:
15th May 2025 – Virtual Information Session – 5.30pm – 7.00pm
27th May 2025 – Deepwater Face-to-face Information Session @ Deepwater School of Arts Hall – 5.00pm – 7.00pm
28th May 2025 – Virtual Information Session – 5.30pm – 7.00pm
Submissions can also be made in writing, addressed to The General Manager, Glen Innes Severn Council, PO Box 61, Glen Innes NSW 2370.
The consultation period will run until 6 June 2025.
Feedback received from residents at the information sessions will be considered by Councillors before they vote on whether or not to apply for a Special Rate Variation at the Council meeting scheduled for 19th June. Should Council decide to proceed, an application will be sent to IPART. Residents will have the opportunity to submit feedback directly to IPART at that time.
