Mosman's mayor's occasional enews says that 884 residents responded to the community consultation over rates. 31% wanted rates to go down, 34% to stay the same and 36% were in favour of a rate increase. So the council has decided to apply for a rate increase not withstanding that 65% of residents wanted them to go down or stay the same. So much for the consultation, but the councillors know what is in their own best interest, or do they?
Its all about Council mergers and securing the ramparts (see earlier post).
Interestingly IPART has previously reviewed and endorsed the governments Fit for the Future criteria and their latest guidelines seem to encourage councils to ask for increases that help them meet the Fit for the Future tests.
It is possible that as the NSW government cost shifts and reduces funding grants for councils, they are happy for rate payers to be taxed more at the local level. And it will be easier to merge councils if they are financially stronger.
Struggling councils when merged make larger and weaker organisations, while merging financially secure councils forms larger and stronger councils, which don't have to raise rates as part of the merger process. Allowing rate increases above the rate cap looks looks like a long term win, win situation for the Government and a short term win for small councils.
Struggling councils when merged make larger and weaker organisations, while merging financially secure councils forms larger and stronger councils, which don't have to raise rates as part of the merger process. Allowing rate increases above the rate cap looks looks like a long term win, win situation for the Government and a short term win for small councils.
Extract from P Abelson's occasional letter to residents
As most readers know, we have conducted a community wide survey on three rating options. These were (1) not to renew a special 5% levy that has been part of Council’s budget for 15 years (2) to apply to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal for renewal of the levy which is essentially the status quo or (3) to apply for levy renewal plus 5% increase. We received 884 responses with in round numbers 31% favouring option (1), 34% favouring (2) and 36% favouring (3). My view was that this suggested that levy renewal plus 2.5% increase would be an appropriate council response. However Council’s Audit Committee argued very strongly that (3) was the most financially responsible action and would best meet the State Government’s “Fit for the Future” financial ratios and hence criteria for financial sustainability and Independence, and Council resolved to request IPART for option (3).
