Great rate debate splits councillors, divides public opinion

The decision at the Tuesday, June 18 meeting came after lengthy debate and speakers who urged the council not to apply the full increase.

Candidate at the September 14 election and Goulburn Rate Action Group president, Nina Dillon, said councillors had the option under an IPART determination, to defer the increase. Alternatively, she suggested they split the 22.5pc permitted rise over two years to "ease the burden."

But on Tuesday, councillors voted five to three to implement the full increase in 2024/25. Mayor Peter Walker and Crs Steve Ruddell, Carol James, Daniel Strickland and Andy Wood were in favour, while Crs Bob Kirk, Jason Shepherd and Michael Prevedello were against. Cr Andrew Banfield was a meeting apology.

After the meeting, Ms Dillon said her group thought the rise was "inevitable."

"But we had hoped councillors would listen. Some did listen and tried to steer the ship a different way," she said.

If elected, Ms Dillon said her group would look closely at ways to cut costs, as IPART had suggested.

The council had previously applied for a 51.2pc rate rise over three years, which IPART rejected. Instead it allowed the 22.5pc hike.

The council's 2024/25 draft operational plan attracted seven public submissions, all opposing the increase.

On Tuesday, council candidate and submitter, Adrian Beresford-Wylie said it would mean an extra $254 for each ratepayer.

He noted that the federal government's stage three tax cuts would give people earning $30,000 per annum an additional $350.

"Most of the federal cost of living relief may be swallowed up for low income residents," he said of the rate rise.

He told councillors there needed to be "greater urgency" in realising savings and improving efficiency.

Richard Orchard also spoke in open forum. He "strongly urged" councillors not to adopt the special rate variation but instead, a 4.5pc rate peg in 2024/25. Mr Orchard said any decision about larger rises should be left to the new council.

He highlighted a 12,000 plus signature petition opposing the increase.

"None of you have a mandate from the electorate to put our rates and charges in such a huge manner. Who of you went to the election and said 'vote for me and I will get you a 51pc SRV'? No-one," he said.

Councillors were divided. Cr Walker hit out at some of the social media commentary he said was personally directed at him during the process. He defended the quality of community consultation during the SRV process, bar one meeting, and said the rate rise was needed to maintain infrastructure, such as the new aquatic centre, built in the past few years.

The mayor said the rate rise wasn't requested for "airy fairy" things but to fund the Goulburn tip's replacement and improve roads.

He won support from deputy mayor Steve Ruddell, who said the rise was necessary to maintain a vibrant economy.

Cr Andy Wood countered Mr Orchard's statement, saying councillors had a mandate to be "responsible financial managers."

But Crs Jason Shepherd and Michael Prevedello argued the increase would hurt ratepayers already enduring cost of living pressures.

"The process would have been far more palatable if the community had been consulted on what to expect," Mr Prevedello said.

Cr Kirk had earlier foreshadowed a motion to only apply the 4.5pc rate peg in 2024/25. This would allow time to review financial needs and then to consult with the community.

"(It) will bring them along with us, which is the appropriate thing to do," he said.

"That's what I argued in November and that's what IPART came back with. It's what the community has been saying all along."

Cr Kirk said the petition and survey couldn't be ignored and councillors were there to represent the community.

But his motion was never put. The majority of councillors instead endorsed the 22.5pc rise.

Corporate services director, Brendan Hollands, said financial figures in the draft 2024/25 budget wouldn't change as the council had applied for a 22.5pc increase in year one in its original application.

However, IPART's partial approval means there will be $3.97m less general rates revenue than expected in 2025/26, $5.45m less in 2026/27 and $5.64m less in the ensuing year.

Funding for gravel re-sheeting, urban and rural road rehabilitation and the tip replacement will also be substantially reduced over the same period.