Sophie Conlon
The City of Mount Gambier has adopted its 2024/25 Annual Business Plan and Budget with a general rate rise of 10.13 per cent.
Mayor Lynette Martin said this excluded growth and meant an average rate rise of $217 when including the increased waste service charge.
“Budget deliberations have been particularity challenging this year as we grapple with development priorities, the financial climate, being mindful of cost of living pressures and the provision of service delivery required to meet community expectations and ensure that council is in a position for long term financial sustainability,” she said.
“Elected members have engaged in the most robust budget discussions I have been part of in my six years as mayor and I can assure you no stone has been left unturned regarding council’s short and long term financial obligations while creating capacity to deliver what the community expects in 2024/25.”
Ms Martin said the above CPI increase was a result of freezing rates during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic and having minimal rises since.
“Council was feeling the pressure of cost escalation and has attempted to minimise the impact of increasing costs for our ratepayers over several years,” she said.
“We have absorbed the impact of growth and have rated below CPI and we are now unable to continue to absorb the true additional service and waste cost and therefore must increase rates.”
A draft document went out for consultation in May and received 11 submissions, most of which highlighted concerns over the proposed 10.24 per cent rate rise.
Following this, and verbal submissions made at a special meeting on June 18, elected members held an eighth workshop to consider feedback.
Elected members said they had considered all feedback and councillor Max Bruins said all voices we heard, “not just the loud ones”.
“I acknowledge the submission received from the residents and ratepayers association, again we considered the feedback, but we need to keep in mind despite your assertions that you represent the community as a whole your membership base reflects only around 0.1 per cent of the residents in Mount Gambier and your submission speaks on behalf of your member base only and not the entire 28,000 people who reside here,” he said.
“Just because we have not made wholesale alterations to the budget following the consultation process, does not mean that we haven’t actively listened to and considered all feedback.”
Following the meeting Mount Gambier and Districts Residents and Ratepayers Association chair Di Ind told The Border Watch the group was growing.
“That may be true from Max’s perspective, however we have got many people that support us and have contacted us,” she said.
“You just have to look at our Facebook page post from when we promoted the plans to people that are interested on our page, we have over 10,000 reach.
“Our association is absolutely growing in numbers and comments like that will just see our numbers increase quite significantly based on his attitude.”
Councillor Paul Jenner was also critical of feedback received from the association.
“Council at the end of last year and early this year had a public consultation on how best council can improve its community consultation methods and no submission was received unfortunately from the Mount Gambier and Districts Residents and Ratepayers Association,” he said.
“But in their submission for the budget council was criticised about its communication with the community, I found it sad that they didn’t have input.”
To this, Ms Ind said all involvement with the association was voluntary and they “can’t be involved in absolutely everything, we just don’t have the resources to do so”.
Several changes to the budget, including a lower rate rise as a result of the latest information from the Valuer General, were adopted at the meeting.
Other changes as a result of feedback include more detail around strategic context, operating expenditure and capital works impact.
Council also outlined details regarding a loan from the Local Government Finance Authority which was taken out to help fund Wulanda Recreation and Convention Centre.
Councillor Jason Virgo, who openly opposed Wulanda when he initially ran for council in 2018, said after going through the budgetary process he could see this had no impact on rates.
“Without a doubt it is a great facility, it has attracted significant investment in our city and will be cherished for years to come,” he said.
“We can have semantic arguments to which degree Wulanda has affected the current economic situation, but we need to accept Wulanda occurred, it’s happened, there is no going back.”
In moving the budget, Cr Bruins said it was a comprehensive document which had been compiled over several months.
“The challenge in preparing a budget each year is that no matter the outcome, no matter the quantum of the rate rise the feedback received is almost always negative and that takes its toll,” he said.
“Nobody takes enjoyment from increasing rates, but we have a responsibility to the community as a whole to manage the assets, infrastructure, services and planned growth for the city in a considered and fiscally responsible way.”
Cr Bruins, who works privately as an accountant, said the increased rate would see the average homeowner paying about $4 extra per week.
“The fact of the matter is costs have risen for councils just as they have done for ordinary households,” he said.
“We have 230km of roads to maintain, footpaths to construct and maintain, hectares of parks to maintain and a myriad of other construction, maintenance and service commitments.
“We are not immune to economic conditions and have to manage our budget accordingly.”
Ms Martin said the 2024/25 Annual Business Plan and Budget was a “responsible and strategic budget” which would help create a bright future for the city.
This was backed by council’s audit and rick committee, which recognised the “rate increase is required to support financial sustainability” during its June 3 meeting.
This was again noted at council’s ordinary meeting on June 18, where every councillor voted in favour of the committee’s recommendation.
Councillor Sonya Mezinec said there had been seven budget workshops where elected members and staff “discussed all things budget related”.
“Topics included, but were not limited to, processes undertaken by staff in all areas of council to find cost savings, funding in kind to provide services and amenities, capacity to commence promised projects, financial sustainability, the economic climate as a result of pressures faced by many in our community as well as council’s legislative and environmental requirements, current circumstances and constraints,” she said.
Cr Mezinec said they also consulted existing plans and strategies and were mindful of the rate rise and its impact.
“We worked through and debated many and varied scenarios to explore how we could ensure council’s long term financial sustainability, maintain service levels and requirements, meet our financial targets as per the LGFA’s loan agreement and be able to continue to meet our community’s aspirations through identified projects,” she said.
Councillor Kate Amoroso, who missed all seven budget workshops according to records of proceedings, was the only elected member to vote against the budget.
She also declined to have her say on why she would vote this way during the meeting when given the opportunity by Ms Martin.
Speaking to The Border Watch after the meeting Cr Amoroso said she felt the plan did not align with the community’s needs.
“The budget failed to address crucial issues, and I believed that a rate increase could have been avoided by cutting unnecessary expenses,” she said.
“Moreover, the proposed rate hike would have imposed an unjust financial burden on many residents, particularly in the current economic environment with the cost of living biting harder than ever.
“I could not, in good conscience, support a budget that, in my opinion, did not prioritise the welfare of our community and ratepayers.”
Cr Amoroso said she had undertaken her own community consultation and found many people were angry at the proposed rise, leading her to vote against it.
“I undertook extensive community consultation, and the response was an overwhelming no to the rate rise, with many community members expressing anger towards the council for previously promising no rate increase – which they felt was due to Wulanda,” she said.
“So, my vote needed to reflect that sentiment.
“I voted against the budget and rate increase to push for a more responsible and sustainable fiscal plan for our community.”
With the rate rise now set at 10.13 per cent, Ms Ind said she was disappointed for the community.
“To be honest I am very disappointed that they have kept it as high, obviously the drop is a direct reflection of the Valuer General and that’s the numbers that have been given,” she said.
“It is a slight drop, but it certainly is still very high for our residents and ratepayers to have to cop on the chin.”
