• PETITION TO - The Hon. Ron Hoenig MP — Minister for Local Government
  • The Hon. Tara Moriarty MLC — Minister for Regional NSW
  • Mr Tim James MP — Shadow Minister for Local Government
  • Mr Gurmesh Singh MP — Shadow Minister for Regional NSW

“Minister, Act Now – Glen Innes’ 48 % Rate Hike Still Fails the Financial Benchmarks”

 We, the undersigned residents, rate-payers and business-owners and concerned NSW citizens affected by or concerned about the financial management of Glen Innes Severn Shire, call for urgent ministerial intervention.
Although Council is already collecting a cumulative 48.3 % Special Rate Variation (SRV), its own Long-Term Financial Plan 2026-2036 (LTFP) shows that the organisation still fails multiple NSW performance benchmarks, relies on unauditable data and embeds assumptions that cannot be justified. 

 
A.  Grounds for concern –  What Council claims- Why it doesn’t add up

• List of Failures Below

1. “Financial sustainability by 2029/30.”
Even with the SRV, the General Fund runs operating deficits for four more years and only reaches a wafer-thin surplus in 2029/30.

2. Infrastructure backlog will fall.
Backlog ratio drops from ≈ 9 % to ≈ 6 % – still triple the 2 % benchmark – and then plateaus.

3. Cash position turns strongly positive.
Unrestricted cash lurches from – $4.5 m (2024/25) to + $25 m, then slides back below $10 m without explanation.

4. 1 % annual population growth supports revenue.
NSW Planning forecasts population virtually flat (8 ,922 → 8 ,938 by 2041) – not 1 % p.a.

5. Fixed 5 % investment return & 6.5 % debt cost for ten years.
Ignores economic cycles and Council’s own sensitivity note that higher rates are possible.

6. New debt is “strategic”.
Adds $6.3 m borrowing for office accommodation and a housing scheme while asset-renewal still falls below target.

7. Renewal boost of $2.5 m p.a. from 2029/30 fixes assets.
Boost starts three years after the SRV ends and renewal ratios still dip below 100 % later in the plan.

8. % waste-charge rise merely aligns with neighbours.
Rise is used to bolster the General Fund rather than ring-fence waste services.

9. Audit disclaimer “not performance-related”.
Council has three consecutive Audit-Office disclaimers of opinion, so every forecast in the LTFP sits on data deemed “not auditable”.
 
B.  Deeper structural flaws (additional findings)
Maintenance ratio falls below 100 % after 2028/29 – signalling deferred upkeep.
Asset-renewal ratio drops to the 90–97 % band in outer years, ensuring backlog rebounds.
Own-source-revenue ratio peaks at 68 %, then slips under the 60 % benchmark again.
Cash-expense-cover ratio shrinks to ~6 months late in the decade (good practice is 9–12 months).
Projected savings (e.g., “Elevate 360” $290 k p.a. and $550 k depreciation tweaks) have no supporting methodology.
No modelling for a high-inflation / high-interest scenario or for Federal-grant cuts.
 
C. Community impacts
Households: combined rates + waste bills rise > $800 per property by 2028/29, stripping disposable income equal to a month’s groceries each year.
Farms & small business: operating-cost spike (12–15 %) undermines competitiveness with Inverell, which stayed within the 3.2 % rate peg.
Essential services: deteriorating roads and timber bridges remain under-funded, risking freight delays and slower emergency response.
Economic confidence: cash-flow volatility and unaudited books deter new investment and may force further rate shocks if projections unravel.
 
D. Relief sought
Under Part 6 Division 5 of the Local Government Act 1993 we petition the Ministers to:

1. Direct Council to re-exhibit its LTFP with realistic demographics, interest-rate and cost assumptions, and a concrete plan to cut backlog below 2 %.
2.  Order a section 430 financial investigation to resolve the audit disclaimers and establish credible baseline accounts.
3.  Freeze the SRV increases scheduled for 2027/28 and 2028/29 until the investigation confirms accurate data and a revised LTFP is adopted.
4.  Appoint an independent financial controller (s 438A) to oversee budgeting, asset management and cash-flow forecasting until statutory benchmarks are met.
5. Require a comparative options paper (e.g., five- or ten-year phasing, service-level reviews, asset rationalisation) before any future SRV adjustments.
6. Declaration
   We believe these actions are essential to restore transparency, fiscal responsibility and community confidence in our local government. We therefore urge the Ministers to act without delay.