OPEN LETTER TO TEMORA SHIRE RATEPAYERS
A WORD OF CAUTION BEFORE YOU COMPLETE COUNCIL’S SRV QUESTIONNAIRE.
Dear Fellow Temora Shire Ratepayers,
I urge every ratepayer who intends to complete Temora Shire Council’s current Special Rate Variation questionnaire to read every question carefully before submitting it. Having examined Council’s published financial scenarios and the wording of the questionnaire, I am concerned that the survey is structured in a way that may funnel respondents towards the answers Council is seeking, rather than providing a completely open test of whether the community supports an SRV.
I am not suggesting that Council has secretly predetermined the outcome. Council says that no decision has yet been made. However, there is an important difference between saying that a decision has not been made and ensuring that the consultation itself gives ratepayers a genuinely neutral choice between all available alternatives.
LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE FOUR SCENARIOS
Council has presented four financial scenarios:
Base Case — Rate Peg Only: 10.87% cumulative increase over three years. Council says this would require reductions in services and asset renewal.
Scenario A — Council’s Preferred Scenario: 79.40% cumulative increase over three years. Council says this would stabilise its finances with some service reductions, principally through natural staff attrition in identified areas.
Scenario B: 101.25% cumulative increase over three years. Council says this would stabilise finances while maintaining current service delivery and asset renewal levels.
Scenario C: 124.25% cumulative increase over three years. Council says this would protect services and assets while increasing asset renewal levels.
These are not minor differences. Council’s published figures show that, for its average residential example, the annual rates by 2029/30 would be approximately $900 under the Base Case, $1,456 under Scenario A, $1,633 under Scenario B and $1,820 under Scenario C.
In other words, Council’s preferred Scenario A represents a very substantial increase compared with the Base Case, while Scenarios B and C take the increases considerably further.
And remember: these are not simply temporary increases for three years. The proposed SRV would establish a higher rate base going forward, with future rate-peg increases applied to that higher base.
WHY I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Question 16 states:
“If Council does not seek a rate increase, Council may need to reduce services.”
That wording deserves careful consideration.
It effectively presents ratepayers with:
Higher rates OR reduced services.
But where is the third option?
Find further savings first.
Where is the question asking whether ratepayers support a comprehensive, independently verifiable expenditure review before an SRV is imposed?
Where is the question asking whether Council should reduce, defer or reprioritise non-essential expenditure before substantially increasing rates?
Where is the question asking Council to demonstrate, in actual dollars, that every reasonable efficiency and saving has been exhausted?
Those questions are fundamental to the debate, yet they are not what ratepayers are primarily being asked.
Question 17 then asks:
“If services must be reduced, which areas would you like this to occur to?”
Again, the premise has already been established: “If services must be reduced.”
This risks creating a false choice. A ratepayer can quite reasonably want essential services protected while simultaneously believing Council should find further savings before increasing rates.
Those positions are not contradictory.
QUESTION 15 — THE FOUR SCENARIOS
This is perhaps the most important question to consider carefully.
Council asks ratepayers to rank the four scenarios from most preferred to least preferred. But these are not four equal service choices. Three involve an SRV and one — the Base Case — does not.
Council itself identifies the Base Case as a legitimate financial scenario. Yet Council also identifies Scenario A, involving a 79.40% cumulative increase, as its preferred scenario.
That should make every ratepayer stop and examine exactly what they are being asked to rank.
If you do not support an SRV, make that unmistakably clear. If the survey does not adequately provide an opportunity to express that position, use the written comments section to put it on the record.
Do not allow a simple ranking to be interpreted as support for an SRV if that is not what you mean.
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING AN SRV
I support Temora Shire Council being financially sustainable. I support responsible asset management. I support maintaining essential infrastructure and community services.
But supporting those things does not automatically mean supporting an SRV.
The fundamental question should be:
Have all reasonable savings and efficiencies genuinely been exhausted?
Council says it has undertaken efficiency measures, reviewed services, improved financial planning and implemented cost-saving initiatives.
Fine.
Show us.
Not just broad statements.
Not percentages without supporting detail.
Not assurances.
Show ratepayers the actual dollars.
Before asking ratepayers to accept cumulative increases of 79.40%, 101.25% or 124.25%, Council should provide a transparent and independently verifiable examination of staffing and management expenditure, consultancy and professional services, procurement and contracts, discretionary programs, grants and donations, capital works priorities, project deferrals, asset rationalisation, alternative service delivery, productivity improvements and other potential savings.
We should also be shown what savings have already been achieved, what further savings were considered, which were rejected and why, and—most importantly—what the genuine remaining funding gap is after all reasonable savings have been applied.
That is the Ratepayer Alternative I have previously advocated.
THE ORDER OF EVENTS MATTERS
I believe the proper sequence is:
1. Identify the financial problem.
2. Identify every reasonable saving and efficiency.
3. Quantify those savings in actual dollars.
4. Implement the achievable savings.
5. Establish the genuine remaining funding gap.
6. Only then ask ratepayers whether additional taxation is justified.
That is accountability.
It is not being anti-Council.
It is not being anti-community.
It is not being irresponsible.
It is simply saying:
Before you ask us for substantially more money, demonstrate that you have done everything reasonably possible with the money you already receive.
RATEPAYERS — PLEASE HAVE YOUR SAY
Council’s consultation closes at 9am Friday 28 August 2026. This is therefore an important opportunity for every ratepayer to participate.
Please read the financial information. Examine the four scenarios. Consider what the proposed increases mean for your own circumstances. And, most importantly, read the wording of each question carefully.
If you support an SRV, say so.
If you oppose it, say so.
If you believe Council should find further savings first, say that clearly too.
Do not allow a question’s wording to determine your answer for you.
A consultation should capture what ratepayers actually believe—not simply which consequence they prefer after the alternatives have already been framed for them.
ONE FINAL QUESTION FOR COUNCIL
Before asking Temora ratepayers to accept a cumulative increase of up to 124.25%, can Council demonstrate—in independently verifiable dollar figures—that every reasonable alternative has genuinely been exhausted?
I believe ratepayers deserve a clear answer.
Not a slogan.
Not a predetermined assumption.
Not a choice between two uncomfortable consequences.
Show us the numbers.
Then let the ratepayers make an informed decision.
Bob Taylor
Temora Shire Ratepayer