We’re now at the pointy end of the saga…. Thank you all for your efforts!
I urge you all to submit your views to IPART as soon as submissions open on the 17th February. Use this Link:
We've reached almost 6,500 Signatures, ….. But, we still have a few weeks for a final push to reach 7,000.
To help you with our Submissions.... Jessica Jurd put together the template below which you you can use as a guide, but I encourage you to include your own stories of how the rates hike will impact you and your families.
Please keep sharing the petition!
Hope this is helpful re: submissions to IPART - SRV. Opposing a special rate variation (SRV) in NSW is ultimately about showing that the council has not met IPART’s criteria or that the proposal is unreasonable, unjustified, or poorly evidenced. Community groups, ratepayers, or stakeholders often structure their objections around several recurring “heads of consideration.”
Below is a set of sample key heads of consideration for opposing a NSW council special rate variation:
1. Failure to demonstrate genuine financial need
• Council has not shown that an SRV is the only viable option.
• Insufficient evidence of cost cutting, productivity improvements, or internal efficiencies.
• Lack of transparent long term financial modelling.
• Overly pessimistic or unrealistic assumptions in the Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP).
2. Poor community engagement
• Consultation did not meet IPART’s “fit for purpose” standard.
• Engagement was rushed, poorly advertised, or inaccessible.
• Surveys or feedback mechanisms were biased or leading.
• Community feedback was ignored or misrepresented in the final application.
• Vulnerable groups (pensioners, renters, small businesses) were not meaningfully consulted.
3. Unreasonable financial burden on ratepayers
• The proposed increase is excessive relative to inflation, wages, or cost of living pressures.
• Disproportionate impact on fixed income households, farmers, or small businesses.
• Cumulative impact of previous SRVs, waste charges, stormwater levies, or other increases.
• Lack of adequate hardship provisions or support mechanisms.
4. Mismanagement or inefficiency by council
• Evidence of past financial mismanagement, wasteful spending, or poor governance.
• High executive salaries or administrative overheads not addressed before seeking an SRV.
• Failure to implement recommendations from audits or performance reviews.
• Capital works overruns or poor project prioritisation.
5. Lack of clear, credible, or necessary outcomes
• The SRV funds projects that are vague, low priority, or not essential.
• Promised service levels are unclear or not guaranteed.
• No measurable KPIs or accountability mechanisms.
• Projects could be funded through grants, asset sales, or re-prioritisation instead.
6. Inadequate evidence of productivity improvements
• IPART requires councils to demonstrate efficiency gains.
• Council may have failed to show:
o Shared services arrangements
o Procurement improvements
o Workforce optimisation
o Asset rationalisation
• If these aren’t demonstrated, the SRV may be premature.
7. Weaknesses in the Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP)
• Forecasts may be outdated, inconsistent, or not independently verified.
• Revenue projections may be overly conservative to justify the SRV.
• Capital works plans may be unrealistic or inflated.
• Sensitivity analysis may be missing or inadequate.
8. Failure to demonstrate that the SRV Is temporary or justified long-term
• If the SRV is permanent, council must justify why the higher base rate is needed indefinitely.
• If temporary, council must show a credible exit strategy.
• Lack of clarity on how financial sustainability will be achieved after the SRV period.
9. Equity and fairness concerns
• Ratepayers in certain suburbs or categories may pay more without receiving proportional benefits.
• The SRV may fund projects that benefit only a small part of the community.
• Renters may face indirect impacts through increased rents.
10. Alternative funding options not adequately explored
• State or federal grants
• Developer contributions
• Asset sales or leasing
• Borrowing (where appropriate)
• Re-prioritisation of capital works
• Partnerships or shared services
If council hasn’t demonstrated that these options were seriously considered, the SRV may be unjustified.
Regards,
Mike