Tis the season for charity, but a decision made at the final council meeting before Christmas means Blue Mountains ratepayers will be the ones giving more.
Councillors voted 9-3 at the December 9 meeting to ask the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) to approve the highest of three rates rise options it was considering.
If approved by IPART in May, it will see average household rates in the Blue Mountains go up by 40.4 per cent over the next four financial years, or $2.18 extra each week per ratepayer (including continuation of the existing environment levy and rate peg).
Blue Mountains businesses will pay an average of $5.25 more per week.
According to council, this option was the only way of increasing council's revenue sufficiently to see service levels improve and address a worrying asset maintenance backlog.
After almost an hour of debate, a motion by Clr Mick Fell and seconded by Clr Don McGregor won the support of Labor councillors Mark Greenhill, Sarah Shrubb, Romola Hollywood, Anton Von Schulenburg and Annette Bennett, Liberal Party councillor Daniel Myles, and independent Brendan Luchetti.
Former independent councillor and Blackheath resident Herman Kozelj called out "disgrace" when the decision was made.
Liberal Party councillors Chris Van der Kley, Brendan Christie and Michael Begg voted against option 1, instead unsuccessfully pushing for a rate rise of 32.1 per cent that would have seen service levels maintained.
No councillors supported a third option to limit any rate rise at the rate peg level, which would have seen service levels reduced.
Clr Van der Kley said he supported the smaller rate rise because he "didn't want to see such a large increase to some of the more vulnerable people in our community, especially in the upper part of the Mountains where we have more of the ageing population".
Clr Brendan Christie, an outspoken critic of the most expensive rate rise in the weeks leading up to the council meeting, said he favoured the smaller rise because he understood council needed to increase its revenue, was $58 million in debt and had "messed up the credit card and are wondering why we can't finance our maintenance backlog".
"We also don't need to provide services that the private sector already provides and does better than us," he said.
Clr Christie also questioned the significance of a consultation process which saw 54.6 per cent of 4312 submissions express support for the steepest rate rise option and 23.3 per cent favouring the second option.
About 32,000 ratepayers were invited to make submissions about the rate options after receiving a letter from Blue Mountains mayor Mark Greenhill and an information brochure.
"I have consulted with the community, letterbox drops, emails, calls, street stalls, you name it," Clr Christie said, "and the message is clear - we can't afford it.
"I'm here to stand up for those residents and businesses who have contacted me asking for help."
Clrs Luchetti, Greenhill, McGregor, Hollywood, Fell, Myles and Von Schulenburg defended the public consultation findings, arguing the people of the Blue Mountains had spoken and clearly favoured improving services included in option 1.
Clr Myles said he chose option 1 "because I know how badly we [council] need dollars" and he "strongly disputed" the argument that 2355 submissions supporting that option was "not representative".
"If the community does not want to return their point of view, we take that as acquiescence and we have the right to do so, otherwise we would never make a decision," Clr Myles said.
"You make your decisions and I will make my decision, says the community member, at the ballot box."
Clr McGregor said the people had shown they were prepared to "forgo the odd cup of coffee for the common cause" and Clr Greenhill said the rates increase was "a small number and that's why I think people overwhelmingly support it".
"The debate between us [tonight] was about the $1.83 per week version versus the $2.18 version, so there actually wasn't a yawning gulf," he said.
"We were debating over the two options the community wanted.
We didn't hide behind the staff, because 33,000 letters went out and guess whose signature was on it? It wasn't [general manager] Robert Greenwood's, it was mine.
"We will look inwards and look to our own organisation to save whatever it is we can save, but this city will fall into a situation where we will be announcing the closure of assets and services if we don't have a replenishment of our income base.
"Whether it's a park, a safe road or a family day care centre, these services are worth fighting for and that's what we are doing tonight."
Clrs Hollywood and Fell said a central element in their support for option 1 was that it would meet the NSW government's 'Fit for the Future' requirements that all NSW councils will soon need to meet to remain viable.
"Don't be so sure that amalgamation may not happen further down the line," Clr Hollywood said.
Clr Fell said if council's assets deteriorated further, that presented a level of risk he was "not game to accept".
"Providing our income level is increased slightly, we will be able to pull that back somewhat - to take our assets from 21 per cent in poor condition to 17 per cent in poor condition by 2024."
The decision for the highest rate rise option is certain to put pressure on council - and councillors who voted for it - to demonstrate that services will be improved as promised.
A council spokesperson told the Gazette the extra $28.2 million raised from the rate increase by the end of 2018-19 would be spent in the areas of built infrastructure, emergency preparedness and response, environmental protection and community services.
"The council will review its longterm financial plan and asset management plans annually," the spokesperson said.
"The council will demonstrate how and where the additional income is spent in its annual report.
"We will also report on the proportion of our built assets in poor condition at the end of the four-year term of council."
Despite the special rates variation applying for four years, the council report prepared for the December 9 meeting indicated the rate increase could be permanent, as it was part of "a 10-year plan that best positions the city to be financially sustainable", it would raise "$98.5 million by 2024" and "the additional funding raised remains permanently in the rate base."
