Council had received two notices of motion, from two separate councillor supporter groups of the two defeated motions from council’s October meeting.
The first from Derek Schoen, Richard Nixon and David Bott called for no future SRV to be advanced or sought therefore locking in the 2023/24 and 2024/25 temporary Special Rate Variation, from 1 July 2025, along with undertaking workplace culture and productivity reforms and asset rationalisation and disposal prior to any future SRV being progressed.
The motion failed with the majority of councillors (6-3) voting against the motion.
Crs Andrew Kennedy, Rowena Black and Pat Bourke moved their own recommendation on a SRV, which succeeded and a submission to IPART for a permanent 69.94 per cent SRV over two years from July 1, 2025 was endorsed to proceed.
Previously at council’s October meeting, the two motions regarding a future permanent SRV were considered and defeated. As both motions were defeated, council had no way forward and it was resolved, at the October meeting, to receive a further report, on the SRV 2025-2026 for the November meeting - on the motion of Crs Derek Schoen and Patrick Bourke (who had opposing views, supporting the second and first motions respectively).
Council’s chief financial officer Jo Shannon provided that report for the November meeting. She provided further information on the two defeated motions, under the following headings:
- A risk assessment of the two SRV options against the baseline (no SV) scenario
- Updating summary financial modelling
- Modelling of average residential rates under the three scenarios
- Revised timelines for progressing the SRV application to IPART.
Ms Shannon’s said council’s risk framework considers a range of risks including financial, reputational, property and industrial relations. She highlighted the risk assessment that has been undertaken and said that all options carry extreme risks.
“Each option carries distinct risks, impacts and benefits,” Ms Shannon said.
“The goal is to compare them based on risk exposure in key areas such as public acceptance, financial outcomes, and long-term sustainability.
“The option of locking in the temporary 19 per cent and 17 per cent has only one of the extreme risks and that is the financial risk.
“That’s as a result of the significant operating deficit that would still remain under that scenario.”
Ms Shannon said the reason for locking in the temporary SRV is still regarded as an extreme risk is due to the “quantam of funds” involved.
“There’s still three to four million dollars of funds that would be required to be removed from council’s operating program to actually get to a break-even position,” Ms Shannon said at council’s meeting.
