As we begin the New Year, the Shoalhaven is approaching a crossroad in its long and sometimes colourful history. Occupying the minds of councillors, senior staff and at least one state MP during the holiday period was the prospect that it would merge with neighbouring Kiama.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Yesterday’s call by Kiama MP Gareth Ward for a non-compulsory public opinion survey to ascertain public opinion on the issue no doubt reflects the heat he is feeling in the centre of his electorate, where opposition to the merger plan is intense. Kiama has seen street marches petitions against any shotgun wedding with its southern neighbour.
In the Shoalhaven itself, which is still in holiday mode, the loudest opposition is coming from a small group of councillors led by the veteran Greg Watson, who has invested most of his life in the local government area. Out on the street, however, there’s been deafening silence.
Perhaps that might change as people return to work from the holidays and begin to engage with the issue. If and when they do they might want to pay a visit to Shoalhaven City Council’s website, where a comparison between Kiama and its neighbour makes for sobering reading.
Posted on Christmas eve, when most minds were on the ham, turkey and presents, the comparison highlights some of the issues the proposed merger raises. far and away the most pressing concerns for ratepayers will be rates. When the government announced the merger plan, it said rates would be frozen on their existing path for four years.
Here’s council’s comment: “That means the 7.5 per cent rate increase above rate-pegging planned by Shoalhaven City Council for both the years of 2017/18 and 2018/19 to meet the ‘fit for the future’ criteria will not happen.
“That equates to over $21 million revenue (cumulative over this four year period) that will not be raised and spent on providing services and infrastructure renewal and maintenance.”
The question ratepayers and residents will be asking is, does this mean potholes won’t be fixed, our parks will run down and services will be trimmed?
The government’s undertaking to provide $15 million to meet merger costs and provide a head start on investing in services and infrastructure, the post said, would only partly offset the “lost” revenue mentioned above. On council’s own reckoning, we lose.
