The three-way merger initially proposed by Gloucester Shire councillors as an alternative to Dungog has been unanimously voted down but only “in its present form”.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In a special meeting on Friday to confirm its submission to the government’s amalgamation delegate Dr Ian Tiley, councillors recognised that “the majority of the community want us to stand alone.”
“But it’s the degree of pragmatism on that issue, and how much influence council can have in a merged council, that differs in opinion” council’s general manager Danny Green said.
“It could be a forced arrangement in which we could lose any input, so we need to take advantage while we’re still here.”
He said it was vital any merged entity includes a clear criteria.
Council’s submission to the Dr Tiley states that ‘ framework for amalgamation is essential prior to any final decision on the proposed Great Lakes – Greater Taree – Gloucester merger. It says equitable distribution of resources is risked by “enmity between the larger councils” and so recommends a minimum of three councillors per region be elected, with the ‘remainder elected on the basis of popular vote’. It requests the option to create Wards, or become a single electorate, or keep the status-quo; it seeks local council employment and the retention of a local council office; the continuation of council services already provided; the lifting of restrictions on special rate variations (all three councils have SRVs in the pipeline); the transfer of maintenance for Bucketts Way and Thunderbolts Way to the state government; clear and consistent assessments of each LGA’s backlogs and regular merged council meetings in Gloucester.
“Council views the full implementation of these framework elements as a minimum condition for any proposed amalgamation,” the report states.
It concludes that in terms of financial sustainability, all but one ratio will be met by 2019/20 following Council’s current plan (the last audit indicated a vast improvement in terms of council’s finances, although there was still much progress needed to clear its backlog, viably).
Similarly, Great Lakes Council said it was only prepared to support a three-way merger subject to a ‘blueprint for the future’ to ensure appropriate structures are put in place to set it up for success. It says the amalgamation could be successful “provided the risks are identified and managed and that the organisation is setup from the start to succeed.” Currently, however “there are too many risks associated with the merger... with very little detail and many unanswered questions around the viability of the new entity.”
A report it commissioned from Morrison Low Consultants identifies both positive and negative outcomes, but “if stated efficiencies are not realised then the financial loss from the merger has been estimated as being up to $21m over 20 years.” It then summarises that the costs of the merger have been understated by KPMG’s report to the government.
In the meantime, the member for Myall Lakes Stephen Bromhead issued a statement he would support the best interests of his electorate but refrained from stating a preference, and despite several requests for comment, the member for Upper Hunter Michael Johnsen remains silent.
