After months of debate, the countdown has started to a final decision on the rate variation

The debate on whether the council should apply to increase rates beyond the peg set by IPART has gone on for weeks, with some saying that it's the only way to keep the town's budget viable while others say it's putting too much pressure on residents during a cost of living crisis.

Here's what your councillors had to say ahead of the final decision.

Mayor Curran was for the variation, and while he wanted to see how the vote shook out, said he was 'quietly confident' that they'd made the best argument for the rise that they could.

"I think we've been able to put our case forward as to why there's an issue in local government NSW. I think the alternative has the potential to be a lot worse for our community than an increase over three years," he said.

"My thinking is that it's not if, it's when. If we don't have the fortitude to make this hard decision now, a future council will say 'we have to do this now or go into administration'."

He said that the consultation process had been difficult, but 'eye-opening' and that the entire council had learnt a lot about the community.

Councillor Napoli has been the number-one opponent to the rate rise within councillors, and is resolutely standing by that decision.

"I have always supported the rate pegging which safeguards our community. It's there for a purpose, it makes sure our community are well protected from any rate rises," she said.

"People are struggling at the moment with the cost of living. Electricity and petrol are sky-high ... Families are doing it tough and we need to take that into consideration."

She encouraged members of the public to come along and register to speak at the council meeting for a final chance to have their voices heard.

"The whole system is broken and until it's fixed, we're going to be going backwards," Councillor Andreazza said.

"If you look at the projected budget months ago, it's all red. You can't sustain that. It was my proposal to do it over three years and I stick by that. Over three years, it might just ease the pain a little bit."

Councillor Andreazza said he didn't want to be overly optimistic that the vote for the rate variation would pass, only to see it fall down.

"I hope it'll get up, but I don't want to be overly optimistic. I think it needs to get up though."

Councillor Marin was against the rate variation and planned to vote against the application, but wasn't confident that it would make a difference overall.

"I'm feeling very disappointed for the people of Griffith. I care about my council, I know it's going to go through," she said.

"I'm voting no, I think council should budget better. We have a lot of top heavy things in council that we should be looking at ... I don't want to see council go under but I think they could have budgeted a bit better."

RELATED NEWS

Councillor Ellis was sympathetic to those against the variation, but ultimately called it a 'necessary evil' and said it needed to be done to protect jobs and keep services up and running.

"It's a time for all of us to tighten our belt. It's a hard decision, but it's a good business decision."

"When you're running a business, you make these hard decisions. For me, I see it as you either share the load over the whole community or we start cutting services which means cutting jobs."

Councillor Croce is standing fast against the rate variation, and said he hoped to look within council to make the savings needed to stay in the black.

"I've done my own community feedback, it's been basically 99 per cent against," he said.

"I've been on council for nearly 20 years now, I've always been against raising rates over the minimum. One little rate rise isn't going to kill you, but it's a death by 1000 cuts."

He said that reducing the number of councillors from 12 to nine at the next election was a start to cutting costs, but wanted to look into further cost-cutting measures to be done inside council.

"I can count on one hand the people who thought it was a good idea."

Councillor Lally was in two minds on the SRV, but believed that a focus on other cost-cutting measures was vitally important.

"The thing is with Council is keeping in mind that it's a service provider. Council is not a producer, we have to buy all the things like gas, electricity, petrol. We have to be very careful with our spending," he said.

Ultimately, he came down on the side of the rate variation, but said he was still reading the submissions from the community and making a final decision.

"It is a hard decision. There's lots of pressure but somehow we have to manage it all."

Councillor Zappacosta said that his opinions had 'not changed one iota' since the initial discussion, and was strongly against going for the rate variation at the present moment.

"It's the wrong time to be talking about increasing rates at the moment, for the next few years anyway. I am a firm believer that it's the wrong time," he said.

"I'm anxious to see the results from the community feedback ... I know there has been a petition floating around, a lot of people have been signing it so I'm anxious to see how many people have signed it."

He added that there would have to be difficult decisions made in any case, but said that 'firm, strong measures' within council on cutting services and costs were the way to go.

"I think the community will accept firm, strong measures. That's the way we should be heading at the moment."

"I know that we need the money to cover costs but I have great concerns. It's going to affect everyone from all walks of life," said Councillor Stead, speaking against the rate variation.

She expressed concerns that increases in rates would lead to increased rent and limit new arrivals.

"The cost of living has gone up, the rent has gone up. Mortgages have gone up ... This is a locked-in increase, it's not just 'lock in this year and take out next year.'"

With councillors divided almost down the middle, Councillor Stead was unsure how the vote would pan out at the meeting but promised she would stand against the increase.

Councillor Blumer remains undecided, planning to hear final arguments on the night and make a decision then.

"It's too complex. I want to have a clear understanding of the savings that have been proposed, what they look like. I want to have a good understanding of that," she said.

"My position is that it should be a one-off ... Because of IPART, we can't raise our rates in a flexible way ... However the drawn out nature of over three years, I find that too long and I think if it is a correction, we should correct it and then move on."

While it hadn't helped her come to a final decision, Councillor Blumer seconded Councillor Curran's comment that the consultation period had been educational for all.

"There are benefits to this process of consultation. It's been a very interesting education piece for the community, councillors and staff."

IN OTHER NEWS:

Council will vote on whether to apply for a SRV of 34.9 per cent over three years on October 24 at 7pm. The meeting will be livestreamed at Griffith City Council's facebook page.

If IPART then approves the application, the first stage of the rate increase will start in June 2024.

Councillors Laurie Testoni and Chris Sutton were contacted for comment.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can access our trusted content: