The hike, coupled with the introduction of a temporary fuel surcharge of 2.25 per cent on transfer station fees, marks a difficult balancing act for councillors as they grapple with the rising costs of service delivery during the ongoing fuel crisis.
The fees and charges were locked in at the May 19 council meeting following community consultation during the previous month as councillors barely agreed on the figures, voting 5-4.
The contentious topic had all councillors on edge, with Cr Paul Jarman, who moved the motion, acknowledging it “was not a popular one” to discuss.
Cr Jarman explained the cost increases were a major part of the budget setting and being able to make decisions over the next year.
Waste kerbside biggest changes
| Name | Year 2025-26 | Year 2026-27 | Increase |
| Waste facilities levy | $94 | $103 | 9.57 per cent |
| Residential 80L - w/out garden bin | $186 | $204 | 9.68 per cent |
| Residential 140L recycling | $62 | $68 | 9.68 per cent |
| Rural 140L one bin | $248 | $272 | 9.68 per cent |
| Residential 240L one bin | $585 | $641 | 9.57 per cent |
“It is a reflection of us trying to keep costs down as long as possible with the consciousness that these services do need to be delivered … and be paid for,” he said.
Cr Rob Amos, who seconded the motion, shared this view and encouraged residents to review their bin sizes, suggesting they could save money by downsizing if appropriate.
Cr Tony Marwood defended the fuel surcharge specifically, explaining council’s fee increases from picking up due to fuel were between $80,000 to $100,000.
“It’s the reality of where we’re at, and I know nobody wants it, but we also have a responsibility to the budget as we do to the community,” he said.
Four councillors – John Zobec, Adrian Weston, Luke Sharrock and Jessica Mitchell – strongly opposed the fee increases, arguing they were unnecessary.
Cr Zobec questioned why the waste services had gone up significantly while other services had not gone up at all.
“I am certainly disappointed that (waste services) has reached (an increase of) 9.5 per cent or more,” he said.
“It’s affecting our community members, our seniors … has an impact on their ability to create additional income.
“This is possibly not the ideal time to have such increases in these rates.”
Despite the move affecting all ratepayers, public consultation attracted just 24 views of the draft document and only one submission from the community.
Feedback about the draft fees and charges — or lack thereof — was commented on by Cr Mitchell, who believed more could have been done to get a better representation of what residents wanted out of the draft.
“I don’t believe that this accurately reflects the view of our community because I’m pretty confident that when it comes to increasing fees and charges, our community has something to say about it,” she said.
“I wonder if our way of engaging has fully captured that?”
The 5-4 vote suggests that the debate over balancing responsibility with the cost-of-living pressure on residents will likely remain a common theme in upcoming budget discussions.
Crs Amos, Marwood, Jarman, Zoe Cook and Daniel Mackrell voted for the motion; Crs Mitchell, Sharrock, Weston and Zobec voted against the motion.
15°C