In a report in the organisation’s business paper, general manager Craig Deasey said there are two possible roadmaps.

“Council can look to engage in more discussions with Maitland City Council regarding a merger or investigate the elements we would need to undertake to be considered under the proposed rural council model,” Mr Deasey said.

“It has always been Maitland City Council’s stance they would not initiate any merger proposition, it would be up to Dungog to initiate such dialogue.

“Obviously for Maitland, any proposition that Dungog puts forward would come at a risk of compromising their capacity to service the needs of their community.

“Maitland has just completed an extensive rate variation application process over a period of 18 months with IPART and their community.

“The IPART application determined was in the amount of 7.25 per cent annual increases per year over the next seven years, being a cumulative increase of 61.7 per cent.

“Merging the Dungog asset base with that of Maitland would potentially compromise the work of Maitland Council regarding them being financially sustainable into the future.”

The second option of being a ‘rural council’ model can be explored further, Mr Deasey said, however the underlying issue are the key elements the government will want Dungog Shire Council to meet to be considered Fit for the Future.

“If you go back to the earlier sustainability criteria or strategic capacity perspective, there are some boxes council simply cannot tick,” Mr Deasey said.

 “While there are incentives on offer, the value of $5 million is what the government is offering for  a two council merger, plus some financial assistance to support the implementation of the merger.

“What is clear is that there are no funds available for council to prepare the Fit for the Future proposal and any technical advice would be costs borne by the council.”

Mr Deasey said there are cases for and against mergers and but there would be less representation for Dungog shire residents.

“Dungog Shire is currently served by nine elected representatives for 8883 residents whereas Maitland has 13 for 73,447 residents,” he said.

“Whether our community will really get to have a say or be heard regarding our future is still unknown, but the burden of being a small rural council with a significant infrastructure base and very limited alternative revenue streams leaves us exposed.

“Council’s financial sustainability has been classified as weak with a negative outlook and infrastructure management to be distressed.

“The capacity of council has, for a long time, been under pressure, even more so following the transfer of the water and sewerage operations and the organisation is not adequately resourced to fulfil all our statutory obligations or meet the service expectations of some members of the community.”