Council has instead endorsed the general manager Craig Deasey’s improvement plan.

According to Mr Deasey, the report from Morrison Low highlighted that if the two councils were merged the ratepayers of Dungog Shire would be paying significantly more from day one.

“The community would lose their current level of local representation and the entity would still not meet all of the Fit for the Future benchmarks,” he said.

“The decisions made by council do need to be discussed with the community and we need to convey that feedback to IPART by the end of August.

“Council will need to progress a significant special rate variation to become Fit for the Future.

“The consultant’s report identifies council has an asset funding gap and requires in the order of an additional $4.5 million per annum to address the gap over the next five years.

“The improvement plan will encapsulate the special rate variation provision which is modelled over a six year period annual increases of 13 per cent per annum.”

Mr Deasey said it was make or break time for council.

“At the end of the day the community is going to have to bear the cost of a rate rise whether there is a merger or not.

“And I’m not sure how this natural disaster [storm on April 21] is going to affect our cash reserves.”

What the councillors said at Monday’s meeting.  Cr Linda Bowden was absent.

Robert Booth: There are two factors which people were concerned about – a rate increase either way [of a merger] and the majority of people losing the shire’s identity. I believe we should stand alone and increase the rate base.

Tracy Norman: I have had representations from people on both sides of the argument. The vast majority don’t want to merge.  The loss of identity is a big concern.  We have to reject it, there are too many costs and not enough benefits.

Tony McKenzie: I’ve had comments Clarence Town should go to Port Stephens.  Nothing in the report shows a benefit for Dungog, or Maitland for that matter.  They do know they will cop a rate increase if we stand alone.  They want to be able to contact their local councillor.

Nancy Knudson: It does take two to tango and if Maitland doesn’t want us, then it’s hard to merge.  It doesn’t matter if we merge or not, but rates have to go up so we can move forward.

Neville Bale: I’ve had a lot of discussion with the public and everyone has mixed feelings. There are things that come to mind.

1.Rates, we will pay more if we merge

.2. Lose our identity and would be out on a limb [geographically].

3.Staff placements both indoor and outdoor – how will they be affected? I know we have a deficit, maybe we can sell off some assets to reduce it.

Glenn Wall: The reality is we are on the blunt end of the process.  It’s been an onerous process.  To be honest I knew this was going to be how it would end up. I am disappointed we haven’t engaged the community, but we haven’t taken on a formal engagement process.  There was a wealth of info we could have put out there.  There have been missed opportunities such as boundary adjustments. We have no choice and have to get to the point where we are fit for the future.

Stephen Farrow: I believe it is the right way to go.  I have talked to a lot of people in town and they are concerned with the loss of identity and the increase in rates.

Harold Johnston: A few months ago I wasn’t in one place or another.  I have had a lot of contact with the community on a one-to-one basis. It all comes down to community and money. Maitland has made their decision and we now have to make our way forward. Either way there is going to be a substantial rate rise.  We have to be Fit for the Future with our own actions.