By Council's own figures, a permanent 42% rate rise costs the average Albury home $770 more every year. That is about $64 a month, forever. And their own report admits "42%" really compounds to 46.41%.
These are not our figures. Every number here is from Council's own rate calculator and its "SRV Scenarios by Rating Category" table.
Your rates bill goes from $1,659 to $2,429 under the 42% option. That is about $64 more every month, permanently.
Source: Council's SRV Scenarios by Rating Category table.
21% then 21% compounds. Council's own 15 June report prints 46.41%, and 51.68% by 2029/30.
Source: Council report CM14.5, cumulative table.
"SRVs remain permanently in the rate base." Once it is in, it stays, and future rises build on top.
Source: Council report CM14.5, verbatim.
These are Council's average figures. Rates are shared out by land value, so if your land value has risen faster than the Albury average, your increase will be more than $770. Check your own property on Council's rate calculator.
These are the three options Council put to the community. The rate peg is the normal yearly cap set by the state. The two SRV options replace it with much bigger rises. Percentages and totals are from Council's own report; the average-home bill is from Council's own rate table.
| Option | Year 1 2027/28 | Year 2 2028/29 | Year 3 2029/30 | Total rise | Average home bill |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rate peg no SRV, the normal cap | +3.6% | +3.6% | +3.6% | +11.19% | about $1,845 |
| "40%" option over three years | +14% | +13% | +13% | +45.57% | about $2,415 |
| "42%" option over two years, then peg | +21% | +21% | +3.6% | +46.41% 51.68% by 2029/30 | $2,516 |
| Today the average home pays $1,659 in ordinary rates. The "42%" option is 21% then 21%, which compounds to 46.41% in two years, not 42%. Water, sewer and waste charges rise separately on top of every option above. | |||||
Sources: per-year percentages and cumulative totals from Council report CM14.5 (15 June 2026); average-home dollar figures from Council's own SRV Scenarios by Rating Category table and its rate calculator.
The 42% is on your ordinary rates. On top of that, the same 2026/27 budget raises water, sewer and waste charges. It all lands in the same letterbox.
Council's own words on its draft-budget page: "Water and wastewater charges increasing by 8%."
Source: Council draft-budget page.
The standard domestic waste charge rises from $345 to $388, up 12.46%, before any rate rise.
Source: Council Fees and Charges 2026/27, item 0032.
Ordinary rates already go up by the rate peg every year. The 42% is stacked on a bill that was climbing before any SRV.
Source: Council Statement of Revenue.
Council says it needs the money for an operating deficit of about $18 million. But by its own Long-Term Financial Plan, the rate rise raises far more than that, and turns years of deficits into years of surpluses.
By 2028/29 the 42% raises about $22 million a year more than the rate peg, and keeps climbing, permanently. This is council's own figure for the 42% option.
Source: Council's Draft LTFP, "SRV 42%" scenario.
The operating hole the rate rise is sold to fix. The 42% raises about $4 million a year MORE than the entire deficit, every year.
Source: Council's 2026/27 budget.
Council's own plan shows the 42% flipping the General Fund from a $17.7m deficit to a $5.1m surplus, with no cuts at all. A swing of about $23m a year.
Source: Council's Draft LTFP.
| Council's own plan (General Fund, by 2028/29) | Extra rates raised per year, above the peg | Budget result |
|---|---|---|
| No rate rise (rate peg only) | nothing above the peg | deficit, about −$18m |
| The 42% option | about +$22m/yr | surplus, about +$5m |
| A savings plan, no rate rise (their Scenario 4) | nothing above the peg | surplus, about +$4m* |
Source: Council's Draft Long-Term Financial Plan 2026-27, General Fund, scenarios 1, 2 and 4. We also reproduced the 42% figure independently from Council's rates base and its own rate calculator.
A permanent rate rise that raises more than the deficit and runs surpluses is not "just covering the hole." And Council's own model (*Scenario 4) shows a path back to surplus with no rate rise at all, though it would need real savings. Ratepayers were never shown either of these.
Council started at about 20%, the level its lender's covenants required. It then doubled the ask to 40 to 42% by changing its own goal, from "stay lendable" to "break even and fund our building program from cash instead of debt." The deficit did not double. The target did.
Source: confirmed at Council's own budget briefing, 1 June 2026, Council's own recording (from 1:54:52).
If the deficit breaks even in year four, the rise could stop there. NSW law lets councils apply for a temporary rate rise that expires after a set number of years and then comes off your rates. Other councils have done exactly that: Central Coast for three years, Liverpool Plains for two. Albury chose a permanent one that never comes off. A temporary rise would fix the deficit and then give ratepayers relief. A permanent rise keeps taking the money forever, long after the hole is filled and while the budget runs surpluses. If this is really about the deficit, why does the rise outlast it?
Sources: rate rises are made under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) s508A (multi-year special variation), assessed by IPART, which approves temporary or permanent variations. Albury's is stated as permanent in Council report CM14.5, 15 June 2026.
Even putting the 42% to the community only passed 7 to 2. Two councillors would not back consulting on it, and the debate that night was far from settled. This is not a united council confident in its plan. It is a divided one, on a rise that lasts forever. The full debate is on Council's own public recording if you want to hear it in their own words.
Council commissioned two independent reviews with your rates, and published them. Not activists. Not us. Council's own experts, and they do not read well for the 42%.
Council's own Crowe audit found 14 high-risk and 5 medium-risk problems, and rated its budgeting "major improvement needed," the second-worst grade on the scale.
Source: Crowe audit, p555.
Council's own Morrison Low review found $20.5m of savings and new income, and said a rate rise is only needed "if these outcomes are not fully realised." A backup plan, not a must.
Source: Morrison Low, pp394, 415.
On top of its wage bill, council spends about $1.9m a year on consultants. Its own review lists cutting them as a saving.
Source: Morrison Low, p430.
Council's audit shows employee costs rose 52% in five years, while income rose 23%. Council will say that is award rises and super. So we stripped those out. Award increases over the period came to about 14%, and the super guarantee rose two points. Take both away and the wage bill still climbed close to 30%, and it did that with fewer staff, not more. That part was council's own choosing.
Sources: Crowe audit, p569; NSW Local Government (State) Awards 2020 and 2023; legislated super guarantee 9.5% to 11.5%.
Morrison Low recommended cutting the Entertainment Centre project back to $30m, saving about $550,000 a year in interest. The centre already runs at a $1.6m annual loss. When you are asking ratepayers for 42%, the more cost-effective option deserves a serious look.
A permanent rate rise should be the last resort, after the overruns and discretionary spending are on the table. Every figure below is from Council's own documents.
| The record | Council's own number | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Staff costs | about $72m a year | Council's own finance officer called wages its single biggest cost, near $72m for 2026/27, up from $43.4m to $56.1m in three audited years. Publish the full payroll bridge before asking households for a permanent 42%. [April 2026 forum] [audited statements] |
| General Fund deficit | $19.9m (2023/24) | Plus $22.7m of new borrowing needed in 2026/27. A structural problem, not one bad year. [audit report] |
| Entertainment Centre wing | ~$7.8m council share | A $36m project, largely grant-funded, but Council still committed about $7.8m of its own "before contingencies," which the project's own advocate admitted "could add significantly," approved while in deficit. [16 Feb forum] |
| Theatre roof overrun | $667k to $887k up 32.9% | One clean example. How many more across a $638m program? [Council agenda] |
| The option they didn't offer | 38% plus savings | Council's own plan calls it "broadly the same outcome." It was not on your survey. [Long-Term Financial Plan] |
A permanent 42% is the path of least resistance. Stay quiet, and council tells IPART nobody objected, and it goes through. Silence counts as a yes. North Sydney asked for 87%, its residents spoke up, and IPART knocked it back to the rate peg. Objecting works.
Ask for the fair deal: real cuts first, a smaller rise, and make it temporary.
Fill out the survey nowEvery figure and quote on this page is from Council's own documents, the NSW legislation, or the independent regulator. Here they are, so you can check for yourself.
Council's own reports, hosted here so they cannot be quietly taken down. Every headline figure on this page traces back to one of these.