Everyone who is interested in the future of our region, or the services of Armidale Regional Council (ARC) and their fees and charges is urged to take a look at ARC’s Draft 2026-27 Operational Plan and Budget. Because of the major costs of planned infrastructure work, all ratepayers and residents will be impacted.
Of particular concern are the proposed water and sewer charges, as explained below. Anyone who is concerned about the fairness of the proposals should let ARC know by making a submission before the 22 May deadline.
ARC claims in media releases that they want a more equitable approach in which “both water and sewer access charges would be applied based on the size of the meter servicing each property.”
Higher household sewer access charges are less fair
The proposed sewer access fees are less equitable, because they are the same whether the sewer pipe is 20 mm or 150 mm. Residential fees will increase from $602 to $625 per year, while total bills for commercial enterprises fall substantially, due to the removal of the ad valorem component (the charge based on the rateable property of the property) and slashing fees for water closets (from $212 to $80) and urinals (from $110 to $40).
Lowest water users suffer highest bill hikes despite cost-of-living crisis
The 12.7% increase in the access charge is yet another unfair blow to low water users. For property owners liable to pay this charge, almost half (5,645 out of 11,647 users) consumed no more than 100 kilolitres (kL) per year. Many would be single-person households, or low-income families perhaps struggling to pay their water bills.
The most recent census found that 20.3% of ARC’s households had incomes below $650 per week ($33,800/year). Paying ARC over $1,000 for connections to water and sewer systems, before actually using any water, will be a severe impost on these users. High-water users (e.g. government institutions, profit-driven commercial enterprises and private institutions) should be asked to pay their fair share.
The real water rate we pay per kilolitre (kL) is the total bill divided by the total kilolitres used. If the proposed increases in water bills are approved by councillors, a household using 100 kL per year will pay $400 in access and $440 in usage charges, so their total bill will be $840 per year i.e. $8.40 per kL.
However, the total bill for the 176 users who consume almost 40% of the water that council supplies will work out at just $5.21 per kL. Even more bewildering is the offer of a charge of $3.35 per kL for any intensive horticulture operation that uses over 150,000 kL this financial year.
Best Practice Pricing should encourage conservation in dry years
The NSW Government argues that water charges should “communicate clearly to customers about the financial and environmental effects of their water usage, encouraging them to use water resources wisely”. The proposals on public display from Armidale Regional Council do not encourage conservation.
ARC’s assertion that the plans represent ‘best practice water management’ is not supported by evidence from other local government areas. Most other local councils charge less for access to their water supplies. The latest data on the NSW website (2023-24) shows an average of $243 per year for councils managing water supplies for more than 4,000 consumers. I
IPART (the regulators for Sydney Water) capped Sydney’s access charge at $96.09 from FY27/28, less than a quarter of ARC’s proposed $400 per year. PART listened to stakeholders’ stated preference for cost increases to be put on the variable usage charge (rather than the fixed service charge) to support bill control and incentivize water conservation.
As the regulators for ARC, Councillors are urged to reject the current proposals.
ARC’s Water Fund currently has almost $30m. It won’t be adversely impacted in the long-term if there is a slight decrease in revenue during drought as people conserve water, because there will be an increase in revenue in good years. A drought uplift charge ensures that Sydney Water’s revenues remain high in really dry years. ARC could consider this alternative.
Genuinely fairer charges and a focus on conservation will not only help us cope with the next drought but also assist in approaches for funding support from State and Federal Governments for necessary major water infrastructure projects (the dam upgrades, pipelines and treatment works) to be considered later this year.
Fairer Alternatives
A fairer alternative that should be considered is a water access charge of $300 with a 3-tier charging system for rateable properties ($3.90 per kilolitre up to 40 kilolitres pa; $5.10 for 41-400 kilolitres and $5.40 for over 400 kilolitres). Lower charges would apply to the 89 properties receiving untreated water from Puddledock Dam.
For a fairer alternative for sewer fees: reduce the basic access charge from $602 to $550, retain last year’s charges for urinals and water closets (because they seem to relate more closely to the demand placed on the system) and replace the ad valorem component with the same fees according to pipe size for sewer as water. The system could then be made even fairer in 2027-28 with the proposed introduction of liquid trade waste charges.
Have your say and ask for submissions to be published!
Concerned residents are encouraged to make Council aware of their concerns by making a submission and speaking with elected Councillors, urging them to seriously consider alternatives before they vote on these charges at the June Council meeting. To give everyone time to consider the results of the public consultation, ask for submissions to be published well in advance of the council meeting.
Submissions must be addressed to the General Manager, Armidale Regional Council, PO Box 75A, Armidale, NSW 2350, or sent by email to council@armidale.nsw.gov.au and marked ‘Submission on Draft 2026/27 Operational Plan and Budget’ and received by Friday 22 May 2026.
A website for further information is at Fair Water Charges for ARC
As a resident of Armidale for over 50 years (and having a keen recollection of droughts in New England back to the 1960’s), Elizabeth has followed water issues with close attention.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.