A radical change to the way our rates are calculated was on the agenda for local Lyn Hill during Wednesday’s council meeting.

Ms Hill presented councillors with a proposal for a new structure for the payments, to avoid fluctuations due to land valuations and to encourage sustainable energy practices.

“What inspired me to change the rate structure was, my rates became very expensive for this current rating year,” she said. Ms Hill was surprised by the significant hike, which she was told had been the result of a 61 per cent increase in the Valuer General’s valuation of her land.

“I just was incensed with that idea. I thought that was totally wrong and crippling to my finances and to those people’s finances that have outlaid money for their property,” she said.

“Just because the land is worth more or less shouldn’t mean that I should have to pay more for the services from council. It’s two different things.

“If you buy a more expensive block of land, you pay for that in the beginning and you reap the rewards when you sell it. But when you’re paying council for services, everyone’s getting the same services, everyone should be paying the same.”

Ms Hill was also frustrated to be told that, due to the $11.5 million maximum on rate earnings, her hike in payments meant somebody else would be paying less.

After months of research, Ms Hill created an alternative route for council, which was not dependent on land valuations.

She recommended farmland, rural residents and businesses should pay 60 per cent of the rates – $6,900,000 – due to their higher need for council services. Meanwhile she suggested Inverell, Ashford, Delungra, Gilgai, Yetman and general residential rate payers should be responsible for the remaining 40 per cent – $4, 600,000.

She said using this system, the first two lines on a residential rate notice (not including garbage, water and sewerage) could be reduced to $902 pa, while businesses and farms would pay $2,435 pa.

“I’m looking for the good of the community, to help them with lower rates, getting the same services,” she said. She suggested excess funds could be used to subsidise solar panels, which the council could buy in bulk.

“I think it’ll be a lot cheaper for the majority. I don’t want to really disadvantage anybody. But the people that have to pay more, which may be a few, they’ve been subsidised for many years - from the 90s til now - and so it’s their turn to step up and pay their share.”

She said she didn’t mind if the council chose to “tweak” her proposal, but hoped there would be a constructive effort to consider it closely. She acknowledged that Local Government legislation may need to be changed for her structure to be implemented, but felt this would be worth the effort.

The proposal will be considered by councillors and debated in the February meeting.