The rate peg is the maximum percentage amount by which a council may increase its
general income (for most councils, this is rates income) for the year
. It is a ceiling,
not an instruction: a council can take all of it, some of it or none. It does not cover
stormwater, waste collection, water or wastewater charges.
Every Central West peg for 2026-27
| Council | Core peg | Population factor | Final peg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blayney | 3.2% | 1.5% | 4.7% |
| Weddin | 4.2% | 0.0% | 4.2% |
| Cowra | 3.8% | 0.0% | 3.8% |
| Bland | 3.6% | 0.0% | 3.6% |
| Mid-Western Regional | 3.2% | 0.4% | 3.6% |
| Cabonne | 3.3% | 0.1% | 3.4% |
| Lachlan | 3.4% | 0.0% | 3.4% |
| Oberon | 3.2% | 0.1% | 3.3% |
| Bathurst Regional | 3.1% | 0.0% | 3.1% |
| Forbes | 3.1% | 0.0% | 3.1% |
| Lithgow | 3.1% | 0.0% | 3.1% |
| Parkes | 3.1% | 0.0% | 3.1% |
| Dubbo Regional | 3.0% | 0.0% | 3.0% |
| Orange | 3.0% | 0.0% | 3.0% |
Across all 128 councils the final peg runs from 2.7 to 5.7 per cent with a median of 3.7. Eleven of the fourteen councils above are at or below that median, and the region's three largest are all in the bottom band.
The line that decides it
IPART builds the peg in two stages. The core peg covers cost changes, the emergency
services levy, productivity, a dams safety adjustment and election costs. Then a population
factor is added, which IPART says is
applied to allow councils to increase their total income to cover the costs of providing
the same level of services to additional people and businesses
.
The definition of growth is the part worth reading. In IPART's own footnote,
Population growth includes the change in estimated resident population less prison
populations and less the change in supplementary valuations
. Supplementary valuations
are the properties added to a council's rating roll during the year, mostly new development.
If a council is already picking up rates income from new houses, that is netted off before
the population factor is calculated.
Put the two columns side by side and the region's three cities explain themselves.
| Council | Population change | Supplementary valuations | Population factor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bathurst Regional | 0.90% | 0.87% | 0.0% |
| Orange | 0.85% | 1.29% | 0.0% |
| Dubbo Regional | 0.69% | 0.96% | 0.0% |
| Blayney | 1.62% | 0.08% | 1.5% |
| Mid-Western Regional | 1.14% | 0.75% | 0.4% |
Orange is the clearest case: its supplementary valuations, at 1.29 per cent, are larger than its population growth of 0.85 per cent, so there is nothing left for a population factor to add. Blayney is the mirror image, growing fastest in the region at 1.62 per cent with almost no new development on the roll, and it collects the largest population factor here at 1.5 per cent.
This is the method working as designed rather than an oversight. A council already
capturing growth through new rateable properties does not also need a percentage uplift for
the same growth, and IPART says the factor exists to
maintain their rates income on a per capita basis
. Whether the netting is calibrated
correctly is a fair argument and not one this file settles. What the file does settle is
that if you live in Bathurst, Orange or Dubbo and wondered why your council's cap is at the
bottom of the state range while the town is visibly growing, this is the reason.
Two other things in the table
Weddin has a core peg of 4.2 per cent, which is the highest core peg in
New South Wales, shared only with Central Darling. Its population fell 0.22 per cent, and
IPART states that its method
does not reduce council income when population falls
, on the reasoning that a council
with fewer people still has the same roads and the same services to run.
And the population factor is not a small mechanism. IPART allowed one
of up to 2.7% for 83 councils
in 2026-27, so 45 councils received nothing, and three
of them are the largest in this region.
What to watch
Special variation applications, which are how a council goes above its peg and which are
decided separately by IPART. Whether any Central West council lodges one for 2027-28. And
next year's table, since the estimated resident population feeding these figures is
from 2023
and the same netting will apply to whatever development has landed since.
Sources
- IPART, Final rate pegs and components for all councils, 2026-27 (xlsx, downloaded and read 25 August 2026): every core peg, population factor, final peg, population change and supplementary valuations figure above, for all 128 councils, from which the state median of 3.7 per cent and the range of 2.7 to 5.7 per cent are calculated, and from which Weddin and Central Darling are identified as sharing the highest core peg.
- IPART, Information Paper: Rate pegs for NSW councils for 2026-27 (pdf, 30 September 2025, downloaded and read 25 August 2026): the definition of the rate peg quoted above; the purpose of the population factor; the footnote defining population growth as net of prison populations and supplementary valuations and noting the estimated resident population is from 2023; the statement that the method does not reduce income when population falls; and that a population factor of up to 2.7 per cent was allowed for 83 councils.
- IPART, The rate peg (read 25 August 2026): that the 2026-27 core pegs range from 2.5 to 4.2 per cent and the final pegs from 2.7 to 5.7 per cent, and that the peg excludes stormwater, waste collection, water and wastewater charges.
How we did this
The per-council figures are IPART's own columns, read from its spreadsheet rather than from any summary or news report, and the percentages are reproduced as IPART rounds them. The state median, the count of councils and the identification of the highest core peg are ours, computed across the 128 councils in that file. IPART notes that only the core rate pegs, population factors and final rate pegs are rounded and that figures may not add exactly because of it, so a core peg plus a population factor will not always give the final peg to the last decimal. We describe the relationship between population change, supplementary valuations and the population factor from IPART's own stated definition, not from reverse-engineering the arithmetic, though the arithmetic in the table is consistent with it. We have not sought comment from IPART or from any council, and nothing here says what any council will actually charge: the peg is a ceiling on general income, and each council decides separately how much of it to use.