A bridge too far

The Old Goulburn River Bridge came under discussion at the March Mitchell Shire Council meeting with a commitment by the majority of Councillors to spend a further $5.24 million on the project.

Councillors were asked to note the details provided in the report and the Heritage Permit presented to them and to note that the revised cost estimate of $5.24M for stages one and two of the works.

They were also asked to adopt a funding strategy for the works, but this was halted when an amended councillor request was table by Cr Rob Eldridge that essentially reduced the immediate spend on the bridge and noted the need for grant funding to underwrite stage two of the project.

“We need clarification on the subject of funding. What we are voting on is that we do not have the dollars at this stage,” Cr Eldridge said.

“I would much rather borrow $5 million and put it into roads,” he added.

Cr Fiona Stevens interjected saying that she would speak against Cr Eldridge’s proposal.

“The amendment is unachievable. I will be speaking against it,” she said.

Cr Bill Chisholm supported Cr Eldridge saying that he agreed with the need for external funding.

“It all harks back to how we spend our money. There is an urgent need for upgrades to our gravel roads, there is no waste transfer station in Kilmore and the Broadford one is out of date. Don’t agree to fully fund the bridge restoration,” Cr Chisholm said.

Cr Lowe agreed saying that there were more pressing issues.

“We have a legal responsibility to finish the project and the community also needs to fundraise,” Cr Annie Goble said.

Cr Eldridge responded by saying; “We cannot continue to waste dollars on this bridge. What has been said by some tonight shows just how out of touch this council is with the general community.”

Cr Eldrige’s amendment was put to the vote with Councillors Chisholm, Lowe, Eldridge and Cornish voting in favour and Councillors Sanderson, Stevens, Goble, Clark and Bannister voting against. The vote was lost five votes to four.

Cr Stevens then put an alternative motion that called for the full restoration and reinstatement of the bridge and that the revised cost of $5.24 million be noted. The amendment also called for a full budget allocation of $3.5 million for 2024/2025 be retained along with the allocation of additional borrowings of $1.9 million and that the project should not be conditional on grant funding.

“We must build this bridge back otherwise we are in breach of our responsibility,” Cr Stevens said.

Cr Chisholm disagreed saying that the bridge had the potential of being an ongoing money pit.

The matter was again put to the vote with Councillors Sanderson, Stevens, Goble, Clark and Bannister voting in favour and Councillors Eldridge Chisholm and Lowe against. Cr Cornish abstained. Cr Stevens amendment for the works to continue was carried.