The Mitchell Shire Council 2024/25 budget was adopted at the special meeting of council last week, but not without heated debate and four of the nine councillors declining to support its adoption.
A motion by Councillor David Lowe that effectively excluded spending on the Old Goulburn River Bridge and proposed a redirection of funding to roads and footpaths was put to the meeting.
“I cannot support this budget as it stands. There is a serious under-funding of roads and footpaths while the budget proposes $5.4 million to be spent on the bridge,” he said.
Mr Lowe stated that there was no detailed analysis of costs in the restoration, and added that removing the bridge from the budget would free up funding for more important programs.
Councillor Rob Eldridge supported Mr Lowe’s proposal saying that it was important that funding goes to what the public see as a major issue – roads.
Councillors Bob Cornish agreed with Councillor Bill Chisholm pointing out that with the replacement of up to 10 pylons, and the total replacement of the decking, it was no longer a heritage bridge.
“This bridge benefits nobody. We need to address the substantial reduction in road funding,” Mr Cornish said.
Councillor Fiona Stevens questioned the timing of the introduction of the motion amendment saying that Mr Lowe had effectively thrown a carrot into the conversation.
“The amendment is like Groundhog Day. It is just not a valid proposal. Certainly the money should not be spent on roads. Kelly’s Lane, John Street, and Dry Creek Road will just have to wait,” Councillor Annie Goble added.
The amendment was then put to the vote and was lost five votes to four with Councillors Cornish, Lowe, Eldridge, and Chisholm voting in favour, and Councillors Bannister, Clark, Goble, Stevens, and Sanderson voting against.
The vote to adopt the budget was then put with Mr Chisholm stating that he could not support the proposed budget, saying that it does not deliver value for money and adding that it failed to provide for support to community volunteers.
Mr Eldridge was critical that the bridge restoration had “suddenly appeared” in the budget with no discussion with councillors.
“What happens in the south of the shire is not a conversation that should come into the chambers,” Ms Stevens added, effectively closing the debate.
The motion to adopt the budget was then put and was lost, again five votes to four.
Put this council under a administration obviously there are huge problems regarding the money being being wasted on a bridge to no where,it’s well past any sort of repair