WITH the draft Budget of the Mitchell Shire Council (MSC) revealed, a full vote to determine the future of the Goulburn River Bridge in Seymour was put to another vote at last Monday’s Council meeting, following a push from the Seymour Friends of the Bridge to revisit their decision in February to cancel the contract.
After four amendments, the unanimous decision was made to undertake a business case for the bridge, considering the tourism and economic benefits between Manners Street and Bolton Street.
Before that, the matters of how extra funds from the budget would be allocated towards the bridge was again put to a vote, just as it was in February.
Councillor Nathan Clark expressed his support for full financing of the bridge.
“This amendment is about a tourism placemaking opportunity, using a heritage asset we’ve already obliged to maintain under the Heritage Act. It would improve access to the Goulburn River precinct for both locals and visitors.” he said.
“At the May 12 community questions and hearings committee, the public made clear Council had fallen short on community consultation and transparency. We can correct that by being open and honest, especially after consulting the community on this year’s budget.
“The bridge contract was debated in confidence, not because we’re secretive, but because further negotiations would be required. Now with financial context made public, we can revisit that decision with transparency.
“The community rightly pointed out that we spent nearly a million dollars and have nothing to show for it. That’s not good value. Now that both Council and the community have a shared understanding, we have the opportunity to get better value from the money already spent.”
However, this motion was defeated 8-1, with Cr Clark the only member to vote for full financing, and all other councillors voting against it.
The vote then went to an amendment to restore the timber structure.
Councillor Bob Humm said MSC wasn’t in the position to restore the structure.
“We passed a motion just recently and it’s basically telling me we had a forecast deficit of $4.94 million dollars, compared to $3.8 million… I don’t believe our Council is in a position to be spending money in 2025/26 and 2026/27 at the moment,” he said.
Councillor Riley Evans was strongly against the amendment, while also encouraging a white knight to help fund the bridge.
“I can’t justify spending this amount of money on something that isn’t going to give tangible results for the community. I urge people to come down to the south, to Kilmore, Wallan and Beveridge. I get phone calls from folks where they’re spending an hour in traffic because they don’t have the correct infrastructure,” he said.
“I’m not saying the millions of dollars we’d spend on the bridge isn’t going to solve that, that’s not what I’m saying. But how can we, as councillors, go to these places and say we spent millions and millions of dollars on a bridge which is a luxury.
“I hope there is a white knight that funds it, I really do; but how can we go down to places where we are first and second in the state for towns for domestic violence, where we lack funding in certain areas. We have to spend the money where we need it.”
Councillor Claudia James said it should be up to the State Government to decide if it is valuable, rather than the MSC.
“I understand there are some people who are passionate about the bridge, however, the bridge itself is in terrible disrepair. I was quite shocked when I first looked at it. The Mitchell Shire is an interfaced council, which is under a lot of financial burdens as there are a lot of areas that do not have the facilities they actually need,” she said.
“One thing I am concerned about is that it was actually gifted many years ago to the Seymour Shire, and I feel we have inherited a poisoned chalice. Over time, it has been neglected, and it’s come to this state of disrepair, and I feel if it is so valuable to the state of Victoria, they should not be putting on to its councils the burden of maintaining its assets.”
The motion was again defeated soundly, 8-1, with Cr Clark voting for, and all other councillors against.
The next amendment was the addition of a $150,000 allocation for waterproofing works.
The amendment was again defeated 8-1.
The final amendment was the proposal for an $80,000 business case, with Councillor Ned Jeffrey declaring this to be the most common-sense proposal in motioning it.
“What I would like to say regarding this matter as a proud Seymour family and person is that the previous Council has run us into a financial position that doesn’t allow some of the previous expenditures from the previous amendments,” he said.
“This amendment brings to light an important feature a member of the public told me, that the involvement of Seymour with the Goulburn River is almost zero.
“This amendment, specifically to where the river comes to the town, is the place where any economic or financial or social benefit can be extracted.
“The business case needs to be brought back to the Goulburn River precinct, it needs to be developed; we need to work out how the town can extract benefit out of the river like all the other towns along the Murray and Goulburn Rivers do, that Seymour does not do, and if it’s shown to be economically beneficial, socially beneficial and any other benefits the town can extract, I’ll be all for it expanding beyond that point.”
This motion was carried unanimously, as was the Budget with the amendment following that.
