Ratepayers won't be getting an official answer any time soon after council narrowly shot down a proposed 10-year historical expenditure report.
At the July council meeting, Cr Jessica Mitchell put forward a motion requesting a report that would provide a historical analysis of actual and budgeted spending over the past decade.
The report would include a year-by-year breakdown of capital works and other expenditure directed to each town in Campaspe Shire, as well as a comparison of this spending against the total rates collected in each township and a clear identification of what counts as shire-wide works.
When speaking to the motion, Cr Mitchell said a historical analysis would inform future budget decision-making and give the community an understanding of infrastructure equity and investment across the municipality.
“This motion does not suggest that every township should receive the same amount of expenditure … but we should be able to explain the historical pattern of investment that has brought us to where we are today,” she said.
Opening the debate, Cr Zoe Cook argued a report of this kind would only stoke division between townships, particularly given that most town-specific assets also serve people from surrounding areas.
Agreeing, Cr Paul Jarman said he didn’t see a purpose in the report, with expenditures already outlined in every annual report published by council.
“I see this as a complete waste of time … I see it as a negative impact on creating (division) amongst the communities, and it’s disrespectful to every councillor that’s ever stood in this room and had to make a decision about their budgets.”
Crs Rob Amos and Tony Marwood echoed similar views, arguing the report would serve to divide communities rather than improve outcomes for ratepayers.
Speaking for the motion, Crs Luke Sharrock and John Zobec said a revision of the past 10 years could provide needed clarity for communities and could help inform future decisions.
Cr Adrian Weston said this report could “put to bed” the common “Echuca council” narrative shared by many smaller towns in the shire.
“In one sense, it does create division; but in another sense, that perception is already there, and the division is already there,” he said.
“Having a report … that tries to unpick what’s done where and who’s got what … we’ll have an objective, evidence-based report that will outline we can stand on.”
In closing, Cr Mitchell addressed the concerns of those opposed, clarifying the report was not intended to establish a dollar-for-dollar return on rates per township, but rather to ensure reliable information was available for future decision-making.
“Right now, we’re relying on assumptions and anecdotes (about township spend),” she said.
“I think that if we are worried about what the report might say – this should be a red flag.”
When put to the vote, the motion failed 5-4, with Crs Amos, Cook, Jarman, Mackrell and Marwood voting against, and Crs Mitchell, Sharrock, Weston and Zobec voting in favour.
6°C