Council recently approved its 2026/27 budget by majority vote of four to three, with Mayor Tom Sharp, Cr Amanda Hay, and myself voting against the budget.
I outlined the reasons for my decision during the budget meeting and repeat them here for the residents and ratepayers of the region:
“Firstly, there is a pattern of systemic failures within the organisation that have resulted in cost blow outs in a number of projects, none more obvious than the Gallery Walk carpark. In the CEO’s message in the 2025/26 budget, this project received special mention, and I quote: “Major capital works, such as Gallery Walk on Tamborine Mountain, will be monitored to ensure that they are delivered on budget and on time.”
Given that this project was delivered neither on time nor on budget, with a cost blow out of some $2million on a $4.2million project, and remains uncompleted at this time, there is no more glaring example of systemic failures within this Council.
My question is simply, “Why should the ratepayer be asked to ‘stump up’ again to cover the cost of this failure?”
Throughout budget discussions, I made it quite clear that my support for the budget was conditional on the Council finding savings within the organisation that were commensurate with any increase in rates, levies and other fees and charges being imposed on the ratepayer.
After all, it is only fair that the burden of cost blow outs such as the Gallery Walk carpark, Hinchcliffe bridge, and leachate problem at the Bromelton landfill, that have all occurred as a result of systemic failures, should be funded from existing resources within Council, rather than being passed on to the ratepayer.
I find it very unpalatable that the ratepayer be hit with a rates increase to cover failings within the organisation.
Furthermore, there is a structural deficit within the council whereby expenses consistently exceed revenue.
While some within this council seem to think the way to address a structural deficit is to simply ‘put up rates’, it is quite obvious that while this approach might result in a small surplus in any given year and mask the problem, it in no way addresses the underlying issue.
Employee expenses are just one example of many, that contribute to a structural deficit within this Council.
In last year’s budget, total employee expenses were $49.5M or 37 per cent of total expenses of the organisation.
In the budget presented this year, total employee expenses will be $52million or 42.6 per cent of total expenses, an increase of five and a half percent on last year, and in 2027/28 total employee expenses are forecast to be $56million or 44.6 per cent of total expenses, a further increase of two per cent.
It is worth noting that while employee expenses continue to increase each year, the amount budgeted for materials and services declines.
As I have previously stated, this is simply unsustainable, and yet there has been no attempt to address this in the budget.
Combined, the increase to rates, waste levies, infrastructure charges, and environmental levies, result in a ‘real’ rate increase of 10-11 per cent.
I do not believe that this is a fair or reasonable impost on the ratepayers of the region.
Today, I am drawing a line in the sand saying ‘enough is enough.’
Councillors are ultimately responsible for the performance of council and make decisions that are in the public interest on behalf of the people we are elected to represent.
A failure to address the structural deficit and systemic failures within this Council, is a failure to represent those who elected us.
I will not be supporting this budget.
