Toodyay Shire – Toodyay Herald

The $400,000 footbridge you can’t run or cycle on

Photo: Harriet, Darci and Will with mums Nikki and Laura on the Newcastle Footbridge.

Council will discuss funding options to fix the town’s ageing Newcastle Footbridge, which will now only be allowed to be used for walking.

Council voted to reopen the bridge to pedestrians, with no e-bikes, scooters, cycling or any other means of transport allowed.

The April report to council said there needed to be a long-term financial commitment from council to keep the bridge open and extend its life by 20 plus years through maintenance.

Council doesn’t support a 2% rate hike for a special bridge fund

The report proposed setting up a special reserve fund to repair and maintain the bridge from an extra two percent rate increase.

“It is recommended the shire begins reserving two percent of rates annually into a ring-fenced reserve account.”

But The Herald queried the lack of other funding options presented to councillors – as the report focused solely on an additional two per cent rate increase as a solution.

The Herald asked why the report did not include other options such as seeking grants or external funding, establishing a reserve without increasing rates, or reprioritising existing spending within the current budget.

The funding proposal comes as council moves to reopen the footbridge to pedestrians only, subject to insurance requirements and the installation of signage warning of trip hazards.

The move to open the bridge welcomed but more information requested

The move to open the Newcastle foot bridge was welcomed by Newcastle Park parkrun member who made a statement at the council meeting.

“We are excited and supportive of the officer’s recommendation for option one, reopening the footbridge with appropriate signage and progressing decking replacement through the 2026-2027 budget.”

But local mum Laura told The Herald the community wanted more information about the cost of the bridge and why it was closed.

“We were not told how much the bridge was costing to keep open and it just shut one day,” she said.

“If they’re saying it cost ‘X amount’ to fix the bridge then give us a break down of the cost and justify the spending.”

Council votes to spend the money and consider the impact at budget time

While the two per cent increase, to be put into a reserve fund, was recommended by officers, council did not adopt this proposal.

Instead, council voted to proceed with a full bridge decking replacement, estimated at $270,000, to be funded through the annual budget.

Council also supported a staged approach to the repairs needed.

This included structural works – estimated at $120,000 to $150,000 – within five years.

Rather than introducing a rate rise, council unanimously agreed to consider the funding implications as part of the 2026–27 annual budget process.

It remains unclear whether a special reserve fund will be established as part of those discussions.

By Rashelle Predovnik

Audit committee steps up scrutiny

THE Audit and Risk Committee (ARIC) has stepped up its scrutiny of the Shire of Toodyay’s governance and finances calling for more meetings and more oversight – in a move that prompted pushback from the chief executive officer.

Under the Local Government Act, ARIC is responsible for the oversight of risk management, internal controls, financial management and compliance.

The committee’s decision to step up its oversight follows the 2024–25 audit’s financial management report, which identified major issues that have persisted across four audits.

Auditors found $242,521 had been mistakenly been paid twice, no monthly bank reconciliations were done for almost an entire financial year and the risk of fraud had increased.

Endorsing an annual work plan and new reporting process

ARIC held a special meeting on March 17 at the shire’s council chambers on Fiennes St to endorse an annual work plan and a new reporting process.

ARIC’s report outlined a plan that included monthly meetings instead of quarterly, and it substantially increased the reporting requirements for finance, governance, risk and operations.

The committee said regular monthly meetings would better help them to detect issues early, monitor trends or intervene before risks escalated.

ARIC also asked for an operational overview summary to inform the committee about key activities and significant incidents that resulted in compliance breaches, reputational harm or the need for corrective action.

A reconciliation status report was also requested, including bank accounts, GST and asset registers to help the committee look at the integrity of the financial records.

ARIC also asked the shire’s CEO Aaron Bowman to provide a formal written statement of assurance each quarter on the effectiveness of the organisations processes and to identify any issues that warranted ARIC’s attention.

Shire CEO flags concerns

In response, Mr Bowman described the discussions ARIC had as ‘secret, behind closed doors meetings’ and discussions that did not promote transparency as he was not told before the special audit meeting that ARIC wanted a more detailed work plan.

Mr Bowman also raised governance concerns, saying the committee’s role was to review reports from the CEO and make recommendations to council.

He said the CEO was responsible for administration, staffing, systems and reporting.

He added that any extra reporting requests would need to be assessed for practicality, staffing and legal requirements before going to council for approval.

Moving to monthly meetings and endorsing a complex reporting schedule would also impose significant workload increases and administrative demands, Mr Bowman said.

ARIC defends its proposed reporting framework

In a statement, ARIC chair Natalie Mills said members meeting to discuss priorities and what reporting was required for proper oversight was not ‘non-compliant’ behaviour — it was the committee simply doing their job.

She said the committee had a responsibility under the Act to decide the information, reporting and assurance it needed to fulfil its statutory functions.

“To meet this obligation, ARIC must establish a structured and predictable reporting framework that ensures it receives the information necessary to monitor financial controls, compliance, risk management and organisational performance throughout the year.”

“The proposed reporting framework sets out a suite of standing reports, delivered at defined intervals to ensure ARIC receives timely, evidence-based information that supports informed decision making and effective oversight.”

ARIC also noted that it had requested the required reports from the CEO in accordance with the committee’s charter and statutory functions.

Mrs Mills said if the reports required by the framework could not be produced, that could pose a serious risk to the shire.

“Identifying such risks is one of the reasons why this committee exists.”

Members of the audit committee unanimously voted to support the annual work plan and to hold monthly meetings at the special audit meeting held last month.

By Rashelle Predovnik

Recording a fail: what the Shire of Toodyay’s electors meeting really revealed

OPINION

Transparency in local government shouldn’t be controversial and in 2026 it shouldn’t even be a question.
Yet at the annual meeting of electors, residents had front row seats to an argument between the chair and a resident about what was or wasn’t said at last year’s meeting.
The reason?
There was no recording.

If it matters record it and make that information easy to find:

From January 2025, shires have been required to record their council meetings, and this helps to create an accurate public record, including a record of what the shire does well.
At this elector’s meeting, the manager of finance delivered an interesting presentation that outlined issues the shire had identified and fixed.
He talked about the money saved, in what was a positive story about the responsible management of public funds.
Yet there is no record of that presentation on the shire’s website.
When The Herald asked for those details so our readers could be informed about those savings, the shire president told us to find it ourselves.
He said, “the executive manager provided examples in his presentation at the annual electors meeting, all of which are documented in previous minutes of ordinary council meetings.”
That response may have technically answered the question – but does directing our readers to trawl through a year’s worth of old minutes really serve the public interest?
The information we asked for was already available in a document that could have easily been emailed.
Instead, we were told to comb through the archives of past council minutes without dates, page numbers or agenda references – to reconstruct what the shire had already presented on PowerPoint slides.
Transparency should not require detective work.

Hit record for the record:

In this case, recording matters because public meetings are not private conversations – they are part of the official democratic record.
The shire’s website notes there is no legal requirement to record the annual meeting of electors and although that is technically true – it misses the point.
Good governance is about doing more than the bare legal minimum.
Recording this annual elector meeting didn’t require a new policy, new equipment or extra funding.
It just required the shire to wheel out the same recording equipment it uses for council meetings or even a mobile phone at a push.
Instead, the room was left listening to two conflicting versions of the same event with no ability to review a recording.
And this incident summed up a broader problem on display that night.

An open forum with the floor closed:

The annual meeting of electors is a forum for residents to ask questions, raise motions, and discuss general business.
Apart from this editor, only ten ratepayers attended and only two questions were submitted to the shire in advance.
No motions were raised or voted on, and no questions were asked about the annual report.
So, there was time and there was space.
Yet when a ratepayer tried to ask questions from the floor, she was told she couldn’t, because her questions needed to be sent in before the meeting.
Instead of allowing her questions to be heard – and answered or taken on notice – time was spent reading out legislative provisions explaining why they could not be asked from the floor.
Ironically, it would have taken less time to hear her questions.
When the shire president formally closed the meeting after 20 minutes, he then chose to speak to those remaining in the room.
Unsurprisingly, the ratepayer who was not allowed to ask questions chose not to stay and listen.
If you deny someone the right to be heard, they will naturally disengage.
Democracy can be messy: questions can be repetitive, they can be uncomfortable and they can test patience.
But respectful leadership requires a tolerance for scrutiny – especially at a meeting designed to give ratepayers a voice.
Toodyay residents are capable of forming their own views, but what they saw at this meeting appeared to focus more on procedure than participation.
Ratepayers deserve genuine engagement and they deserve respect.
At the very least, they deserve a meeting where someone presses ‘record’.

By Rashelle Predovnik

Community out of pocket after $195,000 lost in unclaimed GST

An internal investigation is now
underway after council rejected a request by
the Toodyay Shire administration to write off
$195,000 in unclaimed GST owed to the shire
by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
Council instead voted to support a
recommendation by the Audit and Risk
Committee to do more investigation and get
external advice.
The request to write off the funds as a loss
was made because a four-year window open to claim the money has now closed.

Community cost

In response to questions asked at the December council meeting, the shire confirmed the loss would decrease the available funds which it would otherwise use to deliver services to the community.

“The community will have to bear the brunt of this in the 2025/26 year

by reducing the amount of funds available for much needed community projects.”

A report to the Audit and Risk Committee said, as part of council’s standard end of year procedure, a reconciliation should have been done to ensure that all monies owed to the shire by the ATO in the form of GST credits had been claimed.
“And if not, lodge revised Business Activity Statements (BAS) to ensure those monies are claimed and received by theshire,” the report said.
But an investigation found that no reconciliation of GST had occurred.
Records also showed a large amount of money held by the Australian Tax Office that was owed to the shire in the form of GST credits for purchases made by the shire.
“The reconciliation showed that $633,000 was owed to the shire by the ATO dating back to 2020.”
The report said under the ATO rules, the shire was only able to amend BAS returns dating back four years.
Funds owed from before December 2021 cannot be claimed by the shire and this equates to $195,000.
The report also noted that this credit should have been picked up by management when preparing the annual financial statements each year, but there was no evidence that
this had happened.

One mistake spans two shire administrations

The historic failure to identify the money owed by December 2024 spanned successive shire administrations, including the current one.
Toodyay Shire chief executive officer Aaron Bowman told The Herald the matter was not brought to his attention by the then executive manager of corporate and community.
Mr Bowman said the issue only came to light when the current executive manager of finance and corporate services completed the year end GST reconciliation, at which point it
was formally reported to him.
The Herald questioned why the opportunity to retrieve some of the GST up until December 2025 had not been taken.
Mr Bowman said as the matter was only raised with him towards the latter part of 2025 the opportunity to act earlier had already passed.
“Additionally, the year end reconciliation process required significant time to complete, which further restricted the window for recovering any remaining GST,” he said