Toodyay Shire – Toodyay Herald

Bridging the divide: residents petition council to open safety access

Fed up Toodyay resident Mick Bell is calling for Slaughterhouse bridge to reopen for local and emergency vehicles and 150 have signed on to his petition.

By Rashelle Predovnik
July 2026

One hundred and fifty residents have signed up to a petition calling for Slaughterhouse Bridge to be reopened and allow local and emergency vehicles to pass.

The petition, presented to council this month, said the continuing closure of the bridge – impacted local residents by adding extra travelling time for attendance by lifesaving emergency vehicles.

It also made it impossible for people who use mobility vehicles to safely get to town and it added extra time and fuel costs for locals to get to work or get children to school.

In May, ABC News reported the bridges closure forced residents to travel an extra 12km into town, through heavy haulage and gravel roads.

Those interviewed said the closure and extra 12km’s has impacted the quality of life of the 500 nearby residents.

Residents demand action

Lead petitioner Mick Bell said there had been no consultation with the affect residents.

“The community would appreciate some sort of communication with the shire because it has been deathly silent from their end,” he said.

“Hence the petition.”

Mr Bell said council just needed to get on with opening the bridge again for emergency vehicles and local traffic.

“They can find the money to pay two CEO’s at the moment and that wouldn’t have been in the Budget so find the money to get bridge open again.”

Shire says council is listening

Toodyay Shire president Mick McKeown said the original Slaughterhouse Bridge was destroyed in 1934 due to heavy rain that caused serious flooding in Toodyay.
He said the bridge was then replaced with the timber bridge that is now in place.

The president said the shire had been listening to the community concerns about the closure of Slaughterhouse Bridge.

“There were concerns raised by the ABC about access for emergency services being limited to West Toodyay because of the closure of the bridge.”

But he said emergency services vehicles had already lost access to Slaughterhouse Bridge as there was a weight limited to 3.5 tonnes.

“So, they had been accessing West Toodyay via either Picnic Hill Road off the Toodyay Bindi-Bindi Road or Toodyay West Road off Julimar Road,” he said.

“Travelling at the speed limit to access West Toodyay via these routes can take just a few minutes longer than by using Slaughterhouse Bridge.

Building a bridge

A spokesperson from the Department of Local Government Department said local governments were responsible for the maintenance of bridges on local government roads as well as the maintenance of its local road network.

A Main Roads spokesperson said the Shire of Toodyay had successfully secured state funding in 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26 to undertake design and development work on a replacement bridge.

According to Main Roads the Shire of Toodyay has received state funding over the past three financial years to progress the design and development of a replacement bridge.

“The shire successfully secured state funding in 2023/24, 2024/25, and 2025/26 to undertake design and development work on a replacement bridge.”

In December 2025 the shire issued a statement advising residents council had endorsed a single-lane bridge with a footpath as the preferred option for the replacement of Slaughterhouse Bridge.

The shire said Main Roads WA (MRWA) would prepare a 50 per cent design for the single-lane bridge with footpath option, including updated cost estimates.

“This will then be presented to council for further consideration.

“Should council resolve to proceed, the shire will then be required to source applicable funding.”

A revised bridge plan

But this month, Cr McKeown said Main Roads was currently working on the 15 per cent design stage of the bridge design.

He said the 15 per cent design stage was a preliminary design stage that included investigation of feasible options and the suitability, general alignment, and basic structural configurations for the bridge.

“Once the design reaches a point that costings can be confirmed, the shire will be able to prepare an application for special project funding for a new bridge.”

“The shire will then have to wait until the bridge design stage triggers an application request from the West Australian Local Government Grants Commission to apply for funding.

“So, the shire must wait for approval from these two State Government departments before building a new bridge.”

Cr Mc McKeown said the shire had also approached MRWA about the possibility of opening the bridge for pedestrian use.

“Last month MRWA approved that request and the shire is currently investigating what works are required to re-open the bridge as a pedestrian only bridge.”

“This will require installation of barriers that restrict traffic on the bridge to pedestrians only.”

“This work will commence in July and is expected to be completed by the end of July.”

Bridge blame game: Main Roads rejects

shire’s claims over closure

MAIN Roads WA (MRWA) has flatly rejected claims it was responsible for the closure of Slaughterhouse Bridge, saying it was the Shire of Toodyay who made that decision in 2025 despite having the option of repairing the bridge instead.

The dispute stems from comments made by Toodyay Shire president Mick McKeown, who said residents should remember it was not the shire that ordered the closure but MRWA.

The shire president said in the 90 years the bridge had been in use, gradual deterioration of the wooden structure had resulted in its recent closure by MRWA.

He said the closure has been gradual with decreasing load limits being put in place by MRWA over the last few years.

But Main Roads has provided a markedly different account, saying the shire had been warned for years about the deteriorating condition of the 90-year-old timber bridge and was repeatedly advised repairs were needed.

A Main Roads spokesperson said the Shire of Toodyay did structural repairs to Slaughterhouse Bridge in 2011, 2016 and 2019 with funding support provided by the State Government.

“Main Roads advised the Shire of Toodyay about its concerns with the bridge’s condition following a five-yearly detailed inspection of the bridge in October and November 2021,” the spokesperson said.

“Following a load assessment in March 2023, Main Roads advised the Shire of Toodyay to consider closing the bridge, restricting the load limit or undertake repairs.”

The MRWA spokesperson said the shire chose to install temporary steel props and imposed a nine-tonne weight limit.

“Regular inspections have been undertaken since September 2023 and in that time, Main Roads has requested the shire rectify the bridge props,” the spokesperson said.

“A further review in November 2025 led Main Roads to again advise the Shire of Toodyay to consider undertaking repairs or close the bridge.”

“The shire chose to close the bridge.”

MRWA also disputed any suggestion it had prevented repairs, saying it did not receive any applications from the shire for funding to repair the bridge before it was closed.

Come dance with me: council edition

By Rashelle Predovnik
May 2026

OPINION

There was a time when council meetings were built around the radical notion that the public might actually ask questions.

Now, thanks to the ever-evolving choreography of rule changes, attending a council meeting in the Shire of Toodyay feels less like civic engagement and more like auditioning for a low-budget ballroom competition where nobody knows the steps and the judges keep changing the rules halfway through the song.

Welcome to Come Dance With Me – the newest interpretive performance from the shire president and the Committee for Controlled Movement.

The music begins at public question time as ratepayers step up to the microphone ready to perform.

But don’t expect to ad-lib.

This is not a freestyle event.

This is the ‘two-step’.

Two questions only: then sit down.

Next partner please.

The rhythm is elegant in its inefficiency.

One resident rises, approaches the microphone, asks two carefully rationed questions, then shuffles away while the next resident takes their turn crossing the dancefloor.

By the time each partner change is complete, precious minutes have danced away.

In Toodyay, only 15 minutes is allowed for public question time – which sounds generous until you realise half of it is spent watching people rotate on and off the microphone like disappointed contestants on Dancing With The Stars: Local Government Edition.

It’s a masterclass in movement without momentum.

Meanwhile, journalists trying to ask questions by email are left standing outside the ballroom pressing their faces against the glass.

Three separate media enquiries of mine were emailed in beforehand.

None were answered.

None even made it onto the dance card.

Apparently, accountability now requires physical attendance at a council meeting because nothing says ‘transparent governance’ quite like forcing residents and journalists to queue at a microphone for the privilege of very limited interaction.

The rules themselves seem to pirouette constantly.

Procedures change.

Formats shift.

Footwork evolves.

Residents arrive having learned last month’s routine only to discover council has moved on to a new dance.

There is something strangely poetic about travelling to a council meeting because it is now the only place questions will be answered.

Unsurprisingly, the unanswered questions – piling up over four weeks – become an ever-growing troupe of dancers waiting in the wings.

But the 15-minute stage is too small and in the end, almost nobody makes it onto the floor long enough to dance all the questions they came to ask.

By the time my turn arrived, I managed two questions before the music faded and the curtain fell.

No encore.

No follow-up.

Just a polite nod from the ballroom stage manager and the unmistakable feeling that the purpose of the dance was never communication at all — merely choreography.

Perhaps next month council can simplify things further.

Maybe residents could communicate entirely through interpretive movement.

One spin for ‘yes’.

Two spins for ‘question taken on notice’.

And a slow waltz toward the exit for anyone hoping for genuine engagement and their questions answered.

Bodies risk being dug up as shire loses the plot

Burial blunders, and grave mix ups have been unearthed in a report to council urging
action to deal with what has become a serious operational risk.

By Rashelle Predovnik
May 2026

An explosive report has dug into systemic problems at the Toodyay Cemetery revealing grave sites in older sections of the cemetery are not properly pegged, making plots hard to identify, and judgement calls on where to dig are being made on limited information.

The report to council revealed decades of poor mapping, missing pegs and unreliable records have created a serious operational risk for the shire.

Unworkable maps and poor records

The cemetery holds generations of Toodyay’s history, with graves dating back to some of the district’s earliest settlers.

But shire staff are struggling with unworkable maps and poor records that don’t give them confidence they are identifying the correct grave or reserved grave.

The report to council said a loss of experienced staff who have taken corporate knowledge with them has left replacement staff relying on Excel spreadsheets and deficient records.

The report said the shire’s cemetery operations was being managed with inadequate tools, and insufficient site controls.

“Historical records and physical inspections confirm that earlier sections of the cemetery were never systematically pegged, and many existing pegs no longer correspond reliably with actual burial sites due to erosion, movement, or loss.”

The report identified critical compliance risks to the shire, including the need to identify the right plots of land so people were buried in correct locations.

“Historical information also indicates diverse burial locations with varying heritage considerations and land conditions, reinforcing the need for reliable on-ground controls,” the report said.

“A review of the shire’s cemetery operations has identified significant shortcomings in site control, accurate plot identification, and the tools used to manage burials, reservations, and the cemetery’s spatial layout.”

A risk of graves being disturbed

The report also warned there was an extremely high chance existing graves could be disturbed if burials were allowed to continue while plots were not properly pegged, as the exact location of older graves were not always clearly recorded.

It also warned the shire could face reputational damage, conflict with grieving families and possible legal consequences if the problems were not addressed.

The report estimated about $300,000 may ultimately be needed for ground penetration testing, professional surveying, re-pegging of graves and the creation of a modern GIS-based digital cemetery map.

Shires votes to take action

Council voted to suspend new cemetery plot reservations while major issues with mapping, grave identification and site accuracy were investigated.

The decision means no new plots can be reserved until testing, surveying, re-pegging and updated mapping of the cemetery are completed.

Council also backed a temporary ‘connection to Toodyay’ policy that will prioritise long-term residents, former residents, people with family already buried in Toodyay and those with strong historic or community ties to the district.

Council also directed the CEO to contact people who already hold reserved plots to let them know their plots can’t be guaranteed, and a temporary policy will prioritise burials for people with strong ties to Toodyay.

Council approved up to $50,000 from the Asset Development Reserve for preliminary investigations and consultant quotations.

The motion passed 3-2, with councillors McKeown, Dival and Mills voting in favour, while councillors Prater and Van der Heyden voted against.

Councillors opposed to the motion said they were uncomfortable making decisions about suspending burials and spending money without first having clearer information about which areas of the cemetery were compliant and what the actual costs would be.

Council also resolved to discuss the cemetery issues outlined in the report at a future workshop.

UPDATE:

Dead wrong: Council forced to dig up

cemetery decision

By Rashelle Predovnik
June 2026

Grave mistakes have come back to haunt council after it was revealed a decision last month was incorrectly recorded as passed, when it actually failed to get the required number of votes needed to pass.

Last month, The Herald reported burial blunders and grave mix ups had been unearthed in a report to council urging action to deal with what has become a serious operational risk for the Shire of Toodyay.

The report dug into systemic problems at the Toodyay Cemetery revealing grave sites in older sections of the cemetery were not properly pegged, making plots hard to identify.

Council moved to fix the problem by directing the chief executive officer to contact people who already held reserved plots to let them know their plots couldn’t be guaranteed.

Council supported a temporary policy that would prioritise burials for people with strong ties to Toodyay.

Council also decided to pull $50,000 from a reserve fund to do some preliminary investigations.

But the motion required an absolute majority vote, which means it needed the support of at least four councillors to pass.

Instead, the motion was recorded last month as carried 3-2 so council was asked to amend the April 2 council minutes to record the motion as lost.

The Toodyay Cemetery issue has still not been properly laid to rest as council amended the minutes but did not say when this item will come back to council for a decision

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

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

By Rashelle Predovnik
April 2026

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 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.

Opening the bridge welcomed but more information requested

The move to open the Newcastle foot bridge was welcomed by a 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.”

Budget? We’ll cross that bridge later

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.

Audit committee steps up scrutiny

By Rashelle Predovnik
April 2026

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.

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

OPINION

By Rashelle Predovnik
March 2026

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’.

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

By Rashelle Predovnik
March 2026

An internal investigation is now under way 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,” the shire said in a statement.
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 there was 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, according to the report.
The report also 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