“Snuck in immorally”: Glenelg council adopts budget, but not without questions over four-year-old $3.5m rate change

“Sticking to my principles, and with my moral compass, I cannot vote for this budget tonight.”

Those were the words of Glenelg Shire councillor John Pepper as he cast the lone vote against the council's 2026-27 budget, capping off a tense meeting dominated by long-running disputes over rates and an unprecedented wave of community feedback.

What happened: Glenelg Shire council ultimately adopted the budget last Tuesday with a 2.75 percent rate rise – in line with the Victorian Government’s rate cap – but not before hearing questions from residents on everything from farm rates and FOGO charges to a controversial rates decision made four years ago.

• The level of public interest prompted councillors to move question time to the beginning of the meeting after receiving almost 500 submissions on the draft budget.

What’s the issue? At the heart of the debate is a 2022-23 decision that changed how rates were structured. 

In 2022, Glenelg Shire replaced a rebate for primary producers with a differential rating system, under which different categories of land are charged at different rates. 

• The change effectively removed a longstanding rebate for farmers and increased the council's annual rate revenue by about $3.5 million.

“Snuck in immorally”: Pepper has long argued the decision unfairly inflated the council’s rate base and said that extra revenue continues to be built into every budget since.

🗣️ “I believe that it was snuck in immorally,” he said. “It wasn't illegal, but technically it was close to it, in my opinion, but it was immoral.”

• While Pepper praised projects including the Dartmoor footpath and upgrades to the Casterton saleyards, he told council chambers he could not support a budget built on what he considered an inflated level of rate revenue.

🗣️ “I don't disagree with the rate cap, but I want a 2.75 rate cap put on what I consider to be the correct amount of rates collected, not the inflated amount,” he said.

Nothing to see here: Newly elected councillor Mary Picard reached the opposite conclusion after reviewing the issue herself.

🗣️ “I have honestly reached a different conclusion on what the facts are in this situation, and I don't think there is such a debt to ratepayers,” she said.

• Picard said the budget delivered a responsible financial plan while maintaining important community services.

What’s in the budget: The adopted budget includes a $16 million capital works program, including $8.5 million for asset renewals and $5.6 million for local roads. It also includes 2.5 percent reductions in both employee and materials costs.

• Mayor Karen Stephens said the average rate increase would be about $60 per assessment but warned the capped increase would not keep pace with rising costs for amenities such as power, water and wages.

🗣️“$770,000 ain't going to cut it,” she said.

• Mayor Stephens also rejected calls to release a report into the disputed 2022-23 rate changes, saying it was “background information” to assist councillors with decision making, rather than a confidential report, and was “not listed for discussion on the matter”.

Why now? Councillor Matt Jowett questioned why the 2022 rates issue had resurfaced after receiving little public attention in recent years.

🗣️ “I've been attending these council meetings for the last four years, every single month, two-and-a-half years as a member of the gallery and 18 months as a councillor,” he said. 

🗣️ “There were quite a few of these responses that referred back to the things that happened back in 2022 as an issue, which is strange because, as I said, I've been here for four years. Almost no one mentioned it in 2023, no one mentioned it in 2024 or 2025, but this year they do.”