The budget forecasts revenue of $317.4 million, up 7.1% on last year, driven mainly by capital grants, rates and charges, waste charges and paid parking fees. See full table below.
Mayor Makin said Council had adopted a balanced Budget 2026/27 that provides for the future while maintaining the services, spaces and places the community expects.
“This budget was informed by several rounds of community consultation, including before the draft budget was prepared. The result is a financially responsible, sustainable budget, embedding $2.4 million in efficiency savings, which allows us to continue to care for our assets and community,” Cr Makin said.
But the meeting was ‘testy’ and acrimonious
Cr Halliday set the tone for the meeting during his remarks seconding the budget.
After saying councillors’ ambitions had to be constrained by decisions made last year, he listed an extensive and impressive range of projects in and around his ward and described himself as a ‘kind of uncle’ to Balaclava, Carlisle Street and surrounds.
If that was the kindling, his next remarks were the firelighter.
‘[Council’s] ability to raise revenue is constrained. Each of us has spent the last six months trying to navigate what we spend money on, what we don’t spend money on, and how much we set aside for the future.
‘We all need to take responsibility for this budget. I don’t think it’s fair to spend six months working on it and then at the 11th hour say, “Um, not for me.”
‘This is our budget and all of us were in the room defining it. If we didn’t like something, we just had to get the votes to do something different.’
On a night that was set to be divisive, this was only the first salvo.
Adding fuel to the fire
To mangle the words of Paul Keating, ‘never get between a councillor and a bucket of unallocated funds.’ And the projected $746,000 cash surplus proved too much to resist.
Crs Crawford and Buckingham moved to spend $60,000 of the surplus on food relief, particularly to strengthen surplus food coordination and links between providers.
Crawford recalled the darkest days of COVID and said similar support was needed again.
Buckingham said providers were warning of a food security crisis comparable to COVID.
‘Behind the numbers are real people, families skipping meals, parents going without so their children can eat, and more and more residents turning to food relief,’ she said.
The $60,000 allocation passed by majority vote, while a broader commitment to coordinated, place-based food security action was unanimous.
Fire spreads to disability access
Behind the scenes, and months before the meeting, there was protracted and passionate discussion about extending beach matting to more beaches and for more months. As reported in TWiSK, the $5,000 budget addition was only for a feasibility study.
A clearly frustrated Cr Jay pushed for more than a feasibility study and proposed a trial program. After live negotiations across the chamber with Cr Cunsolo, her initial $50,000 bid became $15,000 for a year-round Accessible Beaches Program trial at Port Melbourne Beach in 2026/27, with a later review for possible expansion to South Melbourne and Sandridge beaches. It passed unanimously.
As Mayor Makin said, ironically, ‘It’s all fun and games tonight.’
Councillors then voted on a complex set of motions dividing the budget into seven parts. The votes followed a pattern: a consistent majority backed the budget, while a minority put their discontent on record. See the voting record below.
Final words from councillors
The budget passed, but relationships among councillors were left burnt and bruised.
TWiSK has chosen these excerpts from the proceedings to reflect the crumbling tone.
Cr Rod Hardy, Albert Park
“I certainly do not support the rate increase… I just hope that next year during our budget deliberations, we learn to think a little bit harder about not just spending, spending, spending.”
Cr Serge Thomann, St Kilda
“I understand that council is recognising the financial challenges we are facing and that there will be significant long-term funding gaps. However, acknowledging this positive does not erase all my concerns.
“I remain disappointed that some practical, community-focused priorities I have advocated for have not been considered.”
Cr Beti Jay, South Melbourne
“It does feel like a bureaucratic budget and there’s very little movement on in-term things that our community may want.”
“At times this process felt like hungry hippos, with everyone grabbing what they can for their patch of town. It’s much easier to spend money than to restrain or plan more efficiently.”
Cr Heather Cunsolo, Port Melbourne
“I think this budget process has been fair. We haven’t all got what we want, but a lot of the work is still to go.”
Cr Libby Buckingham, Balaclava
“We are debating this budget in very challenging times… I think it is important to say that it is a steady budget in uncertain times.
“This budget does not cut services. It does not send us into debt, and we’re not running down our assets. We’re continuing to invest in vital community and arts organisations.”
Cr Louise Crawford, Elwood
“[Budgets reflect] the hard decisions to invest in the common good. To have all the various things that we say we want, it does require us to pass the rates. We have to vote on the things that our community says they want. Beach access, community facilities, more trees — all these wonderful things cost money.
“No one has ever said to me, ‘Take away my library, take away my park, take away my market.’ We only get more requests for funding.”
Cr Bryan Mears, Lakeside
“I speak with considerable frustration and disappointment about earlier comments that, because we were present during the process, we should just suck it up.
“Lakeside Ward doesn’t have any long-term council works emerging or happening. Lakeside has been forgotten, in my view.
“My frustration runs high and I commiserate with Lakeside residents asking, ‘What are you doing for me?’ I’ve got great difficulty supporting this budget.”
Voting record
Part 1: The rates
FOR: Crs Buckingham, Crawford, Cunsolo, Halliday and Makin
AGAINST: Crs Hardy, Jay and Mears
ABSTAIN: Cr Thomann
Part 2: The waste charge
FOR: Crs Buckingham, Crawford, Cunsolo, Halliday, Hardy, Makin, Mears and Thomann
AGAINST: Cr Jay
Part 3: Special rates for activity centre associations
CARRIED unanimously
Part 4: Rates payment schedule
FOR: Crs Buckingham, Crawford, Cunsolo, Halliday, Hardy, Makin, Mears and Thomann
AGAINST: Cr Jay
Part 5.1: $60,000 extra for food relief
FOR: Crs Buckingham, Crawford, Cunsolo, Halliday, Makin and Thomann
AGAINST: Crs Hardy, Jay and Mears
A second part supporting extra efforts on food relief was also voted on and CARRIED unanimously.
Part 5.2: Extra budget allocations added after the draft
CARRIED unanimously
Part 6: Cash surplus and other line items
CARRIED unanimously.
Part 7: Plan for Port Phillip (including budget) 2025–35 Year 2
FOR: Crs Buckingham, Crawford, Cunsolo, Halliday, Makin and Thomann
AGAINST: Cr Jay
ABSTAIN: Crs Hardy and Mears
Port Phillip income growth sources
| Income source | 2025/26 forecast | 2026/27 budget | Increase / decrease | % change |
| Rates and charges | $158.863m | $165.623m | +$6.760m | +4.3% |
| Parking fines | $22.651m | $23.078m | +$0.427m | +1.9% |
| Other statutory fees and fines | $4.633m | $4.645m | +$0.012m | +0.3% |
| Parking fees | $23.189m | $24.326m | +$1.137m | +4.9% |
| Other user fees | $22.217m | $22.838m | +$0.621m | +2.8% |
| Operating grants | $7.359m | $8.032m | +$0.673m | +9.1% |
| Capital grants | $14.100m | $24.224m | +$10.124m | +71.8% |
| Monetary contributions | $11.444m | $14.160m | +$2.716m | +23.7% |
| Non-monetary contributions | $1.032m | $0 | -$1.032m | -100% |
| Other income | $30.961m | $30.471m | -$0.490m | -1.6% |
| Total income / revenue | $296.449m | $317.397m | +$20.948m | +7.1% |
