There is a potential 30 per cent or more rate rise in the wind for Byron Shire ratepayers by 2030.
What’s needed is clear and concise budget documentation, accessible to your average ratepayer. It would seem the least Byron Shire Council (BSC) could provide in accordance with commitments to inform the community.
However, locals have contacted The Echo saying the documentation available is difficult to access, interpret, and cross reference with seemingly significant discrepancies in figures.
The budget needs to be adopted by the end of June with an emergency Council meeting likely to be called on 25 June to adopt the budget.
There were also concerns over the restricted developer contribution funds, with a $2.4m discrepancy with the General Purpose Financial Statement 2025.
Difficult to analyse
Questions were also raised over the claim that only $1 in every $100 goes to ‘administration and governance’ when staff costs alone are approximately $29 million against an operating revenue of approximately $132.7 million.
‘The budget documents presented for exhibition lack the explanatory framework that would allow an ordinary resident to cross-check figures or understand what categories actually include,’ said Dale Emerson, convenor of the Mullumbimby Residents Association (MRA).
Cost of tourists to ratepayers
Concerns about Council’s lack of analysis on the non-ratepayer costs (tourists and visitors) was also raised.
‘Staff should consider what the expenditures are within each unit of operations above and beyond expenditure for residents. For example, waste, parks, compliance issues (dogs on beaches) etc,’ former Byron Shire Mayor, Jan Barham, told The Echo.
‘They identified this expenditure in a published tourism discussion paper in 2019 as $23 million per year, which equals 80 per cent of the funds Byron Shire Council collects from rates or approximately 20 per cent of overall revenue. If Council identified these costs, then they could go to state and federal governments, who do get a return on tourism, and seek compensation. The state collects approximately $20 million a year from Byron Shire for land tax, and the federal government collects business taxes. Byron Council isn’t adequately compensated for these non-resident costs. Therefore, we are subsidising an industry that is a burden on our ratepayers.
‘We have previously used these figures to gain an increase in our financial assistance grant which comes from the federal government.’
A business rate review has also been suggested along with the fact that there have been no cost savings or efficiency measures proposed.
‘Resolution 25-300 (30 June 2025) directed Council to hold a workshop on spending reductions and revenue-raising options and to report back,’ said Mr Emerson.
‘The MRA noted at the 30 April meeting that there is no reference to Resolution 25-300 in the current budget report – neither its findings nor any amended action arising from it. State and federal governments this year required five per cent ‘low-priority’ cuts focused on consultants and contractors. Byron Shire Council has made no equivalent commitment.’
Other considerations put forward were Council look at new business models for both the Sandhills and Cavanbah Centre operations, which are both operating with over a $500,000 deficit. A review of contract work, reviewing non-resident cost for operations to ensure they can successfully seek state and federal assistance for these costs.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
