RATEPAYERS REJECT FREMANTLE FINANCIALS
ELECTORS this week rejected the City of Fremantle’s annual financial reports and expressed no confidence in the CEO, mayor and elected members they described as lacking, “basic financial literacy”. More than 60 residents and ratepayers raised questions and moved several motions all carried at the annual meeting of electors on Monday:
1. The City by May 1 prepare and publicly release a total project cost and completion report for the South Beach Toilets project
2. The City by May 1 prepare and publicly release a business plan for the South Fremantle Underground Power Project and disclose total service charges collected so far including amount paid to Western Power.
3. Council formally acknowledge on record that the process adopted following the 2025 electors meeting where all five elector motions were bundled into a single resolution (carried 11–0) without debate or a vote.
4. Electors express no confidence in the mayor, elected members and CEO, “in relation to their stewardship, oversight, and assurance of the City’s financial management and long-term sustainability”.
Electors said the financial outcomes of 2025 demonstrate a failure of basic financial literacy, stewardship and transparency: “The City recorded an operating loss of $6.3 million, with the majority of revenue growth driven by increased rates (approximately 67 per cent) and grants, placing a growing and ongoing burden on ratepayers rather than reflecting improved financial performance.
“Over the past three years, the City has delivered only around 40% of its capital works budget, including roads, footpaths and basic infrastructure. This level of under delivery is inconsistent with claims of financial success. At the same time, administration costs have risen to approximately 47 per cent of total revenue, resulting in higher overheads and reduced service delivery.
“Despite references to ‘financial discipline’, the City’s long term financial plan identifies a $20 million asset sale within the next 12 month approved by the mayor and elected members without identifying which asset is to be sold or why. Approving the sale of unidentified assets represents a serious failure of financial governance.”
1. Why does the long term financial plan show ‘Proceeds Disposal of Assets’ of $20 million in Year 2 (2026-27), but provides no explanation. The City ‘intends to dispose’ of the depot site to fund depot redevelopment, but does not reference the $20 million figure. Why no cross-reference?
3. Can the City confirm its underlying operating position (excluding capital grants and asset sales) shows deficits of $6 to $11 million a year over the next 10 years?
4. Can the City explain where in the operating budget will approximately $1.1 million a year in debt service costs (principle plus interest) of the new $20 million Fremantle Oval loan be funded from?
Business director Matt Hammond said the City remained in a good financial position with total assets worth $740 million, surpassing total liabilities of $38.6 million, a decrease of $1.26 million.
“This resulted in equity amounting to $702.2 million, demonstrating a healthy net asset position. We also substantially increased the balance of our reserves from $16.9 million in 2024 to $19.6 million in 2025, equating to growth of $2.6 million.”
He added, as with prior years, “market conditions and inflationary pressures continue to keep costs high and access to suppliers was still constrained which means some capital projects were delayed or rephased. Despite this we finished the year with yet another unqualified financial audit, demonstrating strong confidence from the state’s highest statutory financial authority”.
He said the financial statements, “properly and accurately reflect the City’s financial position”.
More questions than answers
High Street chartered accountant Craig Ross disagreed: “The City actually made a loss of $6.3 million,” Noting no mention of the significant loss in the reports presented, the former city ward candidate who audited the City of Nedlands’ financials said in the original business plan for the civic centre: “$1 million was supposed to be raised by the tenanted area in this administration building to repay the $20 million that was borrowed. What has been collected from tenants?”
Officers said in relation to the $6.3 million, “the statement of financial activity provides a much more comprehensive view of the city’s overall financial position and that indicates the city ended 2025 at a positive closing position of $9.58 million”.
As for the civic centre, “space being made available for commercial lease within the civic centre is now fully tenanted. Fit out costs and city contributions towards this are being negotiated on a case by case basis”.
Tenancy fit out costs across all of the leased spaces is estimated to be approximately $1.5 million. Tenanted commercial spaces generate about $250,000 a year. Some are not paying as part rent-free negotiations.
Former councillor Marija Vujcic said the $6.3 million operating loss meant the City spent more than it earnt: “Where does most of the City’s revenue come from, 67 per cent comes from ratepayers. That’s hardly a glowing financial position.”
