This week, the City of Greater Geelong adopted its 2026–27 Budget. As a resident and ratepayer of the You Yangs Ward, I am disappointed by what this budget delivers for our community.

The City has committed $171.6 million in capital works across Greater Geelong this financial year. Yet when you look at the projects specifically identified for Lara and the You Yangs Ward, the total investment is approximately $1.27 million.

That's less than 1% of the entire capital works budget.

Figure 01 · 2026–27 capital works

Five named projects against the whole of the You Yangs Ward.

Nth Bellarine Aquatic$24.7m
Drysdale Sporting$9.7m
Landy Field$6.7m
Yirrama Hub$4.5m
Aldershot Reserve$1.7m
You Yangs Ward$1.27m
Individual projects elsewhere in the municipalityTotal identified for the entire You Yangs Ward

Those five projects alone total about $47.3 million — roughly 37 times what was identified for the whole of the You Yangs Ward. Each of them may well be a worthwhile project. That is not the point. The point is the distribution.

01 / The contextOne of the fastest-growing parts of Greater Geelong.

The You Yangs Ward is one of the fastest-growing areas in Greater Geelong. Lara, Little River, Batesford, Anakie, Lovely Banks and surrounding communities continue to welcome new families, support growing sporting clubs, and contribute significantly to the region's economy.

Yet once again, our community has been asked to wait.

What we're told

"There are future projects identified in later years of the budget."

What residents actually need

Infrastructure now. Roads, sporting facilities, community spaces, parks, safety improvements and services that keep pace with growth already happening.

Yes, there are future projects identified in later years of the budget. Yes, there are promises of future investment. But a growth area does not get to defer its growth. The families are already here. The clubs are already over capacity. The roads are already carrying the traffic.

02 / The consultationMany residents feel it didn't capture local priorities.

What makes this even more frustrating is that many residents felt the community consultation process failed to genuinely capture local priorities. Too many people feel their voices were not reflected in the final outcome.

That's a serious problem in its own right, separate from the dollar figures. Consultation that produces an outcome residents don't recognise isn't consultation — it's notification with extra steps. And it corrodes the willingness of people to participate next time, which makes the following year's process even less representative.

This isn't about personalities. It isn't about politics. It's about ensuring that every community receives fair consideration and a fair share of investment.— David Greenwood OAM

03 / Why this keeps happeningThe structural explanation.

I don't believe anyone sat around a table and decided to short-change Lara. Under-investment is almost never a decision — it's an accumulation. And there are structural reasons it accumulates in the same places.

Figure 02 · How a ward falls behind

Four mechanisms, none of them malicious.

No spend reported by ward

If capital and operating spend is never published per ward, a long-run pattern is invisible. You cannot argue about a disparity nobody measures.

Big projects crowd out small ones

One $24.7 million facility consumes the attention and the co-contribution capacity that fifteen smaller projects across other wards would have needed.

Rural and dispersed is harder to fund

A geographically large, lower-density ward generates fewer concentrated, photogenic projects — and grant programs reward concentration.

Exposure follows the chair

The wards whose issues get framed as "the city's priorities" tend to be the ones with the platform. That's the argument for rotating the mayoralty.

This is why I keep pushing for ward-level spend reporting. Under a rate cap the total is largely fixed, which makes distribution the whole game — and opacity about distribution isn't a minor governance gap.

04 / What I'm asking forThree specific things.

Figure 03 · The asks

Not more money in the abstract. These three.

ASK 01Publish capital and operating spend by ward, annuallyA single table, every year, for every one of the eleven wards. It costs almost nothing and it makes long-run disparity arguable instead of invisible.
ASK 02Report consultation outcomes against what residents actually saidPublish the submissions received, the priorities raised, and where each landed in the final budget — including what was rejected and why. That is what turns consultation back into something worth participating in.
ASK 03Bring forward the deliverable You Yangs projectsNot the grand items. The road safety treatments, the path connections, the sporting facility upgrades and the park works that are already scoped and sitting in outer years of the program.

The people of the You Yangs Ward deserve a strong voice around the Council table and a budget that reflects both our contribution to Greater Geelong and the challenges that come with being one of its fastest-growing communities.

Do you believe the You Yangs Ward received its fair share in this year's budget? I'd genuinely like to know — and more usefully, I'd like to know the specific project in your street or your club that keeps getting deferred. Named, located, costed asks are what get brought forward. Email david@centrestage.org.au with "Budget" in the subject.

Anyone in Lara, Little River, Batesford, Anakie or Lovely Banks.
Total capital works
$171.6 million
Identified for the You Yangs Ward
~$1.27 million
Share of the program
Under 1 per cent