The audit could cost the council up to $40,000 however, raising concern from some councillors.

Councillor Tim Walker moved a motion at Thursday's council meeting for the audit to review the rationale and objections of the grants program, the process for receipt, assessment and awarding of grants, and to review the rigour in determining "genuine need" of successful organisations.

MORE ON THE COUNCIL'S GRANTS:

Councillor Danny Gibson successfully moved an amendment for the audit to also assess the "on-the-ground impact" of the grants and whether the objectives of the program were achieved.

Councillor Karina Stojansek excused herself from the vote with a declaration of interest, however this was not further detailed. She voted in favour of the grants package at the April 2 meeting of council.

Businesses have raised concerns about the $550,000 Level 2 grants, which appeared to be exhausted within three working days of opening with claims that a marketing company had quickly signed up businesses to increase its client base, and that some recipients may not have been in "genuine need".

The council has promised to release a full list of successful organisations, but this would need to wait until the entire grants program was complete, including the Level 1 grants.

Cr Walker said the audit would provide transparency to the process.

"It's our job to look after our community, it's our job to do that equitably, and if we're not doing it right, we need to know. And the community needs to know," he said.

Councillor Hugh McKenzie first raised the prospect that the audit could cost the council between $30,000 and $40,000, funds that he said "anecdotally" could be used for other projects, but he voted in favour of the audit.

He said a lot of the criticism from the community was based on "innuendo and hearsay".

Councillor Rob Soward had a similar view, believing the council had been subject to unfair criticism on social media.

"Other instances where I've been really disappointed is where there have been people who have wanted to prosecute a case of what we've done on social media with no evidence, just run commentary on what we've done," he said.

"My disappointment comes from the fact that, whilst of course we need to be transparent and we need to be open, those who criticise us for wasting money will have a crack at us I'm sure about the cost of whatever this will be, which is further money which we could have put into a package to support those in need."

Councillor Andrea Dawkins was keen to ensure that the auditor came from a "neutral standpoint" with "no existing connections to council" to ensure maximum transparency and accountability, a view supported by Councillor Paul Spencer.