Committee Meeting notes
Sue Brooks July 9th, 2010
Well our first Environment and Infrastructure meeting has come and gone. The main items dealt with on Wednesday include advice from staff that at least two traffic bridges in the Western parts of our region require major repairs which will cost approx $800k to $1mil per bridge. The bridges are old and require major surgery and although Tiaro had budgetted approx $500k prior to amalgamation, and were intending to match the funds the following year, we are still short on the amounts needed. It is expected the funds will have to come from the roads budget.
Drainage problems that impact on Eurong second valley properties was discussed and Councillors asked staff for a formal report on the situation and how it can be resolved. I don’t believe any property owner should suffer water inundation that is directed to their property via a road. Roads should alleviate or improve if possible, flood imunity for property owners although natural overland water flows will still occur. Flooding is a constant issue in many parts of our region and I do wish that engineering and planning decisions made in the past had been done more efficiently.
Councillors had a long debate about Xavier College using a Council public park for car parking in Endeavour Way, Eli Waters. I argued as strongly as I could that the situation be allowed to continue only for the remainder of this year and that the school ensure it can accomodate its parking needs on its own land prior to the start of the 2011 school year. I lost the argument however as Cr O’Connell thought the school should be able to use our public land for the next 12 months. I believe this is unfair to our residents and sets a dangerous precedent. Council controlled parklands should not, in my opinion, be given over to car parking for non public park related uses. Contrary to what is reported in the Chronicle today Council will need to fund the upkeep of this ‘car park’ for the next 12 months as the school does not have to contribute financially. The sad thing is that schools generate heaps of traffic and I don’t believe they are planned well enough to cope with this traffic.
We also decided to relocate 7 big fig trees to the seafront oval and one to Maryborough. The trees were ordered several years ago by HBCC for our entrance to the city but now there are constraints on that side of the highway so we thought we had best use the trees elsewhere. They are expensive and all the Councillors were concerned about the costs to plant them. Staff have been asked to find a cheaper way to actually plant the trees.
Councillors also supported the adoption of a policy which outlines a straightforward approach to rehabilitating and preserving natural areas. The policy will ensure a whole of Council approach to restoring disturbed land and preserving our precious valuable natural environment.
Councillors also supported the move to form an airport users group to discuss landing fees and other management and operational related issues. I believe with improved consultation we can improve the way our airports are managed.
Cr O’Connell has stated in the paper today that he will support a move to extend the discount period to developers next week. At this stage I won’t be inclined to support him. I believe the discount does place a direct burden on the rate payers as the funds discounted are going to have to be replaced via general rates and/or fees and charges. While I agree that the development industry is a key economic driver within Hervey Bay especially, there is a limit to how much costs our community can bare and an extension to the discount, I believe, places an unfair burden directly on our entire community who ends up funding the badly needed supporting infrastructure.
Don’t forget to Have Your Say about our future as per our 2031 Community Planning process. If we don’t have a say I believe we don’t have a right to complain later…… Deatils are available via the Council web site. Cheers, Sue
- Council related issues
- Comments(7)
The ratepayers of the old Hervey Bay Council area before amalgamation are now funding the previously small shire councils’ major expenses, like repairs to ancient bridges and roads, thanks to the State Government shuffling this off on to us. Nothing we can do about it except procrastinate, or try to find someone else to unload it on to as State Government did to us. As for letting developers off infrastructure charges and letting the Education Department off providing parking there is still time to do something about this. Why should ratepayers subsidise developers ? Or school parking off school grounds ? .
We are locked in, it appears, to massively overpriced developed trees with over-kill fencing and obscene labour costs. In future why not use tube-stock at about $1 each, plant half a dozen, cull the weaklings in a year or two, and protect them economically with four stakes and some wire netting ?
The “entrance to ” all tourist towns has cost a fortune over the years as successive councils try to aggrandise themselves with unnecessary competitive attempts to outdo other places at the gateways. They do not bring in more tourists, they are only an ego trip for councillors – the tourist who sees them is already there ! He would undoubtedly prefer more parking , particularly drive through spots for caravan- towing vehicles near the major shopping areas. Or a few designated ‘one night stay only’ free stopping areas. As in Tiaro and many other Queensland towns. These would entice out of State caravan, otherwise through, traffic on the Bruce Highway to detour off to Hervey Bay for a night and spend a few dollars instead of driving on to Chatsworth at Gympie or Apple Tree Creek. In the ‘ hospitality ‘ industry’s desire to attract big spending apartment and motel lettings they are overlooking the increasing caravan users in these hard economic times. Not many dollars each, but lots of them.
Very well said Colin Burt. I couldn’t agree more with you on the caravan issues. Yes, they may not spend much money each, but there ARE a lot of them. Not unlike backpacker. It all adds up.
But on another point – why is it that when certain councilors are mentioned in the paper, it is reported on this blog the very same day as “Cr O’Connell has stated in the paper…” and then a description of what he said that is wrong, but when other councilors are mentioned in the paper, it is reported on this blog as “taken out of context”, or ‘completely wrong’, or they attack the editor as being biased etc? I often wonder about the varying standards. Why do people believe the paper when dealing with one subject, but not the other? Am I alone on this?
Emily,
I cannot speak on all issues, but what councillor O’Connel said in the paper, he also said on radio. Sadly this man is more into self promotion than looking after ratepayers.
Contact him yourself and ask him what he has achieved in his self appointed role as the area’s health spokes person.
Sadman
Not sure to what you refer Emily so best use examples please. I don’t comment on everything in the paper and prefer not to comment on my fellow Councillors comments either, but there will always be exceptions. I do know from personal experience that the newspaper does not always quote correctly or get all the facts right. It does a good job however of highlighting community issues. Feel free to believe what I say or not Emily, but I know I am an honest person and I do always try my very best to write about facts accurately. I also detest and abhor untruthful people or people bent on getting an outcome purely for personal gain at the expense of others.
To be fair to you Sue, I do agree with your last 2 sentences, and that is why, even if I don’t agree with everything you say and do, I do think that you are well and truly worthy of my vote. What we see about you is what we get – and you are worth voting for – to have as our representative – even if we disagree on certain issues, you are the real deal. What we see with you is what we get. Not like some.
Home efficiency Audit regarding electricity. The Govt. will mandate Ergon Energy to make a compulsory audit of your electrical appliances in the home. According to our Constitution Penny Wong’s Carbon Cops, The Green Gestapo and Ergon Energy have no authority past your front gate because we still have our constitution and Australian Sovereignty which overides the Kyoto Protocol which is based on Corrupt, Fraudulent and misleading climate data. If we challenge this in the High Court and lose this is where your local Council comes in. They will have the authority to enter your house, confiscate your Incandescents and remove that pesky, noisy and obsolete clothes drier. They have just rubber stamped thiers not Ours “Sustainability Fraser Coast Charter” with very little Public and ratepayer imput. The Charter is written in “P.C.E.E.S” Politically Correct Euro Ecospeak”. I am afraid I dont have a copy of the latest version of (“PCEES” Translation to English for Dummies)If I can not understand this foreign language Draft how on earth could the local person in the street comprehend this when they made comments on the hard to access Council website?
Climate sceptics. The Council Sustainability Charter is dedicated to helping our entire community, Council itself included, to live more sustainably. It gives no one any power to do anything but provides ideas and incorporates an implementation strategy to help measure Councils success or not in meeting identified targets. The Charter has been asvertised for community comment so i hope you have provided your feedback to Council about the language used and your fears. You can do this via email or letter if the web site is too complicated for you. Council only adopted the draft to go out to the public for comment so it is up to the community to suggest changes. I hope we can improve the charter in this way. Cheers, Sue