Fence sitting and petitions
Sue Brooks April 5th, 2010
I hope everyone has had a restful and pleasant Easter and that the waistline hasn’t taken a pounding as mine has. I am sure I will need a couple of weeks back on the Tony Ferguson programme to make up for the hot cross buns and chocolate that I can’t resist during Easter time.
Annoyingly negativity seems to be still taking centre stage within some sections of our community and the recent publicity about a petition to sack the CEO and sack Councillors currently doing the rounds is upsetting if not somewhat amusing. I’m all for community involvement and raising public awareness about issues but to call for a sacking I would think, would require some evidence about why? This current petition has no basis to back up it’s demands. If it did list some factual reasons as to why Council should be dismissed I would be all ears. Financially we are in a healthy position and we are spending more of our capital works budget this year than we did our first year so from where I sit we are doing OK. As always there is room for continual improvement but we need to dig down and find out whether community dissatisfaction is based on perception or reality. If there is cause for discontent lets identify it, examine it and analyse ways to fix it.
Swimming against the tide…..
I’m not sitting on the fence re the pool issue. Rather I support the community in its collective voice about retaining a 50m pool in Maryborough. What I regret, in hindsight, is the way Council approached this issue. Instead of collectively going out to the entire community with several options and associated costings we directed staff to consult with the Swimming Club with the now infamous ‘preferred plan’.
I have read the submission presented to Council via the Swimming Club and look forward to their presentation to us on Wednesday. Publicly I believe it is my duty to await more facts and figures prior to declaring my ‘decision’ on the future pool upgrade. I do unequivocally support the community in its desire to retain a 50m pool. What I fear has been lost in the emotionally charged debate is the ability for us to examine the site and examine best use outcomes for the complex. If the primary reason of the complex is to facilitate 50m training and competitions requiring a 50m length then it stands to reason we retain a 50m facility.
In doing this we will lose some options to introduce other water based options within the grounds. So while we all tend to think traditionally in that a 50m pool is an essential item I was still keen to explore if in these modern day times a 50m pool is still an essential item. It seems that it is, so now we will have to face the reality of a design that incorporates a pool of this size and figure out what else is essential in terms of upgrading facilities in a way in which we can afford. Maybe firstly the 50m pool and the kiosk and changing rooms and we leave the other 2 pools alone and don’t alter the site plan? Whatever we do decide the final decision will be made based on as much data and as much public input as is possible. Don’t forget to raise $5m is about a $105 levy per rate property across the region.
Many other water based facilities incorporate ‘play’ activities and other water based activities and don’t have the facilities for swimming training. I have heard of many non Bay residents visiting Hervey Bay to try out the water park which has no pool at all. How many families visit ‘pools’ simply for recreation and learning to swim related activities? My daughter enjoyed diving and undertook diving training when we lived in Darwin at one of the pools there. I spent many hours as a child diving off the local springboard and find it very sad that due to safety concerns a diving board has practically become extinct at all public pools! The sad thing for me on visiting the Maryborough site is its small size and the lack of opportunity to be more flexible. The challenge for all of us is to find out how to make the best use of this patch of ground to suit the majority of users. I’m sure that if we work together and listen to each other we can succeed.
- Council related issues
- Comments(12)
Hi Sue, Sounds like you had a good Easter but from the look of your Blog you have still spent too much time in front of your PC! I know you have responsibilities but surely you can relax a bit more. As for the “sacking of the Council” we did see the “peanut” on the news. I wonder does he realise just how much money it would cost and just who is going to take your places, Primavera himself? Just keep doing the good job that your doing and maybe he will be like cyclone Hamish and blow himself out!
As for the pool, ok put in a new 50 mtr pool if that is what the general community wants but your comment about leaving the other 2 pools alone is a concern as I thought the engineers report says that the existing 25 mtr pool had sank in one end, causing numerous problems? I can’t see how the new 50mtr pool can be constructed with this still being a problem. If the pool has sunk, possibly due to the larger pools plumbing leaking so badly, once they start excavation it will only acerbate the problem no?
Of particular interest to me as one of Hervey Bay’s multitude of age pensioners is the reduction of the fairly meaningless ( to most of us) $5,000,000 to a very comprehensible $105 per rateable property. I congratulate Sue on this elucidation and wish all politicians from local to Federal would reduce their billion, million, and doubtlss soon trillion dollar fantasies to a ‘per taxpayer’ basis. A tunnel for instance – how much for each Queensland or Brisbane taxpayer ? A water desalination plant, a stranded Chinese bulk carrier? I suspect the usual reason is that they dare not – we might understand how profligate they are and even remember it at next election. Where fiscal expenditure is concerned ‘millions’ are just words but per capita is relevant.
Hi Col,
The reason that the cost has been expressed as $105 per ratable property is because that is what it is going to PHYSICALLY cost each ratepayer – in the form of a levy ADDED to the cost of your rates. So if your rates this year would normally be $1200, it is proposed that it will now be $1305 instead. That way, when they only slug us with a $90 rate rise next year, it will seem cheap.
Thanks Jane and yes eventually the entire pool complex will need a total upgrade but it may take more than what we have in the budget now to achieve that so maybe staging the project is the best way to go.
Colin and Patricia thanks for your comments re the single sentence I wrote about how much it takes within our region to raise $5m.
I must emphasise Patricia that this comment is just that a general comment and no decision to impose any such levy has been made by Council nor am I suggesting it.
It is incorrect for you to assume however that such a levy is in any way proposed just because I have tried to explain some simple sums!
Sue,
Once again little of this debate is based on fact. How many people actually TRAIN at the Maryborough pool for swimming events?
How many people use it purely as a recreational facility?
What is the actual cost differential in both initial cost and running cost between two 25m pools and one 50m pool?
If, I repeat if a levy was imposed, why the whole region and not just Maryborough?
If space is an issue? Why not relocate the pool facilityto to the Maryborough airport as part of the redevelopment on that land?
Why are people in this region so blinkered in their views?
Sadman
My understanding of the word “levy” when referring to Council Rates is that it is a seperate charge – just as we currently have a Rural Fire Levy and an Environmental Levy. The reason we have levies is – “to clearly differentiate your rates and the levy”.
So when (in relation to raising money to repair/replace the currentl pool), Councillor Brooks says, “Don’t forget to raise $5m is about a $105 levy per rate property across the region”, the natural conclusion to draw that this “levy” will be just that – a “levy” – rather than someone just “trying to explain some simple sums!” .
In relation to Sadman’s following comment -
“If space is an issue? Why not relocate the pool facilityto to the Maryborough airport as part of the redevelopment on that land?”
I feel that is definitely worth considering. Why do our sports fields, swimming pools and other major facilities need to be within walking distance to the CBD? This is 2010, not 1910 afterall.
It appears pretty simple to me. To raise the money for special projects not previously budgeted for would require the ratepayers to pay somehow. This could be in the form of a one off levy, or I guess, a normal rise in rates levied on the ratepayers for however long it is needed to get the funds. Nowhere has Cr Brooks suggested a levy was going to be imposed or that she was in favour of one. She is merely trying to get the point across that if we need an extra 5 million or so, it will cost each ratepayer a proportion of that cost. The amount divided by the number of ratepayers, simple arithmetic!
The Observer,
Is it really as simple as you say? Sadman has already suggested that perhaps Sue’s idea of a levy is a good idea – but only if it is imposed on people in the Maryborough area. You haven’t addressed that suggestion, yet you say that’s it’s “simple”. Of course it’s simple if you only consider one option. I think the point here is that Sue is trying to open the discussion to a whole lot of different ideas – not just the ones that you say are “simple”.
Can I ask Sue, why is it necessary for council to debate such a public issue that affects many of us and that the entire region has taken an interest in, in confidential?
This is disappointing and not the open and transparent council we were promised when you lot were elected.
Patricia – Why should all the people of Maryborough pay? I have my own pool, have spent in excess of $30,000 putting it in, landscaping and building a BBQ area. Now you state that the people of Maryborough should pay.
Here is a novel suggestion – why don’t we simply adopt a user pays principle and get the people who use the pool to pay for it. Sure it may mean that entry fees have to go up to around $500 per year per person and we could have it paid off in a few years. That is based on the estimated number of users Work this backwards and it would only equate to about $10 per week per user (based on the numbers that have been stated by those supporting the 50m pool).
Surely that is the fairest way to get this done?
Maybe I sould have suggested how much it costs to raise $1m per ratepayer? Again I emphasise that I was attempting to be informative nothing more in relation to levies etc… Now that we are one region we will all be contributing to infrastructure and operational costs etc for the entire region.
Ben – Council does receive delegations and these are sometimes done formally at a Council meeting open to the public and sometimes not publicly. The reason for this is simply so that Council can learn or receive information. I believe you are aware of groups of people etc who have availed themselves of this opportunity. I could not operate effectively as a Councillor if my every word and question and interaction about Council was done with a public audience and with the media present. I believe Council must have an opportunity for some discussion and workshopping of business amongst itself to function proficiently. We have a full day tomorrow of preliminary budget discussions for example.
What I do believe, and continually strongly voice an opinion about, is the need to ensure that every Council decision is made publicly. So while Council can receive information and discuss an issue and receive advice from staff etc in various forums including portfolio meetings, it is imperative that decisions are made formally and with full public scrutiny to ensure an open and accountable process.
The presentation to Council today by the swimming club, will be followed up by a ‘new’ formal report and Council decision made publicly at a Council meeting at a future date.