Water Worries
Sue Brooks June 21st, 2012
The previous Council also reviewed the necessity of keeping WBWC a separate from Council water entity. It was always very clear and obvious to everyone that a separate entity incurred costs simply to run itself. It’s own CEO, own Board of Directors, own auditor etc, etc. when the previous Council decided to continue on with WBWC I recall being a solitary vote of disagreement.
But since those days the new CEO Peter Scott and a new Board of Directors has breathed new life into a corporation that in my eyes, had grown bloated and wasteful of community resources.
The Fraser Coast does not need a Corporate entity to run our sewerage and water services. It requires a commercial entity run directly under Council. BUT I truly hope that with the change required we can retain Mr Peter Scott as the leader of this arm of Council. Peter is a sensible, honest hardworking and inspirational leader. He can be a great asset to the entire Council not just one section of it. It will be a great shame if he is lost to us.
- Council related issues
- Comments(2)
Sue,
It matters not to most ratepayers if WBW is free standing or part of council. Was does matter is the level of service and the cost, unless it can be proven that service will be the same or better and that costs will be reduced, I say leave well alone. Based on the state of our roads, the lack of footpaths and the filth on our streets, I’d say council has enopugh on it’s hands without WBW.
Whatever the outcome of this you can safely bet that water and sewerage will continue to increase in price to the end user – us, the ratepayers. Any savings made will disappear into the black hole of Council expenditure on non- necessities designed to increase tourism and business profits. Fancy ‘welcoming’ signwriting, extensions of footpaths into road carriageways to facilitate al fresco cafes at the expense of motorists, and ‘cultural centres’ spring to mind.
A far better approach would be to lay the FULL costs of infrastructure on the people making it necessary – developers of land and re-developmwnt of existing low density into high density uses. They would pass it on to the benficiaries of that development. Where it should be, not on existing ratepayers already watered and sewered.