Water Park Update

This is the latest news I have on the proposed Water
Park.
 
Proposed opening date: 9th June 2009, in time for
the Queens Q150 celebrations.
 
Purpose: Public education regarding water
sustainability. It will show water treatment,
desalination and sewer mining plus some?
 
Location: Seven sites were looked at, with the
North end of Main Street abutting the Seafront Oval
being chosen.
 
Design: Whales and Dolphins will be predominate
as they are Aboriginal totems for this area. There
will be permanent CCTV security and the toilet
block will be environmentally friendly. The project
will be wheelchair friendly.
 
Features: Underneath the play area will be a 1.8
megalitre storage tank for storm-water.
 
Costs: it is envisaged that running cost will be
covered by sponsorship, cafe’s and the SurfRider
and seasonal attractions.
 
I hope the above is of interest and helpful,
 
John A Neve

BBS writes: we’ve printed this information as contributed - we are yet to confirm the details ourselves but if this is true we’ll just ask  - who will “sponsor” this facility?  Ratepayers via council rates or inflated water charges? Where is the business case for the park and where is the proof it will not become a burden to the community?

The Water Park that won’t go away

We’re not sorry to admit it but we’ve been harsh critics of the Water Park Concept here at Bringbackstrewth and we’re happy to say that’s not about to change.  We’ll apologise to John Neve in advance but today we’re going to steal his thunder with our own version of Nancy Says.

Nancy Says: Water Park is important to our economy.

Opposition to the water park is puzzling Nancy says, really? 

For a minimal cost she says.. is $12 Million for a series of flashy swimming pools really minimal?  And please, can someone give us genuine figures that show this wonderful playground for the water lovers among us will draw in tourists?  There is kilometres of safe beaches right behind the proposed site for the park so why would most bother to pay for a dip?

She goes on to tell us that sketches are currently being drawn up - hang on - we’ve approved this monstrosety but we don’t even know what its going to look like?  How can we put a price on a project if the preliminary sketches haven’t even been finalised let alone engineered drawings?

Now here’s the next interesting comment - $5 million is coming from government - that we know, but here’s where it gets strangely concerning.  Somehow the land that council already owns (or do they?) is worth $5 million and the remaining two mil will come 50-50 from council and Wide Bay Water.  Did we read this correctly?  We were of the impression  Wide Bay Water was building the park at no cost to council?  And, if council / WBW are only tipping in $2 million of actual funds, surely the state government will not see that as equal contribution?

So here’s what we think, the Fraser Coast Regional Council and its subsidiary Wide Bay Water need to come clean on the project.  We want to know the results of the Business Case analysis (AKA Feasibility Study - we are assuming one has been done?).  We want to see a complete costing for the project with exact figures and where it is all coming from.  The ratepayers and residents of the Fraser Coast deserve the truth on this project.

At the end of the day, if it all stacks up financially ie. there is a sound business case and design behind the park, most of us would be happy to accept it.  Ms Bate’s own editorial on Monday was bang on the mark when it said councils need to be careful when creating new feel good projects and that they need to be sustainable.  Nancy, we could not have agreed more!

Weekend Edition

Just as the party balloons have deflated on Kevin ‘07, the honeymoon is well and truly over for the Fraser Coast Regional Council.  We’ve just had a read of the latest council meeting minutes and to say we’re disappointed would be an understatement.

We refer to Article 10.8 “Hervey Bay Water Education Park”

There was a motion made by Cr Brooks. seconded by Cr Harris that “Council undertake a community consultation process in relation to the Water Education Park based on the preliminary proposal provided by Wide Bay WaterCorparation” and “Council advise WBWC of the financial parameters and request that WBWC provide final design details and financial feasibility report to Council for approval”

This motion was lost 5/6 with Crs Brooks, Dalgleish, MucKan, Harris & Hawes voting for with the remainder against.  The following resolution shows the steam roller mentality that still exists - instead of community consultation and an examination of the feasibility study by council, it seems that the project will go ahead regardless.

Further to this, there was some indication council has sought for the project to be “cost neutral without impacting on any short or long term dividends to the council”.  What this means is anyones guess but the only way we can see this happening is if WBWC either starts making huge profits from selling their services elsewhere or they sting ratepayers significantly more for their water.  There is no way even the most highly paid accountants in the country could make the $7 million cost to Wide Bay Water disappear.

We commend Cr Brooks for her opposition to the process being taken by council on this project and express our disappointment in the rest of them for failing to ensure the project will not become another White Elephant - lets see if the feasibility study stacks up before we rush about building it please!

Indecent Haste

We’re not too pleased with the latest news on the Water Park, there are too many unanswered questions and we’d like some answers.

Firstly, it has been a few years since we were at school but last time we checked 12 minus 5 equals seven are we not correct?  So where is the remaining $7 million coming from?  WBW Profits?  We doubt it.  Perhaps there is a new accounting technique that can make the extra vanish? 

Or.. our water rates are going to go right through the roof this year?  Yep, thats the most plausible answer. 

But we digress.. how about we ask why the sudden rush to get the facility built?  There was no rush to decide a site and certainly no public consultation in that process.  Why do they need to have “something” completed by June next year?  What about what the public thinks of the concept?  Will we even be shown their ideas before they start construction?  So far we are unaware of any real public consultation - pretty poor considering they are hoping we are going to patronise it!

There is plenty more we could ask.. and we will!

Ouch!

Reports this week from the Sunshine Coast suggest that the Sunshine Coast Regional Council is about to embark on the search for a new CEO.  Nothing unusual in itself but how about the cost?  Information received suggests the process will cost that council in the vicinity of one hundred thousand dollars and that is not to mention the potential cost of paying out the 3 former CEOs.

It is a scary thought and one has to wonder what other councils are paying to recruit CEOs.  Not a bad lurk if you are in the business of corporate recruitment but not so good for the ratepayers who foot the bill! 

– 0 –

Here’s some thoughts on today’s council meeting courtesy of John Neve:

Fraser Coast Council’s Ordinary Meeting No. 2, was just that, ordinary.
 
Public Participation:
Three members of the public spoke in support of REST, seeking an extension on time for their operation. It will be interesting to see if councillors heed their cry.
 
I put a number of Questions on Notice, relating to the HBCC’s “flawed town plan”. The $150,000 ratepayers apparently will have to cough up in legal costs. I also questioned whether it was true that ongoing developer challenges could cost ratepayers millions of dollars.
 
There are a number of questions still outstanding, regarding the ex mayor and councillors actions in relation to the confrontation with the ex CEO. These related to legal costs, council’s actions and authority to engage lawyers.
 
Items of interest:
 
Ord 10.1  Councillors Superannuation, councillors can receive twice their own contribution up to 12% of salary.
 
Ord 10.2  Corporate Governance Portfolio Terms of Reference.  This I believe will replace the current Code of Conduct, but suggest you read it for yourself.
 
Ord 14     General Business:
 
This was interesting as Councillor MucKan asked if the Water Park cost $12 million, where would the extra $7 million come from? Mayor Kruger suggested this would be better answered in confidential!!
 
Ord 15     Confidential:
 
Ord 15.1  Chapel Rd Rehabilitation and Widening.
Ord 15.2   WBW Quarterly Report for March 2008; and
Ord 15.3   Water Park - Hervey Bay.
 
Unfortunately I cannot comment as result is unknown.

Strewthisbackwrites: It is very disappointing that council chose to discuss the Water Park issue behind closed doors.  The question Cr Muckan asked is a valid one and many of us would love to see council publicly debate this issue. 

 

Weekend Edition

The water park discussion has heated up in recent days.. it is great that we are finally starting to get some solid debate happening here.  We will hold off on new topics for the moment.  We kick in with the latest edition of Nancy Says from John Neve:

“We need the water park and more” Nancy Says. While having
an open mind on the matter, I do have some concerns regarding
the money involved. Nancy Says (12/4/08), $3 million has been
earmarked by the state government, her paper (9/4/08), tells us
the state government has “pledged $5 million”, what’s two million
you may ask. A lot of money to people in Tiaro or Woocoo who
now, via their rates will be asked to contribute.
 
Nancy Says the government has made it clear the money is
dependant on “one site only” being used! Surely if it’s built at all
it should go on the best site to obtain maximum benefit for the
community?
 
Whatever sum the state provides, should the park cost more,
where does the money come from? Ratepayers or, yes there is
an “or”. A meeting of tourist operators at Defino’s Resort who
“didn’t care where it goes, just get it going”, could always
contribute to an attraction they feel will benefit their businesses.
I am sure all future tourists, plus local users would appreciate
such a gesture from our local business community.
 
Enough of building things, why don’t we promote what we have.
The Bay, a playground for fishing, boating, windsurfing,
snorkelling, swimming etc. Do we promote these interests
enough? I’d say not, even our local fishermen are hard pressed
to find a launching place. Where do visitors park their boats
safely? Are there any venues that hire out surfboards, skis,
kites or snorkelling equipment? Do we have planned snorkelling
trips for beginners? How about a windsurfing championship?
 
Why go on? We have Chamber of Commerce and a Tourism
Board that discuss these issues over lunch.
 
John A Neve

 

Strewthisback writes: John, I feel there might have been a typo (surprised?) in the Chronicle if they used $3 million as a figure.  To my knowledge the figure being tipped in by State Government has always been $5 million with the expectation of it being matched by council.  $10 million would buy a pretty flash Water Park!  However, community support is definitely there for the project and like libraries, sporting fields, parklands etc it will require public funding to maintain but the community benefit will inevitably be greater. 

Positivity is desperately needed within the community to help us move forwards.  Negative attitudes, narrow mindedness and lack of vision has held this region back for much to long and the sooner the community embraces the need for change the better.  Change does come with a short term monetary cost however the long term financial gain to the community can be significantly more.