UPDATE to the above report.

Last week this newspaper submitted in a presentation to Council that adding $30 Million expenditure on the Recreational Infrastructure Strategy after the consultation process (s233) had ended would leave them open to legal challenge. Council made no response to this at the time but at the Council meeting June 24th, 2020 we put three questions to the Council meeting. These were answered on the live stream of the meeting and will be written up in the minutes.

The questions were answered by the CEO Ms Ellis. Her answers were direct, lacking ambiguity, and clear to comprehend. A welcome change to the normal response to well thought out questions put to Council over the years which usually fails to answer the question, deflects, and misdirects at every opportunity. Hopefully the new CEO has embarked upon much needed cultural change to the “culture” of the place. We shall see.

First question. Is there an amount of $30 Million for a line item for this project (Sport & Recreation Infrastructure Strategy) in the current 15-year capital works program? 

“Council’s response was No”

Second question. Was the money for this project (Sport & Recreation Infrastructure Strategy), put into the budget last year 2019/20 after the s233 process concluded?

“No, an allocation of $30 Million was included in the proposed 2019/20 budget as unallocated infrastructure. This was in the budget before the s233 consultation process and was exhibited for public feedback. Prior to final adoption, the line item was clarified to be a sport and recreation infrastructure item. This was not an additional $30 Million, just a name change to improve the clarity of purpose”.

Third question. Was it possible for ratepayers to see the information for the Sport & Recreation Infrastructure Strategy in the current s233 process recently concluded?

“Due to rate capping, competing priorities, other adjustments, and financial reallocations, there is no amount in the forward projections specifically allocated to sport and recreation strategy. There is also no specific allocation in either the proposed or the adopted budget for the current financial year to respond to this strategy”.

Very interesting. By no longer having the $30 million in the Recreational Infrastructure Area, Council are safe from legal challenge over assigning it after the consultation process. Or are they?

The answer to the second question needs reviewing. A “name change” from unallocated to Recreational Infrastructure is not a mere technicality, a “name change for clarity”. Unallocated money in the budget is not the same as something allocated to say roads for example. Council already admitted to adding an extra $48 Million to the 15-year budget program last year as one of the first acts of the Administrators. If council did not have an intended need or use for such additional funds, perhaps they should not have taken it from the ratepayers in the first place.

The technicality is that assigning it to anything post the consultation process meant that ratepayers were not aware of the fact and should have another consultation process with a chance to comment upon the item. They were not given that chance.

Now we are told that the money is no longer assigned to that item, the question is begging to be asked, “where is the money now?”

If it has been moved to another item, the public should be informed about these details. If it has been put back in unallocated the public should be informed about this also.

If it is in unallocated again then it is unrequired and so should be given back. This would have enabled the $800 per ratepayer rebate to be given this year.

If it has been assigned to another category it would fail the s233 consultation process just like when it was placed into the Recreational Infrastructure Area last year. It should also have been given back since it is additional funds to what is needed for the current and future needs in this Shire.

Reviewing the capital works information as presented in this year’s budget papers it can be seen that no line items for “unallocated” appear so the money must be assigned into one of the areas shown. Initial analysis shows that the buildings area has been increased by $20 Million.

So, ratepayers are not aware of what this building is to be or the whereabouts of the remaining $10 Million from the $30 Million. We do know that an amount of $2.9 Million was put into the budget last year for another Municipal Office Project and the CEO answered a previous question on this in an earlier interview this newspaper conducted with Ms Ellis and it should be noted that she said at the  time that the $2.9 Million was not in the budget any longer “for the next two years”.

Effectively, what Council now has is an amount of money, a rather large amount of money totalling $30 Million, that is just sloshing around from one unallocated area to who knows what. A grand pot of murky funds basically, able to be used by the officers and administration on anything they want without needing to bother us ratepayers with any of the fine details. 

Now that this amount is “in”, and “passed” the “consultation” phase, it can be assigned and spent in future without needing to justify having needed to raise the funds in the first place.

That does not sound like good governance, that does not sound like a prudent and careful use of ratepayers funds, and that does not sound like we the ratepayers are being treated with respect or having our needs responded to. It sounds like a process designed to work around the rules to achieve ones (Council’s” aims without needing to be accountable.