MBCA FINAL SUBMISSION ON TULLY MULTI PURPOSE CENTRE
December 1, 2005
RESERVATIONS & CONCERNS ON THE PROPOSED MULTI-PURPOSE CENTRE
The submission
lodged today on behalf of the residents and ratepayers of Mission
Beach presents our reservations on both the concept and the financial assumptions of the multi-purpose centre as presented on November 10th by
Martin Lambert. We are concerned with the initial and ongoing affordability of
the Centre to the community and we are concerned with the lack of due public process in determining the need for a multi-purpose
facility. The submission is not, and should not be construed as, opposition to a Hall for Tully High School, or a Civic/Cultural Centre
for the Shire.
The grounds
for our reservations are:
1. Council does not have a mandate from the electorate to finance this facility.
At
no time prior to the March 2004 election has either the incumbent Mayor or Councillors proposed a multi-purpose centre or
indicated an estimated capital cost
of $4.5 million. The stated policy of Mayor Galeano prior to the election was for a “Civic Centre – a far cheaper
‘large venue’ option may be available: a shared facility with Tully
High School, the greater part of the cost and all maintenance
covered by Education Queensland.”
At
that time, the capital cost projections made public were a total of $1.5 million of which ratepayer funds through Cardwell
Shire Council would contribute approximately one-third, or $500,000. Ratepayer contributions have now escalated to almost
$1.4 million.
At
that time, the concept was for a Civic Centre or a Cultural Centre to be used for theatre, arts, ceremonies and so on –
in other words, a specific purpose Hall.
Since
that time, the concept has become a multi-purpose facility costing 200% more to construct. Our members do not know why. No
public process has been undertaken to determine the necessity or desirability for this change of concept. We have been presented
with only one option and subsequent public meetings have merely attempted to justify the outcome rather than determine if
it is the right outcome.
Since
that time, the promise that all maintenance would be covered by Education Queensland has changed to on-going ratepayer contributions
in perpetuity.
Responsible
government requires Council to postpone advancement of this project until either:
- a professionally prepared cost/benefit analysis is undertaken, and
- alternative scenarios are investigated with equal diligence, and/or
- it
is given a mandate from the electorate at the 2008 election, or
- it
conducts a referendum of ratepayers as the next immediate step
2. Council would be fiscally irresponsible in progressing any further until financial
assumptions are substantiated and made available for public scrutiny.
In
the absence of detailed working documents, the financial assumptions contained in the Draft Feasibility are highly questionable. Appendix A lists our detailed comments on the assumptions presented in the Draft Concept
& Feasibility document.
If
any of the proposed seven (7) capital funding sources either fall short or fall over, will Council withdraw from the project?
The feasibility study assumes that all of the proposed sources will deliver.
If
proposed user groups fail to provide ‘letters of commitment’ to use a facility which will cost them around 50%
more in fees than the ‘Igloo’’, will Council withdraw? If fees are reduced to make the centre more affordable
what does this do to the revenue and operating loss projections?
If
detailed costings for construction and outfitting blow out to more than the 14% buffer allowed for, will Council withdraw?
It is already evident that significant items such as movie projection equipment and kitchen set-up capable of catering for
1000 people have not been factored into the analysis.
Can
sufficient public benefit be justified for a complex generating a LOSS of between $77,000 - $88,000 a year? Existing public
facilities such as the ‘Igloo’ will still incur costs and will lose revenue which will increase the absolute loss
to Council.
3. The timing of this project is inconsistent with a ‘whole of shire’
responsibility
Since
being elected in March 2004, this Council has spent or is in the process of spending around $1million on the Tully Library
upgrade and around $1 million on the Tully Pool upgrade. To spend a further $1.4 million of ratepayers money in Tully at this
time is to deny the availability of money for major capital works in other parts of the Shire. The $1.4m will represent the
largest outlay of ratepayer funds in the Shire’s history for limited public benefit.
This
facility, or indeed, the less extravagant Civic/Cultural Centre concept has never rated top position on any studies for Shire
infrastructure. The public have already indicated their priorities and it behoves Council to deliver in sequence.
Any
suggestion that “Mission Beach
got $25+ million for sewerage” should be immediately refuted by Council. Mission
Beach sewerage was funded by a Government grant and borrowings are funded by a levy
on Mission Beach
ratepayers and has therefore incurred no cost whatsoever to Council ratepayers elsewhere in the Shire.
4. No assurance of capped capital cost or capped ongoing costs have been provided
By
proceeding with this project, this Council will commit it and future Councils to an annual perennial LOSS on an asset it doesn’t
own or control. As refurbishment and repair costs accrue every 5 to 7 years,
the liability will escalate. So far, no assurance has been given to ratepayers that a levy will never be imposed. Councillors
have already talked about the rate increase required to fund the loss.
5. The perspective is single-minded and narrow
The
‘Igloo’ is under going repair to the roof. Provision of a new floor, air-conditioning and curtaining has been
estimated at $500,000. This facility has the capacity to continue to provide an appropriate venue for the Shire.
Community
Halls throughout the Shire could be upgraded to provide better, localized facilities to benefit the wider community.
Ratepayers
own the assets and infrastructure of Council. While, on paper, it would appear that Council gets ‘more bang for its
bucks” by combining with Education Qld to spend $1.4 million of ratepayers money on the proposed $4.5 million facility,
the reality is that it neither owns nor controls the asset. Over time, the concern is that Council will be out-negotiated
by EQ interests to the extent that school ‘ownership’ will dominate public access, and importantly, liquidation
of that asset.
6. Lack of Transparency of Public Information
It
has become apparent that potential user groups had not been adequately informed of proposed hire fees and responsibilities
in preparing the Draft Feasibility. What will happen to user groups intentions when they learn that:
· Hire fees for sporting groups will be around 45% higher than
the ‘Igloo’?
· Public liability insurance necessary for events with alcohol,
such as weddings, balls, dinners etc will be $500+ on top of the hire fee
· Liquor Licensing laws require either an appropriately licensed
caterer to be engaged or a liquor permit to be approved
· Movies may not be ‘first run’ – and are therefore
available on DVD or video
No
detail has been provided on Centres offered as comparative examples to support the Feasibility. Our research has discovered
that:
· Atherton: multi purpose centre featuring basketball court, stage,
kitchen, air conditioning, specially treated timber floor – used by the school and public for sport and weddings etc
– TOTAL COST = $544,000 in 1994, approximately equal to $735,000 in todays dollars, nowhere near $4.5 million!
· Mossman: sporting complex featuring 2 basketball courts &
a gymnasium, it has a foyer and amenities, including disabled toilets. A portable stage is used for theatre, presentations
etc. – used by the school and public organizations with revenue remitted to the school which has total responsibility
for operational costs – no annual liability on Council at all. Revenue is used exclusively for re-treating the floor
and further enhancements, such as air-conditioning. Initial capital cost = $1 million
about 8 years ago ($1.3mill approx. in todays dollars) of which Council contributed half as a one-off cost. Education
Queensland contributed zero dollars in lieu of providing
the land.
· A more recent example is Mareeba. The facility at Mareeba High School
is likely to include a multi-use basketball court, stage for performing arts, equipment stores, amenities, canteen, chair
storage, dressing rooms and a prop hall. And how is this being funded? Federal and State Government grants of $1.5 million,
no Council contributions at all. See attached press release from Ron Boswell’s Office. This funding will kick-start
what is likely to be a staged development utilizing grants in future years.
In
summary, we have strong reservations on the affordability of the multi-purpose centre as currently proposed based on:
· information provided
to date which is inadequate and unsubstantiated
· the fact that other
options have not been explored or presented
· that Council has
not been given a mandate by the electorate and/or ratepayers to commit to this
level of initial and ongoing funding
· absence of a needs analysis which demonstrates that a multi-purpose
centre is needed rather than a more affordable Civic Centre Hall.
· Ratepayer contributions required to fund this concept are excessive
relative to similar towns with similar school and shire .populations.
We
urge Council to be realistic and responsible in committing ratepayer funds to an asset it will not own. While we support the
need for Tully High School
to have better facilities we believe that there are other options available which have not been adequately explored but would
have the potential to gain community support if funded at a more acceptable level.
We attach copies of the many questions and concerns we have raised in the May and November
presentations to complete the record of our ongoing concern. We also attach a detailed review of the Draft Feasibility document.
Yours
sincerely
Rhonda
Murdoch
Vice
President South
Mission Beach Community Association
