Community's view needed (#821)

As reported in the Bulletin #820, DACCI’s efforts to tap into a major source of federal government funds for the Denmark Aquatic Centre are now formally underway. 

The $1 billion Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) is designed to help Australia’s regions to grow, and to become strong and vibrant.  It is supporting dynamic communities and enhancing liveability across the country.  The RDAF is part of the federal Government’s larger $4.3 billion package for regional infrastructure.  It demonstrates that when communities identify priorities, build partnerships and leverage funding, the Commonwealth Government will come on board.

Rounds One and Two of the RDAF have delivered $350 million to support 81 projects to regional communities with a total value of $1.2 billion.  New and upgraded infrastructure is assisting local economies to better respond to growth and to diversify.  In particular, sports infrastructure is enabling young people in regional communities to become active and to compete on quality facilities.  In the case of aquatics, the same infrastructure delivers significant health benefits across all age groups and is as important to social wellbeing and development as a new road. 

Clearly, RDA offers a partnership with the federal government that cannot be overlooked.

But we need to remember that, whether or not we may be successful in this round of RDAF, we must continue to nurture existing partnerships and build new ones.  Of these, we need continuing support from the Department of Sport and Recreation.  In August, regional staff arranged a workshop on funding possibilities with key input from head office resulting in valuable advice about state government partnerships.  In September next year we will be seeking state government assistance via the Community Sports and Recreation Facility Fund [CSRFF].

The most important partnership of all is, however, the community itself.  The need for a pool is well established, but the question of willingness to pay has yet to be settled.  Although Council’s support for DACCI’s EOI was strong (10/2) it is conditional.  It needs to know just how much the community is willing to pay to subsidise this important aquatic infrastructure.  Council will ask the community to declare its readiness to accept an “appropriate” rate rise.

 

What counts as appropriate?  Well DACCI’s conservative estimate is that as long as the facility is modest, well designed and efficiently managed the subsidy should be no more than 7% of the average rate ($1215 in 2012/13).   This corresponds to $1.64 per week … just a little more than the cost of a newspaper.

In the coming weeks DACCI looks forward to workng in partnership with Council staff, architects and engineers to test the robustness of it’s figures so that when the question is asked, ratepayers will be able to examine the evidence for themselves.

Cyril Edwards,
Vice President, Denmark Aquatic Centre Committee Inc., [DACCI].

Many missing basic skills (#818)

Can your child swim 50m or float for two minutes?  According to a recent report from Royal Life Saving Australia these are basic skills that more than 20% of school children are not being taught.  RLSA Chief Executive Rob Bradley is calling on all levels of governments to make swim programs mandatory in all Australian Primary Schools and wants support for parents struggling with the cost of lessons and “funds for urgently needed programs to target rural, indigenous and multicultural communities”.

In-term swimming classes are not compulsory here in WA according to the Department of Education – so we are particularly fortunate to have a Primary School that needs no government urging: it cares about the children, and with the present leadership team they are in good hands.  But the cost to parents is significant, particularly if there’s more than one child.   Sometimes families simply can’t afford it.  Travelling back and forth to Albany is tiring for the younger children and the loss of classroom time children is irreplaceable.

The RLSA’s National Drowning Report 2011/12 shows that last year there were 284 drowning deaths in Australia: twenty one of these were children aged 0-4. These were somebody’s kids.

This chart of deaths by drowning suggests two trends.  First, there is a slight improvement in the young 0-14 age group  – due perhaps to a growing parental awareness coupled with increased efforts within some schools.  Second, the figures for age groups over 15 are worse: with one exception, each age cohort shows an increase over the five-year average.  The message here is that we would all be safer if we if we were better swimmers.  We’d be healthier too.

The Australian Water Safety Strategy aims to reduce death by drowning by 50% by the year 2020.  Surely our own Community Strategic Plan should contribute by including a year round heated aquatic facility in its plans?  Council has already agreed that the need exists but I honestly can’t say whether the pool is in the mandatory Community Strategic Plan  (Bulletin #817) - there’s no written version the plan available to councillors or the community.

There is however the embryo of a Corporate Business Plan that has been developing within the Shire Administration for 18 months or so but has yet to emerge for Council consideration.  And I can tell you with certainty that the pool is not included in this plan.  If this disappoints you as much as it has disappointed DACCI then you should let your councillors know at their next meeting.  I know it’ll be Melbourne cup day, but the race will be over long before Public Question time that day.  Has the pool missed the draw?

Cyril Edwards, DACCI, denmarkpool@gmail.com and http://www.denmarkpool.blogspot.com.

Riverside, pool same, but different (#817)

As a member of the Denmark Bowls Club I share the disappointment and frustration reflected in the Letters columns of Bulletin #816.  The Riverside Club project is an exciting one, the grant application to the Department of Sport and Recreation was well developed and expectations of success were high.  To be scratched at the starter’s gate should not have happened – but since it did, we need to understand why this happened and what it implies for the Denmark Aquatic Centre.

Riverside wanted Council to contribute $773,833 to the Club for the first stage of its redevelopment (Stage 2 has not been costed).  When added to the Club’s own contribution, a grant application to the state government’s CSRFF programme for a roughly similar amount would, if successful, have secured the capital funds required to build a new club house on the site of the current Denmark Bowling Club’s historic building.  All councillors were obliged to be sure that the Shire could deliver on its promise if required. 

There should be no criticism of councillors who felt unable to support the request without seeing where it fitted in to the Community Strategic Plan (10 year time frame) and the associated Corporate Business Plan.  According to the government’s Integrated Planning Guide, the first of these  “transforms community aspirations into local government objectives after prioritising community objectives, determining Council priorities and considering business cases for major initiatives.  The priorities in the final plans must be of community benefit, affordable, realistic and achievable”.  Under the revised Local Government Act these plans are required to be in place by 30 June 2013.  Had they been available prior to the September meeting, the vote may well have been at least 5/4 in favour rather than 5/4 against.

Most of the above applies to the Denmark Aquatic Centre.  However, there are important differences between these two projects.  DACCI’s financial plan also depends on successful government grant applications and seeks three quarters of a million dollars from the Shire.  But it does not compete with other projects for Royalties for Regions money – not one dollar has been included in the plan at this stage.  Instead we’ve proposed that this should come from a Reserve Fund - as described in Bulletin #816.  The proposal to save for the pool rather than seek a handout was a conscious one made specifically to avoid competition for capital with other worthy projects.

Of course another significant difference between these two projects is that the Riverside clubhouse, once built, becomes the Club’s responsibility whereas a pool calls for user-generated revenue to be supplemented by ratepayers throughout its operating life.  For DACCI, the name of the game at present is to show yet again that these costs can be kept acceptable … at worst it’s a cup of coffee every two or three weeks for the average ratepayer. 

It's understandable that Council may prefer to assist projects with no after-taste … but it also has a responsibility to make every effort to transform reasonable community aspirations into outcomes.

Cyril Edwards, DACCI, denmarkpool@gmail.com and http://www.denmarkpool.blogspot.com

DACCI supports shire's budget caution (#815)

Many people find numbers a bit boring and sometimes a bit scary.  Yet we can’t build bridges without them.  If you just want to cross the river, simply trust the engineers and stop reading here.  But if you are part of the decision making process and want to be informed, read on.

DACCI unreservedly supports the Shire President’s insistence on budget rigour (Bulletin #814).  This has been a prime concern of Council’s Project Team since it began work late in 2009.  So in the spirit of budget rigour, let’s get the numbers clear.

The Coffey Commercial Advisory estimate of capital cost was $8.173M.  In January this year the Shire gave a revised figure of $9.338M with annual running costs of $1.201M.  The latter included $461k to pay the mortgage and $308k put aside each year for a replacement pool 30 years hence.  Thus $769k would be needed each year to pay for a pool without staff, water or customers!

In response, DACCI developed several alternative models and used the same methodology to estimate capital and running costs for one of these - concept Plan A.  We found it should cost $4.828M to build and $297k each year to run including an annual mortgage of $83K.

 

These dramatic gains were achieved without changing the water configuration by halving the building’s footprint, delaying the pool replacement fund until the 25-year mortgage was paid off, a forward savings plan and opening up the funding possibilities to include sources other than the State government’s Community Sporting and Recreation Facilites Fund [CSRFF].

These funding assumptions, based on the Pinjarra experience (40% from State and 17% Federal sources) and a new Pool Reserve Fund (explained in earlier articles), allowed the required loan to be reduced six-fold.  The Reserve needs to be underwritten by the community’s readiness to pay whatever the eventual operating subsidy may be throughout the two and a half year planning and construction stage – i.e. $1.50 per week or $78 per year for the average ratepayer.  This amount happened to be 7% of last year’s average rate, but it is 6.5% of this year’s average.

The Department of Sport and Recreation’s advice that Council should plan for a maximum grant of 33% from the CSRFF rather than 40% (Pinjarra) implies a $335k gap in the Plan A capital works budget … but it’s hardly a Canberra black hole.  Other possibilities exist.  Neither the Shire’s nor DACCI’s capital funding estimates include a Royalties for Regions contribution.  Perhaps this self-imposed discipline needs to be revisited in the light of this year’s capital works budget includes RfR projects worth $2.876M for a range of other community projects.

Finally, while concept Plan A does involve moving the gym from one side of the basketball courts it’s not leaving the Rec Centre.  And with 50 new parking bays included in Plan A (35 already funded) you will be able to park when you have a swim. 

Cyril Edwards, DACCI, denmarkpool@gmail.com and http://www.denmarkpool.blogspot.com.