Pool vote information 'inadequate' (#829)

Voting in the pool referendum will close today.  Postal votes must be postmarked no later than 4pm on 5 April.  Judging from last week’s “Information Evening” arranged by Council, the information supplied by Council was both untimely and inadequate.  

For fear of initiating debate, DACCI was not allowed to clarify its plans or comment or correct any misunderstandings although other audience members were allowed to make statements.  The following typifies the questions and the answers - provided mostly by the CEO or the Shire President. 

Q: Why didn’t this Information Evening take place before the ballot papers were distributed?
A: There wasn’t time!  In retrospect it would have been better to do so.

Q: What proportion of voters actually live in Denmark Shire?
A: Only those who pay rates directly to Council may vote.  About 43% of ratepayers are non-resident.

Q: Tenants also pay rates indirectly as a component of their rent.   As residents who would use the pool, why have they been excluded?
A: This was a Council decision.

Q: Will Council confirm that the sum of $534,000, referred to as “running costs” in the referendum documents, is based on old technology and that a professional analysis shows modern energy options should result in an annual saving of at least $70,000? 
A: Yes.  However, the analysis was not formally available to staff when the referendum documents were finalised.

Q: Will Council confirm that the professional Feasibility Study recommended a more realistic projection of user participation that would improve annual revenue by about $100k.  This, together with the $70k mentioned earlier, would reduce the required subsidy to a more affordable $364k (7.8%).
A: Yes … and such a participation rate would match the Albany experience.  However, Council needs to take a conservative view.

Q: Can the community trust Council Staff to pursue grant applications with enthusiasm and energy should Council decide to proceed?
A: Yes.  Council staff like big projects and can relied upon to excel. 

Q: What response rate will Council need in order to feel that the referendum outcome represents the views of the community?
A: Indications look good … the Shire has already received about 1,000 votes.  [CG1] The Shire President declared he would encourage Council to proceed if the vote was 51 to 49 in favour.  Individual Councillors will vote as they see fit. 

Q: Has Council taken the community health benefits into account?
A: They are recognised … but dollars saved on the nation’s health bill are not directly relevant to Council.

Q: What was the rate increase required to support the Recreation Centre in its early years?
A: Around 23%  - twice that proposed here!

VOTE YES TO TODAY’S VISION TOO!  YOU STILL HAVE TIME!

Cyril Edwards, Vice President, DACCI.

---

Time to have your say on pool future

At last the pool referendum documents have been posted to ratepayers.

Both ratepayers and tenants need to be clear that Council seeks guidance on two questions.  First, it seeks your permission to invest a fixed amount each year into the existing Aquatic Facility Development Fund that is quarantined for pool use only.  This annual investment needs to be sizeable if it is to attract support from State and Federal agencies.  But it is a fixed dollar amount each year until the pool is built.  At $535k, it is equivalent to 11.45% of the current rates, but if rate increases follow trend, the percentage would be halved in ten years.

Once the pool becomes operational, the annual investment would become a subsidy to cover the gap between operating revenue and operating expenses.  DACCI’s modelling, backed by professional assessment of energy options, indicates that the subsidy should be considerably smaller than the sum needed in the initial investment stage.  Just how much smaller depends largely on patronage but we can see at least $70k savings in energy costs alone (Council’s numbers do not yet take this into account).  

These two propositions –the first to save, the second to support – are the core of the referendum.  But obviously, only one question needs to be asked – do you or do you not support a special rate increase for the pool. 

If you have not received a ballot paper, you still have a role.  If you support this visionary project you should let your landlord know.  You can also contact State and Federal politicians to help create momentum for funding.  Your letter will count.

WA Senator Dean Smith emphasised this point during a recent meeting with DACCI.   He is conversant with all the benefits a pool can bring to a community and is supportive of our resolve to apply for Federal funding.  We will meet with him again later this month.

Ray Colyer, the Liberal Party candidate for the State seat of Warren Blackwood has also met with the DACCI committee.  As mayor of Augusta Margaret River he has first hand experience of community pool operation.   He made the point that pools should be seen as community service obligations that Councils should strive to fulfil.

DACCI encourages ratepayers to have their say by voting in the Referendum, and all other residents to make their views known to their councillors and political representatives. 

Local architects, working with award winning and experienced pool designers, have offered a flowing contemporary building incorporating best practice environmentally sensitive design.  If realised, it will cater for community needs into the foreseeable future.  What’s more, when it does need to be replaced, our financial model provides a head start for the community of the day: it will have a reserve fund with a healthy balance of half the anticipated replacement cost.

For yourself, your children, your grandchildren and for your community, vote YES!

Cyril Edwards
Vice President, DACCI

Let it be ... vote YES

Vote may be a week away

Referendum papers will be distributed soon – possibly by 15 March.  When you receive them, you will have three weeks to return your ballot papers.  All ratepayers and residents must understand what is at stake.  This is not just about us today, it’s really about providing an exciting, well thought-out aquatic centre for current and future generations.

A YES vote will be an investment in a first class development that promises a dividend of improved fitness, health and social well-being for all ages and generations to come.  It will come at the cost of a ratepayer subsidy which is roughly the same as last year’s rate increase – but this time there’d be a more tangible outcome.  The funds that result will be quarantined and the annual subsidy will be a fixed dollar amount not a fixed percentage.

A NO vote cannot be reversed.  It will be the end of the project.  There can be no resurrection.

On a lighter note … Legend has it that when Archimedes suddenly saw the solution to a problem that had been bugging him for ages, he leaped from his bath and took to the streets naked, so excited by his discovery that he had forgotten to dress, crying ‘Eureka’ ("I have found it!"). 

My own Eureka moment came with my first glimpse of the Pixeltrix-Bollig concept plan for the redeveloped Denmark Leisure Centre.  There were no beautiful 3D impressions at that stage– just a site plan.  From that moment on, I knew that it would be a winner.  The architects had solved a problem that had bothered me for ages … i.e. “where to put the front door”?  Their solution, like all the best, was simple and elegant.

I’m talking swimming pools of course ... should the ‘main’ entry face the footy oval or the old drive-in movie site at the ‘back’?  Answer?  Strikingly simple … get rid of the front door!  That’s right - get rid of it by making the back door equally attractive!

The architects propose a compact central entrance lobby that affords equal importance to access from either side of the building.  With excellent sightlines over areas at risk, it allows staff to manage both wet and dry activities safely.

You saw the building from the northern side in the last Bulletin.  Entering from the south, visitors are drawn in via an outdoor patio (canopy not shown) spacious enough to allow school classes to assemble before entering through the large glass doors just visible in the shadows on the right of the patio.  Neat!

But enough about the design … these features, and many others, will be clarified in the material that we plan to distribute in the next three weeks. 

Since this will (probably) be my final article before the referendum papers are distributed, I have a one final message.

 

We hope that you will share in the vision and future of our community by voting YES in April. 

Cyril Edwards, Vice President, DACCI.

Designers come up with a winner (#826)

What a ripper!  BDG and Pixeltrix have come up with a winner. The partnership between local architects Pixeltrix and the award-winning Bollig Design Group has produced a stunning concept plan for the Denmark Aquatic Centre that  nestles beautifully between the existing Recreation Centre and the bush.  What’s more, its cost is estimated to be $1 Million less than the original Feasibility Study design.

We estimate that even in the most conservative view we would need to boost the average rate by no more than a couple of dollars a week to operate the facility, and if we save this amount for the three-year build phase we’d be just under $3 million short of finding the capital.  On the basis of Council Resolution 171212 we can see reasonable prospects of raising $5.45 million - which would leave us $2.85 million short.   The Shire’s $4.7 million ‘Expression of Interest’ in the Regional Development Australia Fund [RDAF] Round 4 didn’t make the cut - so we’ll have to keep trying to secure other grants.  Calls for the next RDAF Round have been promised before September.  There are other possible funding sources - and we need community support. 

Let’s go for it!  Are there any benefactors out there?

Cyril Edwards, DACCI

Affordability centre stage (#825)

It seems that seawater and ocean pools are once more on the agenda (Bulletin #824).  The suggestions from both Mr Greenham and Mr Giles deserve to be taken seriously but rather than responding in detail I’d prefer to address a common theme underlying both.  It’s the same “we can’t afford it” refrain that has defeated all previous attempts to build a pool.

So let’s face this issue head on … we’re all going to have to think about it when the referendum document appears later this month.  Mr Greenham says “it appears to be obvious that” we can't afford to build and run a pool of the kind proposed.  Mr Giles is less direct, but points to Albany’s running costs as an example of what can happen to the unwary – in other words, it’s another example of the “we can’t afford it” syndrome.  I intend no criticism here ... we've all been fed on this diet for the last twenty years.  It’s tempting to roll over and accept it as unaffordable.

Now DACCI can’t tell anyone what is affordable and what is not … that’s a very personal affair.  But we can tell you that we’ve visited a lot of pools, talked to countless pool managers and learnt what not to do.  We’ve talked to industry representatives on every aspect of pool operations.  We’ve studied the health and fitness benefits.  We’ve researched the literature and studied state and national benchmarks.  We’ve looked at the basic physics and engineering involved.  We’ve engaged an award-winning firm of architects to come up with an environmentally sensitive design to be proud of.  We’ve engaged a recognised engineering group to identify the optimal way to power the pool.  We have followed government guidelines in every aspect of the panning process.  We have built a financial model adhering strictly to State Government accounting practices.

We not profess to know all there is to know … but we have learnt a great deal and as a result we have confidence that even in the most conservative case, it should cost no more than a couple of dollars a week on the average rateable property if its done properly.  This is a worst-case scenario and it translates to roughly $100 per year in additional rates or an 8% increase on this year’s rates.  It is based on revenue assumptions that reflect 2010 entry fees rathe than likely charges in 2015 (the target build date).  It allows for annual maintenance of the building and plant, five-yearly major refurbishment, complete plant replacement every twenty years and building replacement after 40 years.

 

Next time you buy a newspaper, a litre of fuel, a cup of coffee, a stubby or a bottle of wine please stop and reflect on the question of affordability.

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