Mayor Cr. John Shaw used his casting vote to carry two motions which firstly reversed an earlier decision to endorse efforts by the community committee SPARC to seek full capital funding and afford an ongoing operational model for the project, and secondly that Council not proceed with the plan.

Cr. Jo Marshall, a leading figure in SPARC and in generating interest in the plan, declared a non-pecuniary interest in the decisions, and left the Council chamber during the voting.

This left eight Councillors, and voting was split 4/all on both counts with Cr. Shaw using his casting vote on each occasion.

The voting was Crs Shaw, Barlow, McCormack and Searl for the decision to end the project, and Crs. Wheelwright, Craig, Culhane and O'Brien against.

The main basis for the motions moved by Cr. Malcolm Barlow was the massive operational costs to Council forecast by both the consultants who prepared the proposal for SPARC and the even higher losses predicted by Council's finance department staff.

Before the Council debate SPARC member M.Y. Charlie Prell spoke briefly, saying he was "not surprised but disappointed" that the action foreshadowed was occurring. He described the decision to give SPARC the go-ahead to seek funding as a "fantastic compromise" from the Council's point of view.

There was he said, no financial obligation on Council, after SPARC had worked "really hard" to put its submission together.

The final decision could be made when SPARC came back with actual funding. "I can tell you we have the community solidly behind us," Mr. Prell added.

Cr. Barlow, speaking to his motion to rescind the previous decision, said the project on SPARC's own figures would cost Council $220,000 a year just to cover costs.

But Council's Finance Director and his staff predicted a $409,000 loss, even with 100 per cent capital costing.

"This would not just be for a few years, but forever," Cr. Barlow said.

He was also sceptical of SPARC's figures based on two full time employees, when the General Manager's estimate was two full time and eight casual employees would be needed.

"Even if the full $5 million grant was received (which I doubt) the Council has other priorities, such as the Crookwell water supply, above this feel-good project – which I would love if it were possible."

"My greatest fear is that we get this grant and then go on with the hundreds of thousands of extra costs," Cr. Barlow said.

He added that the figures from the SPARC consultants did not include the cost of demolishing the present facility (the Crookwell swimming pool).

"The Blayney General Manager told us they lost $600,000, which did not include any loan costs. Heating costs, with gas, are going up in leaps and bounds."

Cr. Marshall expressed her disappointment at this motion – "this is not a pipe dream and it commits Council to nothing at this stage."

"What Council in its right mind would pass up a $6 million grant?"

Cr. Brian McCormack said his concern was the ongoing costs of "hundreds of thousands of dollars".

"Where is it going to come from?

"The Cooma Council consultant said it would need a population of 50,000 people to sustain the project; we've got 7,500 not all of whom will have access to this, and a lot will use the Goulbum pool."

Cr. McCormack contested Mr. Prep's claim of community support — "people I've spoken to ask where the money will come from — roads, tourism, library would have to be cut back to pay for this."

Cr. James Wheelwright said his position (favouring SPARC's actions) was unchanged, though he agreed the road budget "couldn't be changed.'

"The project has to be affordable ongoing, if not we won't go ahead.

"I'm happy for the committee to set off to find five or six million in funding, and look at the operating costs."

Cr. Wheelwright described the motion as a "coup de gras" to put the committee "out of its misery."

"But I want to see SPARC given a chance."

Cr. John Searl added his concerns about the ongoing costs.

"The problem before me is to have a facility that we can't afford to run."

Cr. Paul Culhane: "Nobody's going to cut the road budget, and it won't affect the water supply funding."

He added that Council had received criticism when it embarked on funding for the Crookwell's aged facility and health centre, which had proved highly successful.

Cr. Shaw: "I've searched my heart on this, but we can't afford it.

"It is a pipe dream, a great pipe dream, putting up an expectation that we are going to build an indoor facility.

"A lot of the people believe we should have this facility but they don't know the cost of running it."

Cr. Shaw said he had faith in Council's finance staff and took notice of a possible cost of five to six hundred thousand dollars.

"We can't put up the rates to fund it, we're restricted to only 2.6% rise this year. The Shire can't afford it, even if we get a five or six million dollar grant."

Cr. Darren O'Brien: "I have listened to what has been said, and none of you are wrong. The only thing I will say is this won't cost us a cent."

Cr. Barlow: "In my heart I would love to have this, but I can't let my heart rule my head when it comes to the future of this Shire.

"Council had a budget workshop and we know how hard it is to save a thousand here or there.

"There are other projects more important. This is only keeping hopes alive for something we can't afford.

"Mr. Prell said he had people's support, but I have had lots of people tell me we can't afford this."

Returning to the chamber after the vote that carried the rescission motion, Cr. Marshall said the decision was "very narrow minded" and that no consideration had been given to green energy for heating "or any other way we can have this amenity for this Shire."

"If we end this, how are we going to get people to put in their energies for such projects?"

Cr. Culhane: "I'm all for giving it a chance. We've made it a heck of a lot harder."

Speaking on the motion to not proceed with any move for the heated pool, Cr. Shaw said:"I have spoken to other Council managers, at Cooma, Goulburn and Blayney, and I cannot find a Council that found this anything but a noose around their neck.

"Goulburn facility costs two or three hundred thousand, plus paying an operator.

"It is a tough decision."

Cr. Barlow: "If I thought that there was any chance of this being funded for decades I'd be all for it."

The motion not to proceed with the heated pool project was again carried on the Mayor's casting vote.

Heated pool — how the costs stack up

ANTICIPATED operational losses into hundreds of thousands of dollars are the basis for Upper Lachlan Council's final decision not to proceed with proposals for a heated indoor pool and recreational facilities at Crookwell.

Figures produced by the Council's finance department reveal that the Crookwell pool loses $99,428 per year in operational costs, with depreciation bringing the "book" loss to $121,918.

Against this is the SPARC consultant's estimate of the loss, at current levels, of $264,836 solely on operational costs for a heated pool.

But Council's financial officers (led by Finance Director Mr. Andrew Croke) put the likely operational loss at $418,401.

And this would be on the basis of Council not having to contribute a cent to the capital cost, with 100% grants.

The Council estimates disagree with the consultant figures in almost every respect. The Council budget figure for 2013/14 for the existing Crookwell pool has an income of $49,000, from $24,000 kiosk takings and $25,000 membership and entrance fees. The SPARC income prediction is $146,015, coming from kiosk $5,824, membership and entry $94,462, casual swimmers $31,134, learn to swim $5,818, and school aquatic program $8,777.

Council's estimate is very similar at a total of $145,299.

It is in the costing that SPARC and the Council lose contact.

This is shown starkly in the estimates of labour costs.

Currently employment costs at Crookwell pool amount to $44,500 a year, compared to SPARC's $97,579 and Council's $156,800 for the heated facility.

Labour oncosts, on SPARC figures, would cost $59,448 (against currently $26,100) and the Council prediction of $90,500.

The gas for heating, according to SPARC, would cost $85,000, while Council thinks the cost would be $98,000.

And if Council has to raise a loan to match a 50% capital cost grant the figures are greatly expanded to a loss of $605,551.

Not included in these figures are costs for demolition of the existing facility, air conditioning and circulation, and car parking.

Letters to the Editor

COUNCIL SAYS "NO" TO PROPOSED UPPER LACHLAN SPORT AND RECREATION CENTRE

THIS is what the proposed Upper Lachlan Sport and Recreation Centre could have looked like.

A plan to upgrade the 60 year old outdoor Crookwell Pool including an indoor heated pool, gym, and multipurpose room.

The SPARC committee presented a feasibility study for the Upper Lachlan Sport and Recreation to council at the February meeting.

It was a clear decision to support the motion moved by Clrs Culhane and Searl"

Council acknowledges both the social benefits and significant community support for the proposal by SPARC for the establishment of an Upper Lachlan Sport and Recreation Facility. Council endorses and stands with SPARC in the pursuit of full external capital funding for the project and an affordable ongoing operational model to bring this project to fruition."  

This motion enabled the SPARC committee to endeavour to raise funds to build the centre. If they did the committee would then work with council to produce an affordable ongoing operational model.

It was a win, win.

It didn't cost council a cent, and council would not have to take out a loan.

It was SPARC's intention that if the $6 mil($5.66mil + make ready allowances) was not achievable they would invest the money back into sport and recreation facilities in the shire.

Without councils endorsement of this project the committee is unable to raise this kind of money.

Last week at the April council meeting Clrs Barlow and McCormack moved a rescission motion to withdraw the original motion passed at the February meeting.

A further motion was then put forth not to support the proposed Upper Lachlan Sport and Recreation centre.

Both of these motions were passed by Clrs Barlow, McCormack, Searl and Mayor Shaw.  This is a very disappointing decision. The Councillors were concerned that the ULSC could not afford this centre even though the final centre components had not been decided, how the centre was going to be powered have not been decided. All the finer details of its "affordability" would not be known until the final plans and technology were decided on and we had not reached that stage yet.

We did not even have the money, so why RUN from the idea, and the possibilities for our shire.

Why say no until all the details were known?

Council was committed to nothing, only the idea to look at something progressive for the future of our shire and its residents.

Why limit the possibilities for our shire because it is available 30 minutes from Crookwell, in Goulburn?

What about the rest of the residents who don't live in Crookwell and have to travel further?

Why not benefit and grow our own economy with facilities and developments such as this to ensure our survival instead of depending on our neighbour Goulburn to provide them for us.

If we want to avoid amalgamation, creating a fast growing vibrant community is also a way and this comes from investing in the Upper Lachlan Shire, its people and its infrastructure, then other people will want to be part of this lovely place to reside and our community will grow and prosper.

Cr Jo Marshall.

Dear Editor,

I would like to express my absolute disgust at Mayor John Shaw, Crs. Barlow and McCormack who submitted and won a recession motion that the SPARC committee DO NOT have the opportunity to raise $6 million to build a sport and recreation Centre for the Upper Lachlan Shire residents.

As a member of the committee from its inception, a small group of people worked tirelessly to put together a proposal for the council for the construction of a Sport and Recreation facility. This group tried endlessly to cooperate with council and I believe this cooperation was minimal to assist in this project. The raising of funds was not going to cost the council one cent. Once the funds were raised the committee was then to work WITH council to plan together a cost effective sport centre. If the centre could not be affordable then the pool would not proceed and this $6 million could be used for other facilities for the shire.

I cannot say how disgusted and appalled I am that this opportunity has been thwarted by our own Mayor John Shaw who had the casting vote.

Who would vote against a group of committed volunteers to raise money for a centre with so many benefits? 

All we ever heard from council was about costs, nothing about employment opportunities, how beneficial it is to have facilities to encourage businesses and residents to live here and its flow on effect such as health. 

NOT ONCE did council propose an alternative to the current pool that is costing residents a large amount of money to repair that has an expiry date!!

Such a disappointment for everyone

Helen Rose