SO—WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE SPLURJ MAHAL? PART 2

Community engagement

My main purpose in this post is to examine the options for the future of the YRCC that the Shire is asking us to consider.  But before I get to that, I want to take issue with a couple of aspects of the Shire’s ‘YRCC Community Engagement Plan’, as presented in SY014-02/17 Appendix B to Ms Haslehurst’s discussion paper (http://www.york.wa.gov.au/Profiles/york/Assets/ClientData/Document-Centre/Current_Ordinary_Meeting_Agenda/Appendices_-_SY014-2017_b.pdf).

First, I note that the period allotted for public comment on Ms Haslehurst’s discussion paper ends on 31 March.   The paper is only 21 pages long, but raises complex issues.   I wonder if three weeks will give people enough time to produce a genuinely informed opinion.   

Secondly, the proposal that councillors, shire officers and community members take a spin around the Wheatbelt to visit recreation centres in other shires has merit but as it stands is seriously flawed.

‘Stakeholders’

It privileges ‘Forrest Oval Advisory Group representatives’—i.e. selected members of sporting clubs that use the centre—over other members of the community by including them along with councillors and staff in what I take to be a quasi-official deputation riding to those centres in the community bus.

Recently, the Shire has been referring to those people as ‘stakeholders’, as though the rest of us ratepayers who pay for but don’t use the centre have a lesser stake or none at all in the YRCC’s fate.

By the same token, the proposal suggests emailing ‘users’ to invite them to make submissions and seek ‘expressions of interest to visit other venues’.

‘User’ or not, every ratepayer is equally a ‘stakeholder’ in the future of the YRCC.  If the Shire intends to email anybody, it should email everybody with the same message. 

And if representatives of the Forrest Oval Advisory Group want to visit recreation centres in the nominated towns, they should have to make their own way there like the rest of us. 

I must admit to having a queasy feeling regarding the Forrest Oval Advisory Group.  I tried to find out who belongs to it (apart from the Shire President, who chairs it), but found nothing on the Shire website to tell me.    On p. 12 of her discussion paper, Ms Haslehurst tells us that the group consists of ‘representatives of users of the complex’, but doesn’t say who they are currently or how they are selected.

If some of the members are who I think they might be, I’m not sure I would want to give them the opportunity to cosy up to councillors and staff in the community bus as it whizzes merrily from town to town.

Comparing apples with apples?

The shires chosen for comparison are surprisingly diverse in a number of important respects.  What follows is a rough guide based mainly on statistics gleaned from the DLGC’s My Council website. 

Those statistics are a tad out of date—they relate to financial year 2014/15, and those for 2015/16 won’t appear until next month—but I doubt they’ve changed much, except in the case of Narrogin where town and shire merged last year to form a new Shire of Narrogin with a population of around 4200.

1.              Goomalling: Area 1835 sq. km. Population 990. Electors 690. Full-time employees (FTE) 29.  Financial Health Indicator (FHI) a dismal 46 (the ‘pass mark’ is 70).  Rate increase 9% (compare state average of 8.47%).

2.              Merredin: Area 3294 sq. km.  Population 3287. Electors 2028.  FTE 47.  FHI a spectacular 97.  Rate increase 8%.

3.              Kellerberrin: Area 1916 sq.km.  Population 1221.  Electors 782.  FTE 27.  FHI a brilliant 94.  Rate increase 5%.

4.              Narrogin (before amalgamation):  Area 1618.  Population 883.  Electors 577.  FTE 18.  FHI a highly commendable 92.  Rate increase a menacing 11%.

5.              Katanning: Area 1518.  Population 4409.  Electors 2419.  FTE 63.  FHI a highly commendable 92.   Rate increase 8%.

6.              Kulin: Area 4717.  Population 807.  Electors 578.  FTE 39.  FHI a remarkable 93. Rate increase 7%.

7.              York:  Area 2132 sq. km.  Population 3486.  Electors 2461.  FTE 47.  FHI a mediocre 67.  Rate increase a mind-bending 16%.

To my mind, the shires most closely comparable with York are Merredin, Katanning and after last year’s amalgamation, Narrogin.  In terms of financial management, however, those shires appear to have been well ahead of poor old York if FHI and rate increase levels are a guide.  

Could this have something to do with the models they have adopted for the management of their leisure and recreation facilities?

Or in York’s case, is it possible that some kind of ‘dickhead factor’ came into play from which other shires have largely been exempt? 

Options

Section 4.0 (pp. 18-20) of Ms Haslehurst’s discussion paper puts forward five options for the centre’s future.   We are told that these options are based on ‘community and user feedback’, ‘expert’ advice from consultants, and ‘consultation with other local government authorities and state government agencies’.

Here is a summary of the options and my responses to them. 

Option 1: ‘Shire Operated’, i.e. business more or less as at present but with a more professional focus on management, marketing and developing the centre as a business and greater use of volunteers in fund raising for clubs.   This would involve vigorously promoting the centre as a venue for events and conferences.

A new scale of fees and charges would be imposed and the vexed issue of competitive neutrality tackled once and for all.

My response:  Several moves in the right direction, but as a veteran of such events I’ve yet to be convinced that the centre provides the right kind of environment for conferences, seminars and the like.   To start with, the acoustics are dreadful, the air conditioning erratic and the centre’s interior barn-like and uninviting.   The new scale of fees and charges for use of sporting facilities would have to be set very high to cover maintenance and repair costs like re-turfing greens and pitches.

Option 2: ‘Sportsman’s [sic] Association’, i.e. an association is formed from the sporting clubs to lease, manage and maintain the centre and its facilities, employ staff and so on.  The Shire would still be responsible for ‘loan repayments, depreciation and renewal of the asset’.

This was the model recommended by Domenic Carbone and Associates back in 2009.  My intuition tells me that it is the one favoured by Shire President Wallace.

My response:  Would being ‘responsible for renewal of the asset’ mean that every time the synthetic surfaces of the tennis courts or bowling greens should need replacing, ratepayers would be called on, as now, to bear the cost to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars?  I quite like this option, but only if the lessee is required to meet all the costs of maintenance and repair of sporting facilities and seek funding as necessary for renewing the asset from agencies other than the Shire.

Option 3: ‘Lease to a Single Club’, i.e. one of the sporting clubs assumes full responsibility for running the centre.

My response:  This option is about as risky as it gets, for all the reasons identified in the discussion paper.  Is there a club in York big or rich enough to take on such a huge responsibility and carry it out successfully?  I doubt it.   And if there were such a club, would other clubs and users be guaranteed to get a fair go?

Option 4: ‘Outsourced Management’, i.e. the Shire contracts with a commercial company to manage the entire Forrest Oval Complex.  This is the model used by the Shires of Merredin, Narrogin and Serpentine-Jarrahdale for the management of their sporting and leisure facilities. 

My response: Presumably, this kind of arrangement results in identifiable savings for the Shire, but I’m not entirely sure of what they might be other than in the area of staffing. 

Bear in mind that this is not a situation where the company pays to hire the facilities from the Shire, then profits by charging the public for the use of them.  Instead, the Shire pays the company to manage the facilities, and the company’s profits depend, one would suppose, primarily on that payment. 

Of course the parties might agree to share between them the proceeds of fees and charges, in which case the management agreement could turn out to be complicated indeed.

As Ms Haslehurst suggests, taking up this option would require careful analysis of costs and benefits.   At present, I’m not sure that the option would do much if anything to reduce the current burden on ratepayers, but I’m willing to be convinced.  The model seems to work for Merredin, though with regard to competitive neutrality it leaves that shire pulling business from the Oasis Hotel.

Option 5:  ‘Mixture of In-House Management and Outsourcing’ i.e. a management model incorporating features of other options.  This could involve, for example, the Shire leasing out the bar and gym ‘while continuing to be responsible for the sporting facilities’.

My response:  It strikes me that the tavern and gym are the only aspects of the centre that with good luck, skilled management and a following wind might offer a prospect of commercial viability sufficient to attract potential lessees (but I wouldn’t bank on it).  

But so far as the tavern is concerned, you’d still have the problem of competitive neutrality (is there a commercial gym in town?  I don’t think so).  It should be clear by now that in my view, the clubs should be responsible for sporting facilities, not the Shire.

First principles

So, what should we do with the Splurj Mahal?

Before we begin to answer that question, we need, I think, to face some unpleasant facts.

From the beginning, it has been an expensive and unprofitable failure.  

The project was poorly conceptualised, designed and managed and incompetently constructed.

The centre has done little for York’s sporting culture and the social fabric that supports it.  The clubs were better off where they used to be, taking responsibility for their own premises, raising funds through their own efforts and for the most part managing their own affairs.

It has cost ratepayers millions by way of capital expenditure and hundreds of thousands annually by way of loan repayments, maintenance, repairs, and ‘renewal of the asset’—like the recent premature re-turfing of the tennis courts.

It is used regularly by only a small fraction of residents and ratepayers.  Most of the people living in York would most likely never have set foot in the place.  This will be increasingly the case as the population ages and younger folk are drawn to the city.

But we’re stuck with it.  Even if an earthquake were to strike York, and the centre collapse into rubble overnight, we’d still be repaying the loans for years to come.

What to do, then?  In making that decision, we need to go back to first principles.  In my opinion, the most important of those principles is ‘user pays’. 

Many of us remember being assured by CEO Hooper and his ‘acolytes’ that the YRCC would cost ratepayers nothing because it would soon pay for itself.  In saying that, they more than once cited the ‘user pays’ principle.  That assurance, as we all know, was a furphy.

I think I know which option I prefer, but I’m going to keep my preference to myself for now.  I have reservations about all of them.

 'OZYMANDIAS' RAY CONTEMPLATES HIS LEGACY

"It's not the Splurj Mahal, you fool, it's THE HOOPERDROME!  Look on my works, ye ratepayers, and despair!"

SO—WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE SPLURJ MAHAL? PART 1

First, an apology

Since this blog began, I have always maintained that if I were ever to write anything wrong or mistaken, and my error became clear or was pointed out to me, I would correct it and apologise.

Not long ago, I wrote that the Shire of York would never release the kind of information I had more than once sought about the cost of constructing and maintaining our Splurj Mahal, the YRCC.  

Shamefully, I even suggested that the Shire administration might be relying on prevarication, obfuscation and evasiveness to keep the horrible truth firmly under wraps. 

Up to a point, events have proved me wrong, and I find myself, not for the first time and almost certainly not for the last, sampling the bitter taste of humble pie. 

What has made this apology necessary is a discussion paper and supporting documentation annexed to the agenda for next Monday’s Ordinary Council Meeting.  Ms Suzie Haslehurst, Executive Manager Corporate and Community Services, is the author of the 21-page paper.   

The supporting documentation consists of 10 appendices comprising, as she tells us in her introduction to agenda item SYO14-02/17, ‘all of the documents that have been commissioned or developed by the Shire’ in connection with the YRCC.  Those appendices take up 295 pages of the review.

I was heartened to read that this documentation was provided ‘in the interests of complete transparency’ and because ‘each document contributes to the historical “story” of the YRCC and its operations’.   Ms Haslehurst clearly understands the importance of knowing history to our understanding of the present and our endeavours to shape the future.  

Suddenly, I don’t feel so alone.

   

It is Ms Haslehurst, therefore, to whom I must apologise, and I do so gladly.  That doesn’t mean, though, that I regard myself as being completely in the wrong.  I did say ‘up to a point’, and I disagree strongly with several features of her recommendations to Council regarding the problem of the YRCC.

The documentation she has made public is not, I suspect, all the documentation relevant to public concerns about the centre.  It would be nice to see documents relating to tenders, contracts, disputes with contractors, other aspects of project management and surreptitious diversion of funds from other projects if such diversions in fact took place, as many seem to believe. 

But as the song says, ‘You can’t always get what you want’, and I have a sneaky feeling that many such documents have ‘dematerialised’ and are now flapping about in the depths of an alternative reality.

Still, Ms Haslehurst has provided hard information previously denied to us, and for that she and her colleagues deserve our thanks.

Cost of construction

In my article ‘The White Elephant in York’s Pajamas’, published in May last year, I mentioned that back in 2008 consultants Ralph Beattie Bosworth had estimated the likely cost of building the YRCC as $5,750,000.  The cock-eyed optimists running the Shire in those days disagreed, citing an alternative figure of $4,386,000.  

I suggested that the total cost of construction was most likely somewhere between $8m and $12m.

As things have turned out, that wasn’t a bad guess.  According to table 4 on p. 10 of Ms Haslehurst’s paper, the actual figure as at 31 December 2016 amounted to $8,048,001.  This sum included, among other expenditures, $3,473,189 for building the centre; $1,051,088 for bowls and tennis greens; $570,000 for lighting; and $233,413 for car parking.

However, that doesn’t tell us the whole story. I’m reliably informed that while the Shire has added in an estimate of the cost of its own contribution of labour and plant ($250,000) it has never included administration costs, for example salary and other costs relating to the project manager, secretarial help and so forth.   From 2008 to 2016, that would probably add a few hundred thousand to the total.

Loans

There is also the question of loan repayments.  In table 6 (p.11) Ms Haslehurst lists three loans, one for $1,330,500 at 6.3% p.a. over 20 years taken out in May 2011: a second for $320,000 at 5.15 p.a. over 15 years taken out in February 2012; and a third, also taken out in February 2012 at 5.15, for $499,155. 

The combined annual repayments on those loans amount to $196,655—a tidy impost on ratepayers.

To be precise, the first of those loans requires an annual repayment of $117,929, the second one of $30,764 and the third, one of $47,972.   By May of this year, the Shire will have repaid $707,574 towards the first loan, $153,820 towards the second and $239,860 towards the third.  That makes a grand total of $1,101,254 over six years, and there are plenty more years to come.

I think we’re justified in adding that last amount to Ms Haslehurst’s figure of $8,048,001.   

That gives us a likely total of at least $9,149,255 paid out so far since 2008 to keep less than one-fifth of York’s population ‘healthy and vibrant’.

Not to mention the cost of pickling the livers of a gargle of superannuated beverage bandits guzzling subsidised booze in the YRCC tavern.   Which brings me to…

The bar and restaurant

Here, I think, the Shire has engaged in a game of smoke and mirrors.  According to table 9 on p. 14 of Ms Haslehurst’s paper, the bar and restaurant combined during the first half of the current financial year have made a gross profit of $18,384 (that figure isn’t cited in the paper, I had to work it out for myself).

The figure is deceptive, because it doesn’t take account of YRCC staffing costs—salaries, superannuation, employment on-costs and in one case housing.

If you take those into account, it becomes obvious that the bar and restaurant are running at a considerable loss.   Unfortunately, I can’t be more precise, because the figures provided don’t seem to make sense (how can salary payments amounting to $17,992 give rise to super contributions of $16,100?).

Where did the money come from?

Table 5 on p.10 of Ms Haslehurst’s paper lists a variety of funding sources as having contributed to the cost of the YRCC.  The biggest contribution from an outside source was $2,614,198 from the Country Local Government Fund, followed by $590,738 from the WA Department of Sport and Recreation.

But the lion’s share of the cost has come from loan funds ($2,149,655, see above) and so-called ‘municipal funds’ ($2,181,310), which term I think is code for money collected as rates. 

That’s a total of $4,330,965 out of Ms Haslehurst’s nominated $8,048,001 for which York’s ratepayers have been and in the case of loan repayments continue to be responsible.  Loan repayments and rates alike come out of ratepayers’ pockets.

And if the loans go to full term, the Shire—i.e. York’s ratepayers—will have shelled out an additional $1,389,815 by way of interest. 

Thank goodness it’s only money!

At the opening of the YRCC on 9 November 2012.  The athletic-looking gentlemen in white hats are Shire President Tony Boyle and Minister for Sport and Recreation the Hon. Terry Waldron.  In his address, the Shire President observed that the project had to date cost $7m, boasting that 'This level of expenditure on a single project is by far the biggest ever undertaken by the Shire of York'.  Photo: YDCM

TO BE CONTINUED…

NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

 ‘Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown’

Rumour has it that all is not well in the hallowed halls of Joaquina Street.

Some councillors have been heard to complain of being ‘left out of the loop’, alleging that Shire President Dave ‘Dog’s Breakfast’ Wallace is making important decisions in collaboration with the CEO but without consulting them or even telling them much about what he’s up to. 

It’s also rumoured that Deputy Shire President Denese Smythe is critical of his handling of the top job and is determined, in the fullness of time but preferably very soon, to replace him.  To this end, she may hope to rely on the backing of her friend and ally Cr Randell.

Good heavens, it’s just like what happens in Canberra.

Meanwhile, it seems that Mrs Wallace is unhappy with what she regards as disrespectful comments about her husband that have popped up on somebody’s blog from time to time.  

(She must mean the other blog.  This blog has consistently treated our shire president with a degree of veneration bordering on idolatry.)

Shire President Wallace’s position on council will become vacant in October.   Will he stand for election again?  If he does, and is re-elected, will he play for dibs or cede the number one spot to his eager rival?

I suspect the answer to the first question is a resounding affirmative.  Even if he’s reluctant to stand, his supporters in the sporting clubs and the tavern team of tosspot tipplers aren’t going to let him slip easily off the hook.

They’ll be counting on him to make sure the rest of us go on paying for them to keep ‘healthy and vibrant’—or in the tipplers’ case, just ‘vibrant’— as we’ve been doing for quite a while now to the tune of around half-a-million dollars a year. 

They’ll want him to stay on as shire president for at least another four years, by which time no doubt we shall all wearily have come to accept our collective fate as fodder for our Great White Elephant, the Splurj Mahal.

But there’s many a slip…is it possible that after October we’ll have, not only an openly gay CEO, but also our first openly female shire president?

Out you go, ladies, we’re flogging off the family silver

Since November 2012, by grace and favour of the Shire of York, the Wheatbelt Women’s Hub has convened at what used to be in happier days the premises of York Tennis Club on the corner of Clifford and Glebe Streets. 

By ‘happier days’, I mean of course the time before the club accepted the Shire’s sneaky invitation to migrate to the YRCC.

The Wheatbelt Women’s Hub bills itself as ‘A non-profit organisation providing and facilitating support groups for women (not excluding men) suffering from chronic illness and mental health issues’.  Nowadays, if you believe what you hear and read, that’s pretty well everybody since the words ‘women’ and ‘men’ are well on the way to being interchangeable and having 'issues' of one kind or another to share with friends on Facebook is socially de rigeur.

In 2013, the Hub won a well-deserved official award for ‘Excellence in Rural and Regional WA’. 

Among the Hub’s early stalwarts was Cr Denese Smythe.

The Shire has given the Women’s Hub notice to quit by the end of June.  Why?  Because it wants to put the premises up for sale and use the proceeds to bring down debt, thereby improving its FHI (Financial Health Indicator).  

According to the DLGC, the highest possible measure of FHI is 100.  Anything under 70 is less than satisfactory—in plain language, a fail.   In 2014/15, the latest period for which figures are available, the Shire of York’s score was a mediocre 67—not an epic fail, but a fail nonetheless, and one that doesn’t look good for the people in charge of managing our money. 

I doubt that figure improved in 2015/16, given the comic-opera reign of James Radcliff Best, so maybe there’s a fair bit of catching up to do, but I’m not sure that ‘selling the family silver’ is the right way to go about it. 

Cutting back on inessential spending, like new artificial turf for YRCC tennis courts and similar handouts to the Shire President’s sporting club mates, strikes me as a better way to go.

I wish you the best of luck, ladies, in your quest for a new home.   Perhaps the Shire will make room for you at the Splurj Mahal.   I’m told the Forrest Bar and Café offers grub and grog at very competitive prices.

Bowling green blues

Speaking of artificial turf, here are a couple of photos of the present state of the YRCC bowling greens:

First it was a sinkhole, now it’s corrugations.  I suppose we can look forward to the Shire spending a further huge sum on re-turfing, perhaps following pressure on Shire President Wallace from the bowling club president and his committee.   And in three or four years, folks, we’ll be doing it all again.

Catching up with Christian

I think former depot worker Christian Tarou Chadwick has become an expert on how to stave off the evil day.

He turned up to District Court in Perth on the appointed date, 17 January, and promptly sacked his lawyer.

The result of this smart move was that his case had to be adjourned until 17 February— next Friday—to give him time to find another lawyer to represent him.

Will he face justice then? Is his celebrated luck about to run out?  What odds is the TAB offering?

Catching up with Christian Part 2 (added 180217)

Yesterday morning, 17 February, Mr. Chadwick appeared once more in the District Court in Perth.

To everybody’s surprise, perhaps including his own, he changed his plea to guilty in relation to both offences (assault occasioning actual bodily harm and aggravated burglary).

His bail was extended pending a pre-sentence report.  He will appear again for sentencing at the end of March.

Kia waimarie, bro. 

 

York River in flood—Northam isolated—Shire refuses planning application to build an ark, doesn't know what is meant by a 'cubit'