THAT’S THE WAY THE MONEY GOES…

More on the cost of the Splurj Mahal

As we all know only too well, getting information from the Shire of York about the actual cost of building, repairing and maintaining the YRCC has never been easy.  In fact, it’s been wellnigh impossible for years.

On page 10 of her February discussion paper, Ms Suzie Haslehurst, Executive Manager Corporate and Community Services, set out a table (Table 4) providing a breakdown of construction costs up to the end of calendar 2016.   

We should applaud her efforts, which must have been herculean.  She has shone a bright light into a dark and dismal corner of the Shire’s history.

As I pointed out last month, while it was a welcome novelty for those of us who take an interest in such matters, her table does not tell the whole story—not by any means. 

For example, it doesn’t include loan repayments—though she details those in Tables 5 and 6—and administrative costs, like the proportion of staff salaries and consumables relating to management of the centre project. 

Nor, unless I’ve missed something, does it specify the actual cost of labour and materials comprising the Shire’s physical contribution to the project, or include the many tens of thousands of dollars frittered away over the years on the ‘expert’ advice of expensive consultants.

Operating expenditure and revenue

However, Table 8 on page 13 of Ms Haslehurst’s paper goes some way to remedy those deficiencies.  Although understandably short on specificity, it’s quite an eye-opener.  

It breaks down operating expenditure and operating revenue from financial 2012/13 to the present, revealing annually a considerable and inexorable negative balance, or in layman’s language, a loss.

I prefer to use the word ‘loss’ rather than ‘negative balance’ or some similar weaselly circumlocution because doing so helps give the lie to the Shire’s early assurances—naïve or duplicitous, make up your own mind—that the operation of the YRCC would be governed by the ‘user pays’ principle and would cost ratepayers nothing. 

The clear implication of those assurances was that the centre would pay for itself or even perhaps operate at a profit.  It hasn’t done either yet, and without divine intervention, I doubt that it ever can or will.

For 2012/13, the net operating result was a loss of $1,128,038; for 2013/14, a loss of $1,311,945; for 2014/15, a loss of  $1,160,493; for 2015/16, a loss of $1,521,631; and for the financial year to date, $597,446.

That’s a total loss since 1 July 2012 of $5,719,553, or over the first four years (2012/13 to 2015/16) of $5,122,107.  The average annual loss over those four years is therefore $1,280,526.75.

But wait, there’s more…

As usual, that isn’t the whole story.  Table 8 concludes with a breakdown of the Shire’s capital program for the YRCC for the same period from mid-2012 to the present.   That expenditure was respectively $446,500; $281,218; $423,879; $305,675; and $52,728. 

After taking into account relatively insignificant accessions of capital income during the first three years, the total loss of $5,719,553 calculated previously balloons to $7,186,812.   Excluding the figure for the current year, that gives us $7,134,084, or an average loss per annum over the first four years of $1,783,521.

And there we all were, wondering why York’s rates are so unconscionably stratospheric (and likely to remain so into the foreseeable future).

That seems an awful lot of money to keep a small fraction of York’s minuscule population ‘healthy and vibrant’.  That phrase was reported on the other blog as having been used by Ms Haslehurst a while ago in an email to David Taylor to justify, as I recall, more spending on the YRCC. 

And don’t forget, a portion of that money is deployed to subsidise grub and grog provided by the tavern in competition with local privately owned munching and swigging stations.  So much for the principle of competitive neutrality!

A cheaper and more efficient way of helping people to stay healthy and vibrant is to get them walking, cycling and swimming while providing pleasant open spaces in various locations where families and their neighbours can play sport casually, run with their dogs and picnic or barbecue with friends.

The bottom line

For some arcane reason, table 8 sets out the final amounts—the ‘bottom line’, so to speak—under the rubric ‘Total Comprehensive Income’.  Go figure, if you’ll pardon the pun.  To my admittedly untutored eye, they look like total comprehensive losses.

If you want to give yourself a real shock, just add $7,186,812 to the $8,048,001 that Ms Haslehurst identified as the cost of construction in Table 4 on page 10 of her discussion paper. 

All right then, I’ll do it for you.  The result is—wait for it—$15,234,813. 

Savour that figure, roll it round on your tongue, and keep it in mind for when the next gargantuan rates bill slithers into your home.

YORK SPORTING CLUBS         York Ratepayer