SUBMISSION - YRCC REVIEW DISCUSSION PAPER

 

The Chief Executive Officer

Shire of York

PO Box 22

York WA 6302

30 March 2017

By email to records@york.wa.gov.au

Submission—YRCC Review Discussion Paper

Let me begin by thanking the Shire for providing this opportunity for public comment on options for the future management of the YRCC.  In particular, I congratulate the author of the Shire’s review discussion paper on having comprehensively canvassed relevant issues and for having summarised important financial information that appears up to now to have been diligently withheld from the public gaze.

As you may know, I have written extensively on my blog The REAL Voice of York about a variety of issues pertaining to the origins, history and present situation of the YRCC.  While at times I may have been mistaken as to detail, the discussion paper has provided me with no reason to resile from the main thrust of my opinion. 

In short, I believe that the project was poorly conceived and designed, incompetently constructed, ineptly managed and from the beginning misrepresented as an enterprise that would result in beneficial outcomes for the York community as a whole but at no serious cost to ratepayers. 

Instead, the project has generally benefited only a minority of members of the community, especially those belonging to various sporting clubs, and the degree of that benefit is itself questionable.  It is at least arguable that from a social, self-reliance and fundraising standpoint, the clubs (with the possible exception of the Hockey Club, which seems to have done quite well out of the venture) may have been better off in their previous accommodation.

Cost

What is not arguable is that the YRCC has imposed a massive financial impost on ratepayers leading to huge rate hikes over several years that many ratepayers resent and are finding it hard to contend with.   It comes as no surprise to learn that as of February 2017 some 66% of current rates ($1,217,633) remain outstanding, along with 34% ($622,267) from previous years (see SY029-03-17, March OCM agenda, p.66).  

I read somewhere recently that the Wheatbelt is the most socially and economically impoverished region in WA.  These are certainly tough times for the people of York, who are required to pay rates of metropolitan dimensions in return for a much inferior level of public amenity than most metropolitan local governments are able to provide. 

Analysis of the Shire’s discussion paper reveals the great proportion of municipal funds that have been consumed by construction, repair and maintenance of the YRCC.  Meanwhile, roads and other projects have been sadly neglected, to the detriment both of residents and visitors to York.

Those developments have occurred despite the involvement of several expensive consultants (six according to the discussion paper, or seven counting the quantity surveyors Ralph Beattie Bosworth, referred to in the 2008 report of the ‘leisure consultancy’ A Balanced View as authors of a ‘concept plan’ for the project).  

Notwithstanding that involvement, the Shire seems never to have formally adopted a definitive business plan to guide and direct the management of the YRCC, or to have exercised restraint and commonsense in its approach to spending on the project.  

Optimism

Regretfully, I cannot share the optimistic view maintained in the discussion paper (p. 15) that the YRCC ‘has the potential to become a facility that the whole community can enjoy and be proud of and one that contributes to the economy’. 

While I agree—up to a point—that providing sporting and recreation facilities ‘is an investment in the health and well-being of a community’, I remain unconvinced that this particular ‘investment’ has contributed much to the physical, social or psychological welfare of more than a small fraction of York’s inhabitants, if indeed of those. 

On the contrary, I believe it has created anger and division in the community, imposed an unfair financial burden on the majority of ratepayers, and threatened, by including a tavern and restaurant among its facilities, the livelihood of local business people and their employees. 

I would venture a guess that the YRCC has played no small part in the decline of York over the past few years from a vibrant tourist attraction focussed mainly on the CBD to its present relatively drab and cheerless condition.

Above all, the discussion paper makes clear that the YRCC operates at a thumping loss, every cent of which is made up from the rates.   Health and wellbeing is one thing; systematic impoverishment of our community is quite another.

‘Convention Centre’

Significantly, the original master plan for the redevelopment of the Forrest Oval Precinct did not envisage the construction of a convention centre such as now purportedly exists.   The idea of having a convention centre was an afterthought, first put forward in a revised master plan cobbled together to meet the funding rules of the Country Local Government Fund.  The centre was supposed to seat 250 participants.  I think it would have difficulty accommodating fewer than half that number.

The discussion paper indicates that this facility could be ‘aggressively’ promoted both in the region and Perth as a locus for conferences, seminars and the like (conventions tend to be much bigger affairs). 

Perhaps it’s worth a try, but Perth is well provided with conference facilities, and our building as it stands is not an ideal conference environment.  The acoustics are poor, the air-conditioning problematic, the structure barn-like and uninviting, and the immediate proximity of a bar, while superficially attractive, could well pose an unwelcome distraction to participants and organisers alike.   

Perhaps the first two of those objections could be overcome—no doubt at the usual outlandish cost to ratepayers.

The Tavern and Restaurant/Café

A local government should not be operating a facility that takes custom from local business owners, who especially in these straitened times battle to make ends meet and provide employment. 

In the absence, as is usually the case these days, of a teeming flow of visitors to York, proprietors of cafés, pubs and restaurants have to rely to a great extent on local trade.  A facility like the tavern and restaurant is capable of making a big dent in the viability of their businesses.

This objection is compounded by the astonishing disclosure that ratepayers—including those business owners—are willy-nilly contributing to an operational subsidy that enables the facility in question to serve food and drink at discounted prices.  This has been justified on the basis that ‘full cost pricing’ will drive patrons away, forcing the Shire to increase the amount of the operational subsidy.  I invite the Shire to meditate on the topsy-turvy morality of that arrangement.

By what seems to me a process of creative accounting, the tavern and restaurant have been made in financial reports to show a small but persistent profit.  Unless I am greatly mistaken, this happy result is achieved to some extent by ignoring the full cost of employing staff. 

At present, the Shire employs a full-time Centre Manager on a scale of $72,361 to $78,128 and a part-time Catering Manager on a scale of $48,000 to $52,000 (figures taken from the advertisements for those positions, so they may be out of date).  I’m told that it also provides the Centre Manager with subsidised accommodation, the cost of which, if that is true, should be factored into the equation.  Casual staff are also employed at the facility.

On p.11, the discussion paper recommends that the Centre Manager should cease being responsible for bar management duties, which should then devolve to a new position, that of Bar Manager.  That, the paper argues, would leave the Centre Manager free ‘to attract bookings and develop programs’.  Maybe so, but some might regard such a step as an expensive move in support of a nebulous outcome—a move, moreover, that might reduce the profitability of the bar.

The discussion paper correctly observes (p. 7) that the principle of competitive neutrality applies only to local government businesses ‘where annual income exceeds $200,000’.  So far as I can tell, the tavern and restaurant do not generate that level of income, but that is hardly the point, especially given the unfair competitive advantage conferred on the enterprise by the Shire’s operating subsidy.

Options

My first thought on contemplating the options presented in the discussion paper was that something was missing.  Those are not the only options we should be asked to think about.

For example, we might consider, in the first instance, simply closing down the centre for a year or two pending the adoption of a detailed business plan based on sound principles and acceptable, as determined perhaps by plebiscite, to the whole community.  If nothing else, that would take some temporary pressure off the rates.  During that period, no money would be spent on upgrading or repairing sporting facilities, unless the sporting clubs themselves were to provide it. 

Which brings me to my most important point:  that whatever option is finally adopted, it should be governed as far as possible by the principle of ‘user pays’.  No operational subsidy from the rates, no upgrading of sporting facililities at ratepayers’ expense, no Shire funding of centre employees—only basic repair and maintenance of the fabric, and repayment of currently existing loan repayments, to be met from municipal funds.  Such an arrangement would best accord with assurances given to the people of York when the construction of the centre was first broached.

As for the options proposed in the discussion paper, I find it difficult to decide among them because they have not been costed, and information gleaned by the Shire from its visits to other recreation centres has not yet been made available.

Having said that, if I were forced to choose today, I would lean towards Option 2, the Sporting Association option, which effectively hands over responsibility for the centre and its facilities to an incorporated association formed from representatives of the sporting clubs.  

I would do so with this proviso, that while the Shire must retain responsibility for loan repayments and depreciation, it should not be responsible for ‘asset renewal’ to the extent of upgrading sporting facilities like tennis courts and bowling greens.  Such costs ought to be met from fundraising and where possible state and federal grants, not from the rates.

This arrangement, I believe, would encourage a degree of self-reliance and a proud sense of ownership conducive to the future success of the YRCC.

 If the sporting association decides, as would be its right, to continue with the tavern and restaurant, it should do so without any subsidy from the Shire that would give it an unfair competitive advantage over privately owned businesses.  The facility would have to survive on its own merits, perhaps with the help of volunteer workers.

In conclusion, I hope nobody will assume that I am hostile in principle to the provision by local governments of sporting and recreation facilities.  That is certainly not the case.  My argument is simply that ratepayers should always be assured that they are getting value for money, and that has not happened with regard to the YRCC.  

In my view, the money spent on the YRCC would have been better spent elsewhere, for example on the swimming pool, on cycle tracks, on the river banks and parks and on 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. 

Those are facilities that almost everyone can enjoy at almost any time without having to be a member of a sporting organisation.  If a healthy and vibrant community is what you want—surely it’s what we all want—focussing on such facilities would be the best way forward.

James Plumridge

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

 

HOW ESTIMATES OF POPULATION GROWTH WERE DOCTORED TO JUSTIFY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPLURJ MAHAL

Early days

Until very recently, I thought that the story of York’s Great White Elephant, otherwise known as the Splurj Mahal or York Recreation and Convention Centre, began sometime in the mid- to late-noughties—say, around 2007.   I was wrong.

One of York’s elders, who would rather not be named, has kindly put me wise.  She told me that members of council and of various sporting clubs first mooted the idea as long ago as 1997.   

That was seven years before one of its most assiduous champions, Ray Hooper, sought asylum in York as a refugee from strife-torn Chittering and commenced his illustrious career as our shire’s CEO.

The idea surfaced again during the reign of Gavan Troy as the Shire’s commissioner—that is, between December 2004 and May 2006.  Apparently Mr. Troy gave it short shrift.  He pointed out that the Shire of York did not have the financial capacity to undertake and maintain a project of the kind envisaged by its proponents. 

As we now know only too well, Mr. Troy was right.  He is still right, whatever the Shire Council and administration might want to tell us to the contrary when they’ve finished gathering data from neighbouring shires.

 York’s population—an unbalanced view

Nothing daunted, after Mr. Troy had departed the idea’s movers and shakers got to work again.  In May 2008, Council adopted a ‘public open space strategy’, at the core of which was a proposal to redevelop the Forrest Oval precinct as a sport and recreation facility (at this stage, there was no mention of a convention centre). 

Council hired a ‘leisure consultancy’, A Balanced View (ABV), to prepare a ‘master plan’ for that redevelopment.   

In some respects, most notably with regard to the projected growth of York’s population over the ten years to 2018, the view presented by ABV fell somewhat short of being balanced.  

The consultancy made the mistake—if it was a mistake and not a deliberate ploy—of basing its projections on the Shire’s wildly optimistic expectation of a major increase in population following uptake of residential lots resulting from amendments to the local town planning scheme. 

Setting aside the WA Planning Commission’s ‘more modest’ population forecast of 4400 by 2021, ABV plumped for a figure of 6000 by 2018.   It’s now 2017, and it seems extremely unlikely to say the least that our current population of possibly less than 3500 will increase so dramatically over the next 12 months as to reach the ABV projection.

In 2006, the Census counted 3116 people living in York.   By 2011, the year of the following Census, the population had grown by 280 to 3396, representing an average yearly increase of 56 souls.  On that basis, it seems fair to suppose that York’s population in 2008 stood at around 3228 (3116 plus 112).

Simple arithmetic tells us that the difference between 6000 and 3228 is 2772.  So to arrive at a population of 6000 during the ten years from 2008 to 2018 would require an average annual population increase of 277 souls.

Pending the release of data from the 2016 Census, let’s assume that York’s current population has increased annually by 56 souls since 2008 and that my estimate for 2008 is correct.  That would yield a notional present population figure (calculated to the end of last year) of 3228 plus 448 (8 times 56), i.e. 3676.

(My guess is that that last figure overstates the situation by about 200, but never mind.)

If I’m right, we shall have to increase our population by 2484 or more over the next 12 months or so to reach the 6000 target.   Somehow I can't see that happening, not even if we prohibit the sale of condoms and local doctors stop prescribing the contraceptive pill.

So far as I know, there has been nothing in York’s history over the last half century to justify the degree of demographic optimism displayed by the Shire and ABV in 2008.   Yet I can find no indication that the master plan’s population projection was ever challenged in any of the planning documents that followed.

Short of a gold rush, the discovery of diamonds, or a government sponsored influx of Middle Eastern and African refugees (now there’s a thought, come on, Mr. Dutton, be a sport, give us those 'huddled masses yearning to be free'), there seems very little likelihood that York’s population will increase significantly in coming years.   God forbid, it may even decline, as the populations of country towns in WA have tended to do since the 1960s—perhaps even further back.

A grey invasion

Most of any increase in York’s population will probably—I dare say certainly— be made up of retired people aged 65 and over fleeing from the metro area in search of cheaper housing, bucolic tranquillity and a way of life defined by the absence of pushy millennials.  

Young families tend to migrate in search of employment opportunities, of which there are few in York at any given time.   Young people born and bred here will be tempted by education as well as employment opportunities to relocate in Perth, elsewhere in WA and interstate.

I think an increase in the proportion of elderly residents, resulting both from tree-changer migration and aging of settled inhabitants, will have serious implications for the economic fortunes of the Shire of York.  

Elderly people are usually less well off than younger residents of working age (younger residents with jobs, that is).   While often asset rich, many older folk are income poor.  They are likely to have difficulty paying their rates on time, and to have less money to spend in local shops.

They will also be less likely to make use of YRCC facilities and to be happy with having to pay the excessive rates that the Shire of York continues to inflict on us year after year when it should be seeking ways to reduce them.  It seems unconscionable, for example, that the same amount is charged on my property in York as on the much more valuable property of my wealthy barrister friend who lives in North Perth.

Incidentally, on page 84 of the master plan ABV notes that members of the York Bowling Club ‘may not wish to give up having [their] own clubroom facility to be part of a shared facility’.   On page 86, it makes a more emphatic comment regarding the Tennis Club:  ‘[The] Club is very happy with their current location and facilities’. 

So I wonder, what dark rhetorical arts did the Shire of York employ to persuade those good people that they would be better off in a sporting hub?  And what was in it for the Shire?

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'