COUNCIL’S endorsed Fit for the Future improvement proposal stresses the importance council places on community collaboration in determining the type and level of services to be provided.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Although ratepayer consultation is portrayed as a fundamental council function, one doesn’t necessarily have to be a hardened cynic to suggest that such a process at times is seldom more than a public relations gesture.
In the past year three significant issues, all subjects of community consultation, come to mind.
Initially, there was the traffic lights proposal in Batemans Bay.
Overwhelming community opposition to the proposal was totally ignored.
Further, there was the petition containing some 11,000 signatures protesting the special rate variation presented to council; again totally ignored.
Council’s proposed sea-level rise policy attracted 87 submissions; again totally ignored.
What really is the point of even bothering with consultation when only one side of the argument carries any weight?
A truly worrisome feature of council’s proposal is the priority given to strengthen and diversify its revenue streams.
One of the problems with revenue diversification is that quite often the diversification expense exceeds the revenue.
The Beach Resort is an educational example.
Some $10 million was invested in establishing the resort and to date accumulated operational losses amount to $4 million.
Annual losses are continuing in the vicinity of $300,000.
In the real world, with your own money at stake, this project would be closed down.
Not sure how many investment skeletons may be rattling in council’s financial closet as the published financial statements do not disclose the necessary details to assess the level of business investment expertise possessed by those who prepared the proposal and those who endorsed it.
Bert Hardy
Catalina