In light of ICC using Bluff Pool reserves to pay off the loan on Bluff Pool, I want to say I told you so.
The crux of the 536 submissions on the pool was that ICC fund $180,000 per year toward swimming facilities in Bluff. It was being proposed that council provide ‘operational funding up to $180,00 per year’. I laid out a plan, to the best of my abilities, that the full $180k was essential so that any operational savings the new trust made would mean they could place more in reserve for the future (ICC funding is only until 2019 and that could be removed through the next or future Long Term Plans).
Herein lies the problem with the Board and their narrow minded views. They were too busy bitching that someone else had an opposing view that they didn’t compare the differences. The ‘issue’ was not their focus but the negative views of the people involved. The audacity of the Chairperson when questioned by Crs about the large amount of submissions, ‘they were from the pub and kids’. Pissheads and children, nice message, nice way to support your community. If you can’t trump them just undermine them!
The loan on the building has been deemed ‘operational funding’ and loan payments have been budgeted as part of the Bluff Pool funding. So council have been paying it out of the ‘up to $180,000’. Now the loan’s paid off, their responsibilities (costs) to the pool reduce. That of course was their plan all along, as it should be, think of the whole city.
Our Board have a responsibility to Bluff and should have endorsed the ‘other option’ or grown a set and told council ‘you’re already paying $180k to run the place but it would’ve cost a shit load to maintain/repair/upgrade, give us $180k and you’re still making a saving ’cause even demolishing it would cost a fortune’.
So only a few years on and ICC are already making savings by offloading the pool and the trust have no reserve fund being built up as council’s part in the whole debacle. Being as council reports showed it only cost $150K to run that would mean $30k minimum would go into reserve over 10 years plus interest. So I told you so and this is another reason why the Board fail more often than not, they support their views not the community’s. All to often they are pipped by the people and processes that they screw over all of us.
What if in the 2016 Long Term Plan council recommend removing the funding (three years early)? They wouldn’t this LTP, eh guys? I can see another levy on our rates coming, this time out of necessity but as always it goes back to bad decisions and lack of foresight from the Board…there’s a reason you don’t go into Public Excluded with council. No public to support you, council have the power and know you can’t say anything (’cause it’s in PE) and railroad you.
Another Board failure but I told you so, did you even read it? Did you consider it on it’s merits? Or did you think it was only pissheads and children?
Whatever... 
Well put Kylie, That particular petition for the pool was presented to each and every work site, retail shop scene, dairies, takeaways, RSA, domestic letterboxes, schools too, and why not? also to residents of our retirement flats.
Yes our Board did submit its views about it in a flippant manner.
My son Nolan, and his family paid for the whole thing themselves, and delivered pamphlets themselves, all over town, but little legs can only do so much, particularly when time constraints are considered, and to have achieved the 570 odd signed responses was a good effort
I am forever indebted to Nolan’s open mind and the time and money he and the kids put in. It’s sad that a few (less than six) ruined it as it could have been a strong message to ICC. I can see the up to $180k being a problem…if only it had been the full $180k. I’ve come across some interesting documents while tidying up (I’d forgotten about them actually) on why they reconsulted over the pool (not the reason they told us). Hope to get to that over the next week.
Check out the 2002 letters to the editor over the Kindy, one there from Nolan (link on Blast from the past post)