Hall Carpark Costs Queried

20160711 Blackbutt Hall — An artist’s concept of how the Blackbutt Memorial Hall would look after it is relocated to Bowman Road; early plans to gradually upgrade the Hall’s infrastructure over five years have been accelerated by the chance to get a 50 per cent State Government subsidy for the project

March 16, 2017

A decision to put $250,000 towards the cost of a bitumen car park for the Blackbutt Memorial Hall led to some harsh words at Wednesday’s South Burnett Regional Council meeting.

Councillors were asked to support a motion the Council would contribute 50 per cent of the car park’s costs if its application to the State Government’s Building Our Regions grants program was successful.

The Memorial Hall is currently being moved from its former Coulson Street site to a new home near the Blackbutt Showgrounds so a modern supermarket can be built on the Coulson Street site.

Speaking to the motion, Cr Ros Heit said she thought a supermarket development in Blackbutt was a good idea.

“It will provide an economic boost to the area and generate employment in Blackbutt,” Cr Heit said.

“It will set up a facility which will support further growth (of the town) into the future.”

Cr Heit said she also thought the Blackbutt Hall’s new location was a good one, and having the developer upgrade the Hall to comply with current standards as part of the relocation project was a good thing, too.

“However, I have an issue with the cost of $500,000 plus to set up footpaths, a 22-bay carpark and landscaping,” Cr Heit said.

“Firstly, Blackbutt residents were told there would be no or a very minimal cost to ratepayers to relocate the Hall.

“$500,000 plus is a lot of money, and I think we are betraying not only Blackbutt’s residents but all South Burnett residents if we spend this sort of money on unnecessary infrastructure.

“There are nearly 20 halls in the South Burnett, most of which don’t have disability access toilets, are old and desperately in need of maintenance, and certainly don’t have a bitumen line-marked carpark.

“Secondly, the hall is a valuable community asset that is used for big functions once or twice a year, and smaller functions every couple of months, and I don’t believe this level of usage justifies the need for a bitumen carpark.

“Council assesses the need to seal roads on the basis of traffic counts, and I think the traffic count for this road would be less than one a day.

“If we have a spare $500,000 there are plenty of dangerous roads that could be improved with that sort of money which would get a lot more traffic.”

Cr Heit said she was also concerned Council might be setting a precedent by spending $500,000 to encourage the supermarket development to come to the region.

“Will every other new business want this sort of money spent to allow them to operate here? Can we afford this?”

However, Cr Heit said that if the Council can get a 50 per cent subsidy from the State Government, it made the redevelopment a more attractive proposition.

“With reluctance, I will vote for this motion,” Cr Heit said.

“But if we are unsuccessful in this submission, I will argue that $500,000 for such a low usage hall carpark is gross negligence and a betrayal of our obligation to deliver prudent financial management.”

Related articles:

Council

3 Responses to "Hall Carpark Costs Queried"

Pete Ward says:

March 17, 2017 at 7:14 am

“With reluctance, I will vote for this motion,” Cr Heit said. Why?? if you had voted “no” at least your objections would have meant something but now they are just hollow words. It’s a bit like ,when, during the council election campaign at least two new councillors were against the road levy, yet, within hours of being elected they had seen the error of their ways. Baa, baa.

S Carter says:

March 17, 2017 at 6:35 pm

If you are going to do a job . . . complete it to an appropriate standard. The hall is used much more frequently than stated. At this point, I would like to see my rates (which are extraordinarily high for such little return) used for my community’s benefit.

Bill McIntyre says:

March 17, 2017 at 8:20 pm

Clearly the opportunity to pick up 50% of the cost is something that Cr Heit is right to pursue here. Saving ratepayers $250K would be a great start but avoiding the whole $500K would be better which is what she said she will do if the grant is unsuccessful. Those being negative here should actually look at what has been said. Why on earth has this been supported by the other Councillors is the far better question. Also why won’t any of the media call the Mayor out on this claim that “internal revenue” is actually ratepayers’ money? Clearly the print media in this region is backwards if they buy the idea that somehow Council gets revenue from some other mystery source than the ratepayers/taxpayers. It’s all OUR money! Keep going Cr Heit! We need you!