Rodney Stevens
The process of the Treelands Drive Community Centre TDCC project has evolved since prior to 2018 with several council resolutions, an attempt to transfer the funding to the Regional Aquatic Centre, and the potential of two options presented to the community, A and B.
The Clarence Valley Independent CVI met with Clarence Valley Council General Manager, Laura Black (LB), and Mayor, Peter Johnstone (PJ), to discuss the project and provide answers to the community about how the process reached the current stage, the demolition of the existing centre.
The questions asked by the CV Independent were based on council’s response (below) to a story that the editor elected not to publish in the February 7 edition of the newspaper (given a meeting had subsequently been arranged with the General Manager and the Mayor to discuss the entire Treelands Drive Community Centre issue).
“Councillors have been kept well-informed through reports to council and a number of workshops,” a council spokesperson said.
“Option B, discussed in late 2022 was not progressed as it was a 100 per-cent council funded project without a funding strategy and an approved budget to progress.”
Mayor Peter Johnstone acknowledged some of the council decisions about the TDCC were made in 2022 and councillors may not remember some of the details that were discussed at the time.
___________________
CVI: Why weren’t councillors informed and provided information that council staff had put JCA (James Cubitt Architects) on hold until an option was determined by council? As seen in the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery BLER funding October 2022 quarterly report.
PJ: We’re talking October, that’s when the (community) consultation had just been happening in Yamba. That’s when council staff had gone out to the community to speak about Option A and Option B, it was a genuine consultation.
LB: How do we know that councillors were not informed, that’s what I’m a little bit confused about?
___________________
CVI: I’ve spoken to some councillors, and they told me that they were not informed.
PJ: These are things that go on in the background, it would be something that would be assumed by councillors that we would do that sort of thing. If we had decided to go for Option B at that point and we carried on the architects’ work, that would be misuse of public funds, because we would have been getting people to work on something that wasn’t going to proceed.
___________________
CVI: So why were the concept plans for Option B put on hold?
LB: Because council had determined that they wanted to go to the community and say do you want Option A or B, which was fundamentally the difference between selling the Wooli Street (Hall) at that stage. So, Option A and the funding strategy for Option A factored in the sale of Wooli Street. What we were hearing from the community is that they didn’t want to sell Wooli Street, so the council decided that we should go out to the community and say what do you actually want. Obviously, the project was halted while we did that.
___________________
CVI: The December 13, 2022, and February 28, 2023 council business papers state that “a design brief was compiled for the architect and the concept drawings were developed to support the community engagement sessions.” The December 2022 business papers also state “a commitment was made to prepare high level concept plans (Option B) to relocate the library at the Treelands Drive site, and to conduct community engagements drop-in sessions.” Why was this the case and do you think you may have misinformed the councillors and the community? Is it possible to see a copy of the design brief for the high-level concept plans for Option B?
LB: Option A was already at 90 per-cent designed at that stage. To be honest, this is the first time in October 2022 that they were called Option A and Option B. Before that it was just the Community Centre at Yamba is at detailed design stage 90 per-cent. There was another thought that in fact we could refurbish what we had and move the library over at a much lower cost.
PJ: They are talking about a concept design, which, from my understanding is more like an artists diagram, rather than a detailed engineering plan which is what we would need.
LB: That’s what went out to the community when they went to those consultation sessions at the markets, at Treelands Drive, and the library, they had what they were calling Option A and Option B at the time. I’m pretty sure Option A was fairly detailed because it was at 90 per-cent stage, and Option B was largely the shape of Treelands Drive (site) with a box out the back that was the library, that was what the councillors saw. There wasn’t a lot of effort put into that because what the councillors wanted, which I think came out in debate. The councillors said why don’t we just refurbish the existing building and bring the library over as well. It (Option B) was an idea that came out of the September October 2022 discussions.
___________________
CVI: Who developed the plan for Option B that went to the community to choose between Option A and Option B?
LB: If you go way back, to the previous council, sometime between 2018 and 2021, there were a number of options looked at that supported the 2018 Regional Cultural Fund application. There was an option back at that stage, not designed, that had ad hoc refurbishment of Treelands Drive and adding a hall or a library at the rear of the centre. Once they were worked up into minor concept designs that was called D3, this is why it’s been a bit confusing around the options. The first thing we did with the new council was to be briefed on the Treelands Drive project, because we knew it was our biggest project at the time.
___________________
CVI: So who developed that plan?
LB: I don’t know who the architect at the time was, it was in 2017, it was before my time. So sorry I don’t know who the architect or the designer was that they engaged back in 2017.
___________________
CVI: At the February 2023 council meeting, then Mayor Ian Tiley read out an email from Mr Davies from the Office of Local Government that was sent to GM Laura Black. There was a second paragraph in the email that wasn’t provided to councillors which stated, “I should flag however that the position is not entirely clear and this is very much a “vibe” based view and does not have a solid legal basis.” Why weren’t councillors provided that sentence from that email?
LB: The Mayor at the time decided that the information that councillors required was the information that was relevant to them making a decision. That second sentence, what it is saying, it that there is no case law, that this hasn’t been tested in a court of law, that’s what that sentence says. And as far as the Mayor was concerned at the time, that wasn’t relevant to councillors making a decision.
___________________
CVI: It appears councillors were provided inaccurate information prior to the February 2023 council meeting and that was that the BLER grant would be lost if they voted for Option B. Four councillors can be heard in the meeting recording stating this. Why were councillors told this?
LB: Because we didn’t have a project, it wasn’t funding anything. If it wasn’t funding Option A and couldn’t be transferred to the Grafton Regional Pool, what was it funding?
PJ: With this particular meeting, the problem that we were always going to have was the timeframe. The danger was at that point there we’d kicked the can so far down the road to the point where, if we’d gone for Option B, remembering we only had the concept plans, architects are not going to turn around and make a full plan in a month. I don’t know how long it takes.
LB: The funding body advised that it would take them up to six weeks to approve any variation, and we had to spend the money by June 2024, and the other issue is that the smaller concept, which may have used 100 per-cent of the grant means that we would have had to complete the building, complete the acquittal, get a DA approval, and do everything in four months, which was never going to happen. So, if they’d changed the direction at that point, we would have lost the grant. It might not have read like that in the report, but councillors are aware of these things because they come to pre-meeting briefings where these things are fully fleshed out.
PJ: We had the date then of July 2024, and councillors asked the General Manager to go back to the BLER funding people and ask what’s the deadline. They came back saying the final deadline is June 2025. The councillors were saying, surely, we can push that back a bit. Then we got the firm (response) if its not done by June 2025 forget it, we’ve got plenty of other things to spend the money on, was my interpretation of that. I don’t like the idea of taking a perfectly good building and knocking it down, so I voted against that all the way, but I like even less $11 million of funding going back to the government, so when push came to shove and we knew we were going to lose the funding, that’s when my vote changed.
___________________
CVI: It appears that the council business paper of 28 February 2023, has inaccurate information and that is that Option B would lose the grant, that Option B did not meet the grant guidelines and the approved allocated funding. Why was this the case when an email from the Department of Regional NSW dated March 16, 2023, states “I’m concerned that perhaps there’s been some confusion with the funding deed conditions, because of this project, we were working on Option B and it would have been a permissible scope variation (to refurbish the existing centre, rather than knock down and rebuild, in order to deliver the project within the available funds.
PJ: We have mentioned Option D3, that was a concept plan from a long time ago. At that stage there were other concept plans including what then was Option B, that could be focused on but that was before our time (this council). When the BLER funding people were talking about Option B, they were actually referring to Option D3.
LB: The BLER funding people were talking about an old Option B, which they understood to be Option B, which was actually the old Option D3, not the Option B that came out of nowhere in October 2022. There were not just two options here, there were a history of various options.
PJ: We made the decision, we made it simple for the public by instead of going out to the public and saying do you want Option A or Option D3, we have said do you want Option A or Option B.
LB: There was an explanation of this from the council staff member to the staff member at the BLER fund, which the councillors saw, and the BLER fund responded saying thanks for that. The staff member explained to the BLER funding staff that this Option B that we’re working on at the moment is a new thing, its not even designed yet, it’s not the Option B that you’re thinking of. (The original Option D3).
___________________
CVI: It appears after the December 13, 2022, council meeting Option B was not progressed. Why was this the case and if so, why was the process halted?
PJ: Option B, at that stage was not progressing, because the BLER funding, we believed, was going to be transferred to the pool. (Regional Aquatic Centre) so all of a sudden you have got a project here that is unfunded. Council staff can’t go spending council money without the approval of the councillors, so if they’d instructed an architect to go away and make up these wonderful plans for Option B, at that stage, it was an unfunded project. We had no money because it had all gone to the pool as far as we were concerned.
LB: The other practical thing was in fact the architect at the time closed shop over the Christmas period, and this was explained to councillors in an email in January 2023. At the time that we’d received advice from the BLER funding people that no, you can’t transfer the money across to the pool, the architect was still closed. So that’s why the next report came back to council said, we’re in a jam, we need to proceed with the original plan.
___________________
CVI: Council’s comment states Option B, discussed in late 2022 was not progressed as it was a 100 per-cent council funded project without a funding strategy and approved budget to progress. Who was this discussed with, because I have spoken to several councillors, and they weren’t aware that Option B was a 100 per-cent council funded project?
LB: It was in the report for the November 2022 business papers. I’m pretty sure there was a funding diagram. (Ms Black produced the funding diagram). So, I’m not sure why councillors wouldn’t know. The point was that this Option B was not to be funded by the BLER fund, the pool was. Council wasn’t notified that the money could be transferred to the pool until January 2023, and the reason we requested the transfer was that the BLER funding department told us, verbally, that it could be done. Then they put it in writing to say we couldn’t (transfer the money to the pool). The decision about transferring the BLER funding went to a committee, and they said no. We were also creeping towards a state election then, so the department was trying to get agreements sorted out to spend the funds. Because of a change of government, the money was withdrawn, and this happened to a lot of councils, if they didn’t have the funding agreement.
PJ: Where’s the money going to come from. (At this stage) we’ve taken the money away from this and we’ve put it into the pool. If there’s no funding because it’s gone to the pool, who would be funding it? Council would have to pay for it.
___________________
CVI: Council’s comment states that Option B, discussed in late 2022 was not progressed as it was a 100 per-cent council funded project without a funding strategy and an approved budget to progress. Were councillors informed of this prior to the February 2023 council meeting?
PJ: Absolutely, I knew exactly what was going on. If councillors hadn’t worked out that money had gone from here to here, so we’ve got no money left, they’re either not remembering very well or not paying attention. I’d be astonished if it wasn’t said in a pre-meeting briefing.
LB: At no point in time did council actually pass a resolution that funded it (Option B), so it had no funding strategy. I cannot spend money if council doesn’t approve the spend.
___________________
CVI: I have been in contact with several councillors and none of them said they’d been informed Option B was 100 per-cent council funded. Also, the funding strategy and budget was a given as Option B in the November 2022 business papers outlined the cost estimate was $8 million, which allowed for the full refurbishment the existing TDCC and a carpark.
LB: We talk to councillors about estimate costs of things all the time, but unless the council actually allocates a budget, we have no authority to spend.
___________________
CVI: Given Option B was successful in a council resolution at the December 2022 council meeting would you have anticipated that the funding strategy for Option B was the BLER grant, as the cost estimate appeared to be less than the grant?
LB: In December 2022 we had already asked the Department to transfer the funds (to the pool project). Do I accept that Option B would also be the BLER funds, no. We’d already requested it be transferred to the pool, we can’t request that it be transferred to the pool and, also spend it on Treelands Drive.
PJ: When we went out to public consultation for Options A and B, it came back with a slight preference for Option A. The only reason we were talking about Option B in December 2022, was because the funding had gone. Option B was a cheaper outcome than Option A, we’re talking about $8 million. So, we were only talking about Option B at that time because (we thought) the money had gone, so otherwise we would have been progressing Option A.
___________________
CVI: In council meetings there is often a comment that a funding source needs to be identified for the work to be done by council. Why didn’t this occur at the December 2022 council meeting?
LB: The December 2022 council meeting resolution was to investigate a contact variation with the current design contract for the detailed design of Option B. That takes staff time to investigate whether you even can vary the contract, you don’t need a budget for that. And allocate expenditure to date to the general fund, is, identifying the funding source.
___________________
CVI: Some of the councillors that I have spoken to have told me there was a climate change report that was issued about the TDCC, and it stated it would have been better for climate change outcomes to knock down the existing centre, than refurbish, and it also said it would be cheaper to knock down rather than refurbish the existing centre. Do you recall that report and can you explain the logic behind it?
LB: That report had to be prepared as part of the 2018 application to the Regional Cultural Fund. The business case then considered several options. Do nothing, it considered the creation of a new single storey precinct at Treelands Drive, it considered creation of a new double-storey precinct at Treelands Drive, and it considered ad hoc refurbishment of Treelands Drive by adding the hall and the library out the back, and it considered a totally greenfield site. It was undertaken by a consultant to consider, of these options, which was the most efficient way to progress the project. It was provided to the councillors via email early in their term in 2022. I do recall that it said it would be more cost effective to proceed with knocking down and a single storey (precinct at Treelands Drive) than refurbishing. The environmental impacts for each of those options is what they considered. A lot of people say this is only a 21 or a 25-year-old building, but if you look at the building code of Australia for requirements for buildings back in the 80s, compared to buildings currently, and you here this a lot, particularly with commercial properties where they go to do an upgrade of their building and all of a sudden they have to provide disability access. There is a whole heap of different elements that they have to do in a current building. All of these things are more costly. So to refurbish the existing Treelands Drive building would have required a significant amount of change internally, also to bring it up to Information Technology speed because there is a lot of cabling that is not there, also the roof needed replacing. The report considered that the most environmentally friendly way and most cost-efficient way was to start with flat ground. It is purely to do with that retrofitting of things is quite costly when the original building is not set up to be retrofitted.
___________________
CVI: Councillors anticipated that the resolution in the December 2022 council meeting would have been progressed and return to council with a response about the contract variation and a funding strategy and budget. Why didn’t this progress? What stopped it?
PJ: That would have been at the February 2023 meeting. Because in January we heard that the money wouldn’t be transferred over (to the pool). So why would council put up a report that would have been out of date.
LB: Councillors were advised by email, then I got a query from a councillor by email about a week later and I provided a response. That being that we’d now heard from the BLER funding body that we couldn’t transfer the funds (to the pool) and as well as that the architect was still closed, they hadn’t reopened from December, so we’d had no chance to have a conversation and investigate a contract variation.
___________________
CVI: Can you please explain why council favoured Option A over Option B, given that Option B would have been funded through the BLER grant, a design had been started and the BLER funding group were notified Option B was being explored?
PJ: Council agreed to go for Option A, after public consultation, Option B was only considered when the money had gone to the pool, and therefore we were going to be self-funding. And we were talking about Option D3 as far as the BLER funding was concerned, rather than what they (BLER funding group) thought was Option B.
___________________
LB: We have, at in no point in time, received approval for an option other than what is now known as Option A. What the BLER grant funding body has always said they would consider a variation being lodged for another option. That’s not approval. We experienced that with them when they told us that we could transfer the funds, but it didn’t get approved.
___________________
CVI: How confident are you that this project and council’s decisions about it are in accordance with Codes of Meeting Practice and the Office of Local Government regulations?
PJ: 100 per-cent. If it isn’t then councillors have the right to challenge through rescission motions, and we’ve had rescission motions on this that didn’t get up. At the end of the day, can anybody identify a regulation or a provision in the Code of Meeting Practice that hasn’t been followed? Our intention will always be to follow Local Government regulations and the Code of Meeting Practice.