Councillor’s push to stop pool tender process fails

A councillor’s push to stop a tender process for a potential external operator to provide swimming pool operations has been unable to proceed.

Cr Linda Newell sought to rescind an earlier decision to enter into an expression of interest process for the management of the Gunnedah Memorial Pool Complex.

Gunnedah Shire Council agreed at the March meeting to proceed to a selective tender process with Leisure and Recreation Group and Belgravia Leisure in relation to the operation of the pool. The council also agreed for the tender outcomes to return to councillors for consideration.

The matter was heard in closed council at the time. Minutes from the meeting show that IVG Global and PK’s Pool Care were declined an opportunity to tender.

Putting her case forward, Cr Newell said the council would still have to pay “an extraordinary amount of money” for the pool to be managed which would “minimally reduce the financial cost to ratepayers”.

“It costs us lots of money to run, as do many other community assets that we own,” Cr Newell said.

“I think hiring it out potentially will impact our community on our major user groups, and just on the community in general.”

Cr Newell described the complex as a community asset.

“The dollar figure that we keep getting is the pool runs to a $1.3 to $1.8m loss every year,” she said.

“Part of that loss incorporates about $300,000 of depreciation, so that’s a cost we’re going to incur whether we tender the pool out or not.”

Cr Newell explained that she had spoken to three of the major pool user groups, and while there had been some difficulties between the groups, things had been more harmonious.

As part of her push, Cr Newell sought a report about possible free entry for families during the January school holidays.

She said with most of the user groups purchasing season passes, the council would not “lose a great deal of money”.

Cr Newell also told the meeting the community had outgrown the swimming pool facility and queried a previous master plan for the complex.

Following Cr Newell’s motion, councillors discussed the matter at length with most disagreeing with shifting away from the tender process.

Cr Tammey McAllan described such a change as a huge step back for the community.

Cr McAllan welcomed Cr Newell’s engagement with the community groups, but voiced concern with a lack of “proof” in the information with Cr Newell’s motion.

Cr Kate McGrath said she supported points two and three of Cr Newell’s motion but found the point to stop the tender process “trickier”.

“I think I’ve been quite clear that tendering out the pool operations is not my preferred approach,” she said.

“However, I do believe that in order to have a preferred approach, the relevant information is required.”

Cr McGrath sought to have the point to stop the tender process removed as an amendment.

Cr Newell explained her concerns that tenders are discussed in closed council and that one of her primary intentions would be for the community to be consulted.

Cr McAllan also voiced concern with not proceeding with a matter because it would be heard in closed council.

“If we start saying … ‘no, we’re not going to vote on anything because it’s in closed council or tenders’ … well … we’re not going to get anywhere with anything,” she said.

“We have to have the facts. No one in this room can even make these decisions without getting all the facts on the table.”

Cr Rob Hooke acknowledged Cr Newell’s detail and intention to do the best for the community.

“The motion at the moment assumes that any tender process that comes out is going to be in the negative. We don’t know that,” he said.

“I would like to see what is actually available through the tender process. It may actually be a favourable outcome; if it is a favourable outcome, that’s terrific. If it’s not a favourable outcome, then we’re likely to reject it.”

Cr McGrath also sought assurance from council staff that information would come back about the cost of operating the complex both externally as well as through the council for comparison.

In the business paper included with the meeting, staff comments included that rescinding part of the decision “would not allow council the opportunity to consider what outsourced models of management may be available for the pool complex”.

“Various council staff have spent a considerable number of hours since the motion was passed preparing a comprehensive tender specification and are close to the point of being able to release this information to the preferred EOI respondents,” the business paper states.

“This time and effort will be lost if a rescission occurs. The proposed rescission motion does not address the underlying reasons of why council resolved to proceed to tender in the first place.”

The motion for the matter was put to councillors and was lost.