What is not so heartening is the implicit misrepresentation of the council’s actions concerning the Australasia. If a reader were not astute, the reader might think the councillors voting against Cr Bain’s motion for the sale of the building were not supporting the requirement for restoration. We know, in fact, they were voting to keep the property in council’s hands.

Furthermore, if the reader had seen the wording of the subsequently issued EOI, the reader might have thought keeping the laneway in public hands was to be at the behest of the buyer – that is, the whole property was to be sold, and then the buyer would graciously bequeath the laneway to the council. The buyer could, however, not be forced to hand it over legally. I do hope the upcoming tenders for the site will have this rather awkward problem sorted out.

What the reader might not know, is that the value of the laneway and the value of the car park potential in the rear of the old building is equal to, if not more than, the amount paid by council for the property – important assets for the town. The building was, in effect, thrown in for free. 

Sadly, if the councillor’s motion had not been passed by those listed in the letter, the Australasia Inc (of which I am a proud member) would have been able to apply for grants to help restoration of the façade. The state government may well have been paying for internal restoration and rent for the services it is expanding into Eden. 

The councillor is being disingenuous in her closing comment about hating the fate of the Australasia becoming a large public toilet, when she knows since the passing of her motion it has already lost giving the community so much more.

A couple of weeks ago, Mayor Kristy McBain unleashed council’s annual “we’ll all be rooned” pre-budget offensive through the local media, citing a list of financial mountains that council simply couldn’t climb.

Talking about forecast income, the management report dealing with the draft budget in the agenda for the recent council meeting referred to the 1.5 per cent rate increase, which will generate an additional $330,000 in income. 

On the expenditure side, council makes mention of major increases in insurance costs amounting to $250K, an increase of $15,000 in annual audit costs, an increase in $188,000 in fire services levies and an increase in award wages of 2.5 per cent.

So, what should we make of all this recent gnashing of council’s teeth?

We could wonder how council is financially damaged by the emergency services levy when government land is exempt from such taxes and council’s role from July 1 is simply to collect the revenue on behalf of the state government.

We could wonder why council thinks it’s important to mention specific dollar amounts when referring to cost increases like audit costs ($15,000), insurance ($250,000) and the mysterious increase in the “fire services levy” ($188,000), but when it comes to wages, we are told there will simply be an increase of 2.5 per cent (no mention of the fact this increase will likely amount to $800,000).

So, given the above, it would seem that the real “existential threat” to council’s finances would appear to be in its continuing massive increases in employee costs.

And if council’s finances are in such dire straits, how is it that we could recently afford to hand a gift of $150,000 to the Pambula-Merimbula Golf Club and be seriously considering a $95,000 gift to Sapphire Coast Tourism? Or are we simply being treated to the usual empty management fluff as an excuse for the ongoing failure of council to deliver efficient basic services?