The continuing Saga of Bullock Island

Well,  I seem to have stirred a hornets nest, but make no apology for asking the questions that need to be asked regarding this seemingly ongoing saga. I note the response apparently released by the Shire, but apparently posted by a Councillor's wife who  it appears descended into name calling, that is addressed below.

Let's be quiet clear, our ratepayer\taxpayer funds are being swallowed up. We deserve best value for our dollar. We deserve every effort made to reduce the seemingly automatic rate rises imposed. We deserve accountability, high level, efficient, cost effective project management. We deserve open and honest efficient operations and community interaction through discussion and debate with our elected councillors - all 9 of them.

Despite the response posted, questions remain and in brief are;

What has caused these spider web cracks, there must be a reason. To  find and note the cause may save ratepayer funds in future projects.

How can we be saying " several months" when, as I recall, the West footpath was only laid right before Christmas and the East not that long beforehand?  Within the budget, which budget? We were told the bridge was well over budget, which one are we talking about and what is the current total estimated cost.

From where will the cost of project overruns already publicised by paid, alternatively which part of the Bullock Island upgrade is to be reduced to pay for bridge overruns

Regarding the toilet block, Have the conditions of the funding source been adhered to? What was the cost of the build? Why is  sewer connection a separate project? Why was this cost not itemised in the original plans, and if not why were the plans passed? Seems out of place to have a unconnected toilet block.Why not consider a sceptic tank versus the presumed expensive sewer connection.

My full explanation from the Shire response posted, follows in greater detail; 

The  East footpath had fine spider web cracks, whatever they are?  

What has caused these spider web cracks, there must be a valid reason and it would be interesting to note the cause. That is the East side, what about the West, that is the one which has been dug up. Does this mean both sides will be replaced?  My advice is Cracks are cracks -cosmetic or structural is the description not Spiders web. This  type of cracking  is normally caused by differential curing as the surface was not kept watered  under hessian while the curing process took place . This does not indicate being laid correctly.

Apparently over several months these numerous cracks are appearing in the footpaths on both sides of the new Bullock Island Bridge. Investigations have taken place apparently, and advice given that the cracks will not affect the structure of the bridge. But the footpath  is liable to crack and stain due to salt water getting in the cracks and re enforcement. No reason  has been given all cement was  apparently certified and laid correctly. Perhaps the shire has heard of The Cement ,Concrete and Aggregates Association who could provide free advice!

Based on this a call has been made to remove the top layer of  footpath and replace it with new reenforced concrete. (Seems not to be just the top layer). Rectification expected to take two weeks.  This work will, we are told, maintain the planned 100 year lifespan of the bridge without nasty cracks.  (I won't be around to make sure it happens!!)  All these repairs will apparently be made within the budget.

How can we be saying " several months" when, as I recall, the West footpath was only laid right before Christmas and the East not that long beforehand?  How can there be no reason for the cracks there must be a reason, best find it before it happens again. Within the budget, which budget? We were told the bridge was well over budget, which one are we talking about and what is the total estimated cost now?

Cost overruns have to come from somewhere, where is the question or do we the ratepayer/taxpayer cop it again?  In current times we should be cost saving to reduce rate rises and their impact on cost of living for all.

Bullock Island Toilets, were I am told built ahead of schedule to ensure that grant money could be used. Obviously a timing issue to start work here.  A separate project was sewer connection and a very expensive one. The connection can be and is , I am advised, within the works that another contractor has been allocated. Again apparently a different method and cheaper one. 

Have the conditions of the relevant funding source been adhered to, or has some shall we say manipulation been enacted? What was the cost of the build? Why is  sewer connection a separate project, is this an example of the staging and delegation I referred to? Why was this cost not itemised in the original plans, and if not why were the plans passed? Seems out of place to have a unconnected toilet block. I am all for reducing costs but why was this different and far cheaper connection not included in original plans? Has a septic tank system been investigated?

I am aware of some negative comments made in my direction, even some derogatory ones, and questions as to the level of community interest.

The blog has had considerable response on LE Noticeboard, 38 and plus 20 comments mostly agreeing with my blog, then Lakes Entrance Chatter Box, 11 plus 5 who made comment. The blog itself has had a total of reads 1108. (Figures correct at time of writing). Further and regarding LEFTRADE, if I got it wrong and it appears I did, I apologise,  so is it LEFCOL who are building the cafe at public expense? 

Yes, a small minority have had a go at me, fine, I will never have all agreeing with me, nor do I expect it. I am a big boy and can take constructive criticism.  

I will not however, respond to abusive and rude responses so don't bother writing them. They will be treated with the contempt they deserve. As for those who descend into name calling, I refuse to lower myself to that level in response.

As for the continual negativity, of which I am accused, it is denied in the strongest possible terms. I have spent years promoting the region and especially Lakes, supporting it whilst employed and since. I call it how I see it. If something is good I will say so, and have done on numerous occasions. 

The Bullock Island project is a prime example of being late and over budget. It started way back around 2013/14, that is almost 10 years ago. How many consultancies have been done and at what cost? Now I hear yet another has been authorised, and so on and so forth!

Unless questions are asked, projects held to time and budget, and management held to account, I fear for the town's future. Is the community willing to be the instigators of their own demise by lack of  questioning and interest? 

Are we as ratepayers and taxpayers willing to sit idly by and watch both rise without question? 

I deal in the truth, the facts and ask relevant questions, nothing more.

The reputation of Shire is not good it would seem by comments posted on line, this is borne out by many verbal conversations. I believe that open honest communication is a vital and an important factor in Council/Community interaction. In this case it seems to have failed, surely by pre-advising of these apparent issue's it would have, I believe, done wonders to negate these community opinions/concerns.  A matter seemingly lost of late.

I will continue to take note of my surroundings good and not so good, and will continue to call out what I feel is wrong or demands questions for the benefit of all. 

I firmly believe that Lakes Entrance has incredible untapped potential, but so many ideas and concepts are and have been ignored and it appears the ratepayers are not getting full value for their dollar.