SPLIT THE LAKE BILL
Claims of ‘fake news’ as council votes to save wildlife haven
THE cost of upgrading Black Swan Lake should be split between ratepayers and the Gold Coast Turf Club, says the area councillor.
New Southport councillor Brooke Patterson also believes council must pay the annual maintenance bill – estimated to be $10,000 – and ensure residents gain access to the area controlled by the turf club.
THE massive cost of upgrading Black Swan Lake should be split between ratepayers and the Gold Coast Turf Club, says the area councillor.
New Southport councillor Brooke Patterson also believes council must pay the annual maintenance bill – estimated to be $10,000 – and ensure residents gain access to the area controlled by the turf club.
Cr Patterson (pictured) has come under scrutiny on Facebook by some residents for the way she voted on the future of the lake at a full council meeting on Tuesday.
All the councillors present at the meeting were silent when a motion was put from a report, authored by council
CEO Dale Dickson, recommending the lake be filled.
Councillors then agreed to stop the meeting as Cr Peter Young drafted a motion recommending the lake be saved. The vote was 6-5 in favour.
Cr Patterson was one of the councillors opposed.
During comments on her own Facebook page about her vote, Cr Patterson wrote: “I didn’t support the original motion to fill it in either. Wording around issues is delicate and important.
“I had concerns that it was another decision made on the run, without a properly thought-out resolution. The resolution, as presented, means ratepayers could be paying over $1m with the details left up to the CEO to determine.
“During the break for drafting the resolution, I proposed we include the amount we expect the turf club to contribute and define who is responsible for ongoing maintenance in the resolution.
“I believe the resolution should have been held off until we could have had a clear, explicit action plan. Given the details we have seen, it will cost a minimum of $600,000 and up to $1.5m. “I did not vote to fill it in – disappointing to see fake news posted about my actions, but I suppose I’ll just have to accept that in a public position.”
In February on Facebook, Cr Patterson told residents her position on the lake was “council covers the cost of maintaining the water quality so the lake can be enjoyed by wildlife and residents”.
“I will encourage the turf club to dig the lake deeper to enhance the lake’s health in the drier months. It is my understanding the turf club are already open to this at their own expense.”
The report prepared by Mr Dickson suggested the turf club had “formally advised it is not prepared to, or does not have the funds, to expend” on substantial capital works to create an acceptable water body.
But the report explains the turf club was prepared to make a one-off $125,000 contribution if the lake was filled in to develop another “green” asset.
The Bulletin understands councillors were told the turf club would consider spending $200,000 on filling in the lake and providing the new environmental project.
Cr Patterson told the Bulletin: “I do think council should be responsible for ongoing maintenance, not the turf club. The one advantage of public access is community groups want to keep it clean and that is great contribution. That wasn’t clarified in the resolution.”