Eurobodalla Shire Council, as a consequence of not receiving State approval of a rate rise above CPI determined that it would withdraw a range of services that it considered were no longer affordable.
One of these was the withdrawal of $150,000 that paid for the annual beach patrol services provided by Australian Lifesaving Services to seven of the key shire beaches over the summer holiday period.
The main beach of Tuross Head was one of these seven beaches.
It is estimated that $24,000 is required to provide the Beach Patrol service to Tuross Head.
Following a cancellation of a summer holiday booking and threats of other cancellations Tuross businesses have now begun to realise that not only the risk of loss of life is at stake without a patrolled beach but widespread financial loss is also at hand if tourists begin to consider having their holidays elsewhere where beaches are patrolled.
Council say they will not back down on their descision.
Either sponsors are found to provide the $24,000 or there will be no beach patrol for our summer visitors.
For more background information visit this page
Have your say :
Posts
9 comments:
The first I heard of the Council’s decision was when a guest who lives in Canberra called and cancelled a Christmas booking, saying “I can’t allow my kids to swim at a beach that is not patrolled”.
Initially, I was mainly concerned about this situation from a financial point of view. The absence of lifeguards at Tuross Beach over the summer season will directly impact the tourism popularity of Tuross Head and will directly or indirectly have a financial impact for every business owner and every property owner in Tuross Head.
Then, I came across a report to Council that shows that many lives will be at risk in the absence of lifeguard service on Tuross Beach. 45 lives were saved across the Shire in 2008-9. There were more than 9,000 “preventative actions”. For that year, there were 6 rescues at Tuross Beach, which the lifeguards considered to be life-saving.
I am appalled to think that the Council is willing to risk the lives of thousands of people and stand by while, and there is no doubt, dozens of people will drown, for the sake of a miserable $150,000, for that is the amount that the Council will save across the whole Shire. The 45 “lives saved” according to the Council’s own records in 2008-9, cost a mere $3,300 each.
This expenditure would have to be the best value for money the Council could ever hope for - $3,300 per life saved.
Mayor Fergus Thomson was heard giving a radio interview last week and indicated, as I understand it, that the Council is looking to clubs and commercial enterprises to fund the lifeguard services on Tuross Beach.
In Tuross, we don’t have a Stocklands or a club the size of Catalina. Our own Country Club has insufficient funds to help. Most Tuross businesses struggle to make ends meet.
Maybe we should approach McDonalds or KFC for donations. Maybe they could also repair some of the run down toilet blocks in the town. Why not contribute to road maintenance while they are at it? Where would it end?
Council might argue that it is not its legal responsibility for lifeguard services. But, it certainly has established its moral responsibility and there is a HUGE community expectation that the Council will continue to provide these services.
Please sign the petition you will find in various shops around town and hop on to the turosshead.org website and “Have your say” (see the “Have your say button on LHS near the bottom of the home page). Please encourage others to do likewise. It will only be when enough people speak up that the Council might take some notice and reverse this bad decision.
I know several families who love this spot & will not spend their summer holidays at Tuross this summer if there is no beach patrol.
Apart from the lost business, has anybody compared the financial cost of the loss of a life to the total annual cost of the lifesaver service.
Not so many years ago I was involved in a project where the economists actually worked out this $ cost. It was over $1M per life total cost to the community at large.
As a local business owner and resident, I was apalled to hear the news last week that we would have not beach patrol this year.
Unfortunatly we as a business in our first year, on the lake suffered from the floods we had in the begining of this year and are not in a financial position to fund a life saving patrol, we already donate our services to the marine rescue on a daily basis. If we had known about this we could have withdrawn our funding to Eurobodalla Tourism and put it into the patrol, and now wonder why Eurobodalla Tourism has not been approached as there is so much spent to advertise the area, and this is working against that advertising. When I pay my membership it goes to the council account. Is there no communication between the different arms of the council?
John Suthern
Tuross Boatshed
The councillors have seriously let down the community. Blind Freddy could have seen that the pulling of beach patrol money was going to eventuate in a ratepayer backlash. Thanks to concerned Tuross busnesspeople we are now on guard that our Councillors didn't foresee this backlash and if they did they were happy to put the lives of our tourists out to tender. yeah, let the winning donor advertise themselves on our beaches - what next? Sponsorship on our toilets and our playgrounds # wake up Councillors # or you are gone next election - you want threats to withdraw spending - we will threaten to withdraw you
It is a Local Govt responsibilty to ensure Life Guard services on select beaches. In fact it is an Australian tradition which ESC may be the first to threaten and therefore sends a message that our beaches could be unsafe for residents and visitors ;
if lack of ESC funding is the reason for not providing a Life Saver service at Tuross this summer, then a public fund-raising campaign in Tuross is recommended which would shame council and gain adverse publicity. I am prepared to donate. ; a positive suggestion for Council fundraising for Life Saver services in Tuross - trial a pilot scheme to increase the EXCESS water rate for Tuross residents. The water rate is $2.40 per kilolitre, the rate for usage over 150 kilolitres is $3.60 per kilolitre. Anyone using more than this for residential purposes is wasting precious water and should pay a lot more than $3.60, say $10 per kilolitre above 150 kilolitres ie: 1c per litre. ( people pay over a $1 litre for bottled water ) I suggest ESC be requested to trial this in Tuross with additional revenue going to Life Saver services. There may be a case to increase the fee above usage of 100 kilolitres. If successful, expand throughout the shire.
Regards, Gary Smith.
All it would take would be for ten cancellations to make up the loss of 150 grand in this town. ten families cancel and go elsewhere for their week long holiday. With the neriga road now open and sealed all the canberra people will be going north to nowra anyway and they have patrolled beaches up in the shoalhaven. Bloody stupid dicision by Councillors to back a bloody stupid idea put to them by council staff or was it the councilors idea in the first place
No question whatsoever that the benefits of patrols exceed the costs many times over. So for the program to fall off the list of Council priorities means other activities have even higher benefit cost ratios. Fine, what are they? Library? Toilets? Footpaths? Knowing the trade-offs for the next say 10 priorities would help. Its hard to see patrols being knocked off!
BW
Tuross
See news flash - Council to provide lifeguards for Tuross Beach.
Many thanks to Lei Parker, without whose energy this would not have happened.
Geoff Ward
Tuross Beach Holiday Park
Post a Comment