Dredging considerations

The article on the dredging and the Chamber's criticism ("Chamber criticises dredging decision", November 24) is missing several facts, along with a misinterpretation of other matters.

Please allow me to clarify them.

Firstly, as mayor, the priority has always been that of public safety.

The channel is the responsibility of NSW Waterways for vessel movement and the Department of Lands for the seabed.

Since March 2008, nothing has changed including the three councillors currently running the "Liberal excuse".

What did they do prior to the September election?

While Waterways deem the channel safe for use (no doubt they would have closed it otherwise), my issues have been about safety, cost and the sand removal proposal.

The dredging cost is not recoverable for council.

Council has spent over $3 million in the last six years in maintenance, upgrading of 22 public boat ramps and 53 public jetties under council's responsibility.

However, the government derives income from the 996 private jetty owners (annual lease fees of approximately $400 to $5000), mooring fees from the 1200 moorings in the area, licence and registration fees for 8000 boats in the area plus about $200,000 per annum in fishing licences.

Where have the tens of millions of dollars been spent on our waterways to the benefit of the users?

The $250,000 of our rate dollars would be better spent on our local roads, which is council's responsibility, rather than for the dredging.

In fact, we need more dollars for our roads.

As for the removal of the sand, if the channel is dredged, we are advised it will be relocated a couple of hundred metres away and go back into the water and therefore the problem will come back.

As for the inference by Mr Wales about the expenditure on the Terrigal Trojans Club, he is wrong.

When Council considered the club's redevelopment, they agreed to pay for the replacement of the toilets, change room and storage area (now under the new clubhouse).

These do not only service sporting groups but are also used by tourists, fishermen and locals who use this area at The Haven every day.

The $1.3 million facility now includes public amenities which council paid for to the tune of $427,000 and this was resolved in 2006.

The final payment of $127,000, not $200,000 which was originally sought, was what council voted on.

As for my casting vote, the casting vote maintains the status quo.

No dredging was the status quo and honouring payment for the amenities was also status quo.

That said the latest detail on the channel is that Waterways are currently undertaking a hydro study to show the extent or lack of decline in the channel.

When the study is compared to the 2007 study, council will be informed of the extent of the problem.

Council will consider paying if safety proves to be a major factor and the State will not take the responsibility, but to do so roads, footpaths and libraries etc are put back by that value.

As mayor, be it right-handed, left-handed, Catholic, Protestant, Liberal or Labor my focus and responsibility is to the ratepayers, that comes first.

Cr Chris Holstein, Gosford Council