Council’s resolution is also expected to include council staff and the advisory group continuing to work towards the long-term vision for the facility.
The actions originated from the inaugural advisory committee meeting held on Tuesday, June 11 which includes council representation and was chaired by Mayor Pat Bourke.
Council’s manager environment, facilities & regulations Angela Reidy, who is also a JFO advisory committee member, recommended and commented to council on the committee’s motions.
Motion 1 - Reinstatement (Part or Full)
Council's insurance policy will support the like-for-like reinstatement of damage sustained attributed to the claim for the November 2022 flood event. To satisfy the claim, council will need to provide the insurer with quotations and seek approval before proceeding with the works. Any funds allocated for reinstatement will need to be within the sub-limit that is stipulated on council's policy for flood protection, which is $2.25M with $250,000 excess.
Motion 2 - Design for Future New Facility
Allocation of insurance funds to the design of future new facility is not supported under council's insurance policy.
However, subject to approval by council's insurer, there may be an option for council to seek cash settlement for an assessed indemnity value for the asset under the policy for the damage incurred from the November 2022 flood event.
There may be conditions under council's policy about how this can occur and how the cash settlement funds may be utilised which are yet to be confirmed with the insurer.
Generally, this clause is utilised where there is decision not to reinstate or abandon the damaged asset. If this occurs, there may be the ability to utilise the cash
settlement funds to contribute towards a future new facility. Council is in the process of seeking further information and clarity from council's insurer about this option.
Further information and advice is being sought from council's insurer about this option and can be provided at a future council meeting.
Council can seek different settlement options for different flood damaged assets under the claim, subject to approval by the insurer. For instance, council may decide to proceed with like-for-like reinstatement of one asset and seek a cash settlement another asset not being reinstated.
If council decides to proceed with the like-for-like reinstatement option for one particular asset, it will not be able to also seek a cash settlement option for the same asset.
There will need to be a clear decision with regards to how council will be proceeding with the facility at John Foord Oval before council can access further funds under the claim and finalise the claim.
If council proceeds with a like-for-like reinstatement option proposed with Committee Motion 1 (re-instatement of the existing building), then council will need to seek other funding sources to proceed with Committee Motion 2 (design for future new facility).
Ms Reidy continued: “Committee Motion 1 can be supported and financed by the claim for the November 2022 flood event under council's insurance policy.
“It is estimated that Committee Motion 2 will cost approximately $150,000 to $180,000. Motion 2 may be supported by the insurance claim (subject to approval by the insurer) if the existing building at John Foord Oval is not re-instated and council seeks a cash settlement under the insurance claim.
“If Committee Motion 1 is proceeded with, then alternative funding source will be needed to proceed with Committee Motion 2. There is currently no budget allocation in the 2023/24 council budget and it has not been included for consideration in the draft 2024/25 council budget that has recently been on public exhibition.”
Ms Reidy also recommended that council staff work with the advisory committee to identify and seek any external funding opportunities that may arise which will enable this design work to proceed.
Much discussion at advisory committee meeting
Much discussion took place at the advisory committee meeting on June 11, as summarised below.
• Beau Longmire - expressed concern that the process to establish a new building would take too long. Something is needed now, if not, there won’t be a footy club.
• Graham Hosier - informed the committee that the club requires clubrooms and AFL & WAFL sanctioned change rooms, and we need them to not be affected by floods in the future.
• Ross Schlig - confirmed that something is needed quickly to stop people from walking away from the club. He suggested the existing building could be built up to minimize impacts from minor floods.
• Wendy Eyers - advised that the social element is missing and something needs to happen sooner rather than later.
• Rowena Black - informed the committee that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get great new facilities for the club. The lack of clubrooms or the social space is difficult but doesn’t want to lose this chance for a brand-new facility. However, social space is urgently needed.
• Debbie Filliponi - said there needs to be fit for purpose facility with both male and female facilities accommodated in the new space. Social side of sport is incredibly important. School want to be able to utilise the facility during the week.
• Beau Longmire - initially thought great opportunity after the flood to see new facilities but timelines and delays are just too much. There is a negative feeling in town and afraid any longer wait will kill youth footy. What can be done now? Communication of positive info to the community is critical to keep hope and combat the negative feelings out there.
• Graham Hosier - the social aspect of the club is really missing.
• Michael Stanton - informed that the AFL demountables were originally thought to be available for 2025 but projects at other clubs were delayed and the buildings are no longer available. AFL very committed to CRFNC and will provide support. Great to see the club up and running for this season and he doesn’t want to see this momentum lost. It is great to have this committee established to make decisions to drive this forward.
• Pat Bourke - enquired with committee members whether they would support refurbishment of the existing building or part of the building such as the social space?
• Angela Reidy - it would be possible but it would need to be remediated appropriately in regards to air quality and mould. Part restoration could be challenging to remediate given most parts of the building share same roof/air space. Council would need to ensure that any risk and safety requirements are met with the remediation and/or restoration.
• Rowena Black - if you spend the money now, it will be challenging to attract funding in the future - not for the next 10 years.
• Cr David Fahey OAM - the committee needs to answer the following questions - 1. What is the PRIORITY? 2. What is the PATH? 3. What is the ALTERNATIVE?
• Rob Bon - advised that this is a dilemma and anything that is decided to be done will take time. He suggests that the committee needs to move on multiple fronts at the same time. Multipurpose facilities attract more funding - appealing to more stakeholders/users will increase the chances of greater funding. Modular buildings are mostly built off site and are often cheaper than traditional build. You need to know the bigger picture before you start, so that the result at the end is cohesive and any plans for the future are not constrained by what you do now.
After Federation Council’s monthly meeting on June 25, JFO advisory committee members were to consider the questions posed by Cr Fahey at a scheduled 4.00pm meeting. A story will appear in next week’s Free Press accordingly.
