The Vault:

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] T[/dropcap]his little gem of an anecdote about losing the key to case holding the precious Loch Ard peacock at the Flagstaff Hill Maritime Village gives an insight into some of the problems that have beset the museum in the recent past.

The Minton porcelain peacock – valued at $4 million in 2010 and no doubt worth even more now – is considered the jewel of the crown in the Flagstaff Hill collection.

Despite this, finding the key to its case can be a problem, not to mention moving it, because it is quite heavy.

Here is the anecdote in full from Flagstaff Hill manager Peter Abbott’s report to the Warrnambool City Council for its March meeting:

“Peacock turntable:

The unit that the Loch Ard peacock sits on stopped rotating. Whilst we don’t open the Peacock cabinet regularly it is quite an operation to do so.

The first attempt found that the key we used was not the right one – 2nd attempt found the peacock weighed a great deal more than we expected so we didn’t move it off the turntable, the third attempt we successfully moved the Peacock with a trolley donated by Matko hire.

The turntable will be sent to Bendigo for renewal with the company that built it 13 years ago.”

Why does this reading this make me shiver? Matko trolleys? Lost keys?

On another note, Bluestone often wonders if all of the missing Loch Ard lead ingots that were believed to be in the water under the now demolished Rowitta ever showed up? To date, the FHMV has not released an update.

And regular readers will also remember the FHMV will spend $2 million in state and council funds on a new sound and light show.

According to Mr Abbott’s report to the council, the tender for this project had been awarded, but council spokesman Nick Higgins told us this was not the case and a final provider was yet to be chosen. (Update: a tender has been awarded and is the same group that developed the current Shipwrecked show at the village).

Either way, the project was expected to start in July last year. It is now expected to be completed by early 2017.

Other good stuff:

Fun4Kids costs $450k but provides no report

Trees, transparency and truth

The big shed schemozzle: we follow the money

Wilma Wright, FOI and more

There is an old saying in journalism that you should always follow the money and that is exactly what we have done with the ongoing saga of the Warrnambool City Council’s purchase of the old Porter’s shed and it has led to an intriguing twist.

As those who have been following this story already know, the council paid local developer (and former councillor) Graeme Rodger $40,000 for the shed that sits on the edge of his new residential land project on Wangoom Rd, but shortly after tried to get rid of it via auction.

Unfortunately for the council, auctioneer Brian Hancock couldn’t attract a single bid and the shed was passed in at $20,000.

One reason for the shed’s unpopularity among bidders was the cost of dismantling, relocating, repairing and rebuilding the old shed at a new location, as the council is now discovering, and why it tried to “move it along” without success.

More recently, we have since learned, the council was told by Mr Rodger’s lawyers that the shed had to go: it was supposed to have been moved by mid this year, and each month that has passed since has been a blight on Mr Rodger’s land sales, after all, who wants to buy a block with a derelict shed next door?

In our last piece on this saga, we told you that the council had received a quote of $170,000 to move, relocate and reassemble the shed, making the $40,000 shed now costed at $210,000.

We also told you that the council rejected this quote and instead decided to pay Mr Rodger another $63,000 to dismantle and relocate (but not re-assemble) the shed, but that’s not the full story and herein lies the twist.

Mr Rodger is being paid $63,000, but, as the council is fully aware because it organised the arrangement, he is passing that money on to a third party to actually do the dismantling and relocating.

Why would the WCC want to use Mr Rodger as a go-between and not pay the third party itself?

We have pondered this question long and hard and the only possible solution we can come up with is that it is tied up with the council’s procurement policy, in other words, the rules around how it spends money.

These rules are quite complex, but include that any spending on services between $15,000 and $74,999 requires at least three written quotes. Perhaps by paying Mr Rodger for the cost of the shed AND its removal, the council could avoid this step and get the shed off the land by the new, mid-January deadline.

Also, under the rules, a council director can only authorise spending of up to $149,000 and anything above that must go to tender.

Director of Infrastructure Peter Robertson has so far spent $100,000 on the shed, but there are still major costs yet to come and that is the reassembly, re-fit and any repair costs for the corrosion. (See images below)

This is almost certain to exceed $40,000, which begs the question of whether this whole mess should have gone to public tender in the first place?

Unfortunately the council’s media manager Nick Higgins is refusing to answer any of our questions on the shed, but it is indicative of a number of things, not least the secrecy surrounding these dealings and the lack of transparency around the use of ratepayers’ money.

Only three councillors – Brian Kelson, Peter Hulin and Peter Sycopoulis – have raised questions about this shed within council and tried to unravel what went wrong.

And where is this shed headed? Here comes the final twist:

The shed is off to the council depot in Scott St where it will – alongside a brand new shed – partly replace the massive storage shed sold to Midfield Meats as part of the controversial land deal to allow the building of its milk processing plant.

That deal was supposed to give the council a $290,000 profit to invest back into the shrunken depot, but it appears that Porter’s shed alone will now soak up most of that “windfall”.

The Vault – Carol Altmann

The $63,000 relocation of the former Porter’s shed – sold to the Warrnambool City Council by developer and former councillor Graeme Rodger for $40,000 – has begun.

A Bluestone subscriber tipped us off this afternoon that the deconstruction of the Wangoom Rd shed had begun, but we are yet to learn exactly where it is being moved to and for what purpose.

It is also not yet known how much it will cost to reassemble the shed, which the council attempted to auction shortly after the council purchased it early last year, but the auction failed to attract a bid and the shed was passed in for half what the council paid for it – $20,000.

The shed was bought on behalf of the council by its director of City Infrastructure, Peter Robertson, who by way of his position has the authority to make purchases up to $149,999 under the council’s procurement policy.

The ultimate cost of the shed, however, is expected to be far more than that.

In addition to the $103,000 that will be paid to Mr Rodger for the shed and its relocation, there are the reassembly and fit-out costs including insulation, electricity, water etc.

As it happens, we posed a series of questions about these very issues to the council’s media spokesman Nick Higgins on Tuesday (Dec 8).

The questions include:

1. Where is the shed being relocated to and for what purpose?
2. How much will the council spend on reassembling the shed at this new site?
3. Will the council be reassembling the shed on a concrete slab and, if so, how much will this slab cost? If not, what will the shed be reassembled on?
4. What is the estimated cost of the complete refit for the shed upon its relocation, including insulation, power, water, toilets etc as required?
5. Did the council compare the cost of purchasing, disassembling, relocating and reassembling Porter’s shed with the cost of building a new shed and, if so, what was the difference?

We are yet to hear back from Mr Higgins on this ongoing saga, but you will be the first to know when we do.

(And we know the council – while not a subscriber to Bluestone – is reading stories in The Vault via access to someone’s password, so if you are reading this one, Mr Higgins, I am hoping we can have those answers soon to pass on to our subscribers.)

[author] [author_image timthumb=’on’]http://the-terrier.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/vault3.jpg[/author_image]Welcome to The Vault – this is where Bluestone will place all sorts of subscriber-access-only material, including information on local politics that should be in the public domain, but isn’t. It is a place where you can also have a look behind the scenes of Bluestone, including our Freedom of Information applications, some email exchanges (where appropriate and when dealing with official spokespeople, not our private sources) and anything else we think you might find interesting. If you have something you would like to submit, please email us at editor@bluestonemagazine.com.au[author_info][/author_info] [/author]

This email exchange between Bluestone and the Warrnambool City Council relates to our piece on the $178,000 cost of upgrading the changerooms at the Warrnambool pool (Aquazone), which included retiling, replacing mirrors and toilet partitions:

——————

Is it correct that:

1. The cost of the tiling and associated works in the male and female changerooms has escalated from $120,000 to more than $180,000?
If so, what is now the expected cost of these works?
(See story from Nov 2014 which refers to $120,000 project: http://www.standard.net.au/story/2709187/temporary-change-rooms-for-aquazone-pool-upgrade/)

No. The contract awarded to (name removed by Bluestone) last year was $178,000 for stages 1 and 2.

(Figure provided to Standard a year ago is likely to have referred to an earlier estimate)

2. Has the contractor had to go back and repair or change work in the male changerooms already completed as part of the contract?

Yes. Some rework on the male changerooms was carried out and work deferred on stage 2 until this was completed.

3. Who is the contractor completing this work?

(name removed by Bluestone)

4. When is the project expected to be completed?

Stage 2 will be completed by the end of November.

—————–