Grafton pool putting Schwarzenegger to shame
AS THE debate on Grafton pool redevelopment finished last week, the faint sound of someone ushering the words 'I'll be back' might have been heard.
Of course they weren't, but nevertheless the issue is back before the next Clarence Valley Council meeting on Tuesday where a rescission motion will be considered.
The motion has been put forward by Cr Richie Williamson, Cr Jason Kingsley and Cr Andrew Baker with a direction for a purpose built diving pool to be included in the facility plan.
A procedural oversight seems to have been the trigger for the rescission motion after the rejection of an amendment at last month's meeting resulted in a rejection of the original motion - leaving council staff with no directive.
However, meeting minutes paint a picture of confusion among councillors who rejected motions to both include and exclude a diving pool in the detailed design.
Only Crs Simmons, Williamson and Kingsley backed the first motion to include the diving pool in the design with Crs Baker, Novak, Clancy, Toms and Ellem combining to vote it down.
But when a subsequent amendment was moved which would have resulted in the diving pool not being included in the plan, it too failed to get up.
The minutes show Cr Williamson subsequently voted with Crs Toms, Ellem and Baker in voting for diving pool exclusion amendment, while Crs Clancy and Novak opted to side with Cr Kingsley and vote against it.
The motion was lost on account of Cr Simmons' casting vote as chair.
The Grafton Pool upgrade has been on the cards since 2016 and the councillors moving the rescission motion are hoping to move the project into "shovel ready" status.
"To enable certainty of long term strategic planning up to 'shovel-ready' status required to attract grant and external funding, this proposed rescission and replacement is designed to allow planning and fund-seeking to continue," the council documents state.
"Adoption of a replacement motion will enable the production of shovel-ready project capable of attracting funds. The motion does not seek to direct construction of the project."