Zoe Moffatt
Hume council has narrowly decided to proceed with an indoor cricket centre in Greenvale amid a $4 million increase in project proposal.
During the Monday February 27 council meeting, councillors were divided on the issue of whether to proceed with the project at Greenvale Recreation Centre due to the 40 per cent cost increase.
Cr Naim Kurt said he understood the concern about the cost increase but it was an issue happening across the sector with rising costs of materials.
“I understand the concern from some of the chamber tonight that the cost increase is significantly above what was originally budgeted, but under grant agreements with the state government, council is liable for any costs above a budget,” Cr Kurt said.
“It’s an issue which is happening across the sector and across local government with rising costs of material.”
Council said the increased costs are due to current market conditions as the original budget was set in early 2020. This increased cost is in line with estimations by an independent quantity surveyor council said.
Council initially committed $4.5 million to the centre, with the state government providing $1.5 million in grant funding. council will now be providing $8.5 million for the centre.
Cr Kurt said despite this increase in cost he believes that the project remains as a good value project for ratepayers.
“I think with the development of this centre, it will be another jewel added to the crown of our sporting facilities,” he said.
Cr Jodi Jackson disagreed the proposal should go ahead with the cost increase and cited other ways the council could use the money.
“In 2021 Council published a report… [which] stated that Forest Red Gum drive needs to be upgraded in order to accommodate the higher than anticipated volumes of traffic,” Cr Jackson said.
“The volume of money that council is being asked to provide in order to deliver this cricket facility over and above its anticipated costs is equal to the money required to upgrade an important arterial road that serves 1000s of residents every single day.”
“In my opinion, this project does not pass the pub test.”
Despite these differing views, council decided to proceed with the project with seven councillors voting for the project and four voting against.
