A motion to reverse the decision to not support a smaller rail trail project north of Armidale has been passed at a special meeting of the Armidale Regional Council last night.
Cr Paul Gaddes moved the recession motion to overturn the meeting of the April meeting, to decline $5.4m in Black Summer Bushfire Recovery grant funding for a shorter, smaller rail trail north of Armidale. The motion Jon Galletly seconded the motion. The motion was carried only by the chair, Deputy Mayor Todd Redwood, using his casting vote to break a deadlock made possible by the absence of Cr Debra O’Brien.
The original proposal for the rail trail was a 103km bike track from Armidale to Glen Innes. This would involve ripping up the train line which has not been used for some time to convert it into a recreational asset, with the Glen Innes Severn and Armidale Regional councils assuming responsibility, including the cost of maintenance being borne by local ratepayers. The proposal has now been shrunk to a mini rail trail from Armidale Railway Station to the Dumaresq Railway Station, with further grant and other funding needed to progress the rest of the vision.
Cr Brad Widders was scathing in his criticism of those putting the recission motion forward, saying that recission motions should be for when new information comes to light, there is a procedural issue, or if a councillor was absent that would have changed the outcome of the vote, and none of those three conditions had been met.
“This motion to rescind what was written in the last motion from April astounds me.”
“I’d be interested to learn what of those three things the undersigned of the motion are trying to rescind on, because if it is neither of them then it shows, for lack of better words, inexperience in the process.”
“The recission motion appears to be a condescendingly pretentious, disgusting attempt to bully councillors.”
Referring to what must have been a very heated series of emails, Cr Widders said that the right of some councillors to be on Council was questioned as part of the intimidation tactic of rail trail supporters.
“For those of you who tried to bully and talk down to, and were condescending, I really think it’s a good chance to buy yourself a mirror and have a good hard look at yourself, it’s not the way to get democracy done,” Cr Widders said.
“You can’t just put in a recission motion because you lost and you didn’t like it.”
Mayor Sam Coupland, appearing by video link and seemingly a bit sulky, denied that the three factors Cr Widders referred to were required under the code of meeting practice in his brief contribution to the meeting.
Cr Margaret O’Connor also had issues with the process and the motivation behind the motion.
“I note that Councillor Gaddes reason for proposing this motion is that he thinks the decision is wrong. He thinks the decision to ask for more information is wrong.”
“The report that we were faced with is an insult to our intelligence by suggesting in the extreme by suggesting we accept aged projections of economic benefit of a completely different project.”
Cr O’Connor said she had been on the receiving end of abusive emails, threats and abuse online as a result of moving the amendment to ask for more information on the proposal last month.
“And I am not the only Councillor that has found that the intimidation targeted at her was difficult in the extreme.”
“All we wanted to do with this motion all we wanted to do was find out what the additional burden on our budget was going to be for the next 30 Years and what it was going to mean to individual rate payers in this community – maybe not the people with a $7,000 ebike, maybe people who are struggling with just a little push bike to get around town.”
“I say shame on you of not allowing us to do our job to find out the information and represent the whole of the community. I say shame on you for not respecting the resolution of this Council.”
Cr Paul Packham says he has not shifted from his position of 2020 that the rail trail should be cost neutral for ratepayers.
“At the time of completion, $900,000 must be sucked away from rate payers, and allocated to the rail trail.”
ARC General Manager James Roncon complained about the number questions sent to him and other Council staff.
“From my perspective I don’t think that there’s necessarily any way we can satisfy those who are not in favour of going ahead with the rail trial.”
After the vote there was a second motion on the rail trail, moved by Dorothy Robinson, sought to find a ‘rail plus trail’ compromise that would work towards better transport options that retail the rail line asset as well as enabling the cycling trail tourism development. The motion was successful, six votes to one.
Given the numerous procedural issues raised by various councillors, and that Cr Debra O’Brien was absent from the meeting, it is highly likely there will be a proposed recission motion to the recission motion, or other popcorn-worthy efforts to battle it out on this issue.
Stay tuned for the next episode of the never ending issue most locals were sick of hearing about years ago.
Like what you’re reading? Support The New England Times by making a small contribution today and help us keep delivering local news paywall-free. Support now