The request for $5000 towards the purchase of paint, deck maintenance and general upkeep of the premises was first considered at the February 14 meeting.

At that time it was deferred, with Cr Larry Whipper moving they meet with representatives of the club before making a decision.

The briefing session was held in March and matter returned at the April 11 meeting.

Cr Ian Scandrett initially moved the money be leant to the club but with no seconder the motion lapsed.

With the majority of the club on council land, Cr Duncan Gair moved council give the club the money from the contingency fund.

He argued if the club folded and council took over the building, it would still require the maintenance work.

“This is a council building. At the end of the day if something happens out there, if that club were to close in the future, then it becomes our responsibility. So we’d have to maintain it anyway. This is going to be done voluntarily,” he said.

“To lend $5000 for a council building that the club would then have to repay is just a little bit too hard for me to swallow. I wish them all the very best out there, they’re trying their hardest to make this club work.”

Cr Grahame Andrews was passionate in his advocacy for the club to continue in its present form.

He said the club representatives had spoken with honesty and had a plan in place to try and take the club forward.

“I feel very strongly about this. It’s a community club with people that are volunteers giving their time to ensure this small club survives.”

Cr Ken Halstead sought clarification during the debate on whether it was in fact a council building and if there was any agreement for the club committee to undertake maintenance.

Council's Deputy General Manager Operations, Finance and Risk Barry Paull said the building’s ownership was “a little scrambled”- as it was on both crown land of which council was the trustee and on land owned by the club.

He said council had taken the view it was a council building as the majority of it was on council land but needed further information to answer the second part of the question.

While there were other councillors supported Cr Gair and agreed the club appeared to be heading in a good direction, Cr Scandrett continued to stand in opposition.

He was the only dissenting vote against the motion.

Cr Scandrett said he believed a different user group could better utilise the facility.

“I maintain a position on this that this building used only a few times a week would be much better utilised by a community group who could maximise the use,” he said.

“I’m totally opposed to giving this money to help the club maintain the building."

Cr Gordon Markwart also expressed concerns and said he was not personally happy with where the club was headed but while the organisational structure was “basically owned by council” he believed they needed to maintain the building.