AARON KENT
A disagreement emerged at this month’s Waterford Plenary Council meeting when Independent Councillor Donal Barry suggested that profits made from the sale of council-owned property in the Ballybeg area should be re-invested into that area, rather than being spent elsewhere. Fellow Independent Cllr. Joe Kelly, had a different view.
The conversation concerned 1.75 acres of land in Ballybeg. The land was on the market for a couple of months, after which the highest bid of €230,000 was accepted.
Speaking on the matter, Cllr. Barry said, “The €230,000 that is coming from that land in Ballybeg represents an opportunity to reinvest into the Kilbarry and Ballybeg area plan”.
“If that money is kept aside instead of it just going into the general budget to restart the rejuvenation plan out there, and the area plan, it would be a good investment. The Ballybeg area has been flagged as having extreme disadvantage, that’s already acknowledged, the evidence of that is accepted.”
‘Letting another generation down’
“What we now require is a decision,” continued Cllr. Barry, “either the Council invest in the Kilbarry, Ballybeg Area plan or it’s letting another generation down.
“I’d be requesting that the €230,000 that was received from the sale of the land in Ballybeg is reinvested in that area, it is badly needed there.”
This suggestion received agreement from Waterford City and County mayor, Cllr. Seamus Ryan, who said “I would support Cllr. Barry’s request, and I’m sure the award members would do the same. There is a lot required in that area and this is an opportunity from the sale of land.”
The issues seemed all but settled until Independent Cllr. Joe Kelly spoke up.
“I would take a different view,” said Cllr. Kelly. “We sell land in various parts of the City and County and if you are to take the view of Cllr. Barry, and I believe his intentions are correct and valid, the practicalities are we would then be obliged, in my opinion, as we sell different parts of land around the city and county to ring-fence [the profits] for the particular area.”
Ring-fencing is a term used for separating funds. In this case ring-fencing would mean removing this €230,000 from the general fund so that it could be reinvested.
“The Council runs as a City and County Council and our funds are our funds,” said Cllr. Kelly. “Mostly by management, and with some input by Councillors, we decide where that money is best sent.“I don’t think it’s a good idea to ring-fence the money because if we do that once, there’s a legitimate claim for everyone else in every other district, that when something is sold it is used for their district and I don’t think that’s the management system.”
Upon enquiry, Director of Services, Ivan Grimes, said he was not aware of a mechanism that could be used to ring-fence the money for a particular area.
Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme
