ALBURY Council has ended immediate plans for a bike path from Lavington to Jindera by opting not to spend $25,000 on a feasibility study.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Council staff had recommended the funding to this week's meeting of council, given a survey showed 90 per cent support for a feasibility study.
Councillor Murray King dismissed the feedback on the basis some came from Western Australia and Coffs Harbour.and a path would be used infrequently and cost millions.
"Does the council of Greater Hume have many, many, many millions to spend on their part of this initiative?" Cr King asked.
IN OTHER NEWS:
"If the Greater Hume Council were really for it, why wouldn't have they have built at least part of it up to our boundary....if the road that comes into Albury is the busiest in Greater Hume.
"What initiatives has Greater Hume taken to identify the cyclists that are riding in their area?"
Councillor Henk van de Ven, who has been on a working party with Greater Hume representatives and supported the funding, ridiculed Cr King's construction point.
"The suggestion by Cr King that if Greater Hume Shire was really serious on this they would built the path up to the top of the hill is absolutely ludicrous, thanks for your contribution Cr KIng," Cr van de Ven said.
Greater Hume mayor Heather Wilton was also unimpressed with Cr King's comment, suggesting if that was done cyclists would be left to turn around at the Jindera Gap summit.
She expects her council will retain $25,000 in its 2021-22 budget for the study and hinted the issue may be revisited with a new Albury Council after elections in September.
Meanwhile, Cr King has succeeded with his motion that Albury Council "ensure financial contributions to partnership projects with neigbouring councils are equitable and align with the benefits to the parties involved".
In supporting the motion, deputy mayor Amanda Cohn said the great legacy of the current council would be Two Cities, One Community and ratepayers wanted to see collaboration rather than "squabbling" between the councils.
"The important part of this motion is that it doesn't actually specify a certain percentage of funding based on who lives where, it doesn't specify a particular split based on population," Cr Cohn said.
"It uses the word equitable which really means fair."
Cr van de Ven who raised concerns about Cr King's figures was the only no voter.
