On 30 June, Tamworth Regional Councillors will make a decision that future councils may not be able to easily reverse.
The decision before them is not simply whether Ray Walsh House should be repaired. Nor is it simply a question of asbestos.
The question is whether all available options have been properly examined, independently assessed and transparently compared before a significant community-owned asset is sold.
Over recent months, the community has been presented with a narrative that Ray Walsh House is too expensive to retain. Many residents accepted that proposition at face value. Others began asking questions.
Those questions have not gone away.
One of the most significant developments has been the emergence of differing remediation estimates. Community members have obtained professional advice suggesting costs substantially lower than figures previously discussed publicly.
That does not automatically mean one figure is right and another is wrong. However, it does raise an important question: if estimates vary significantly, what confidence should councillors have that they are making a decision based on the best available information?
The issue becomes even more important when the proposed alternative is considered.
If Ray Walsh House is sold, Council will move into leased accommodation. Based on figures publicly discussed, the lease arrangement is expected to cost more than $1.5 million per year, indexed over time. Analysis undertaken by community members suggests the total cost over ten years could exceed $17 million.
Reasonable people may disagree about whether that represents good value. However, before disposing of a major public asset, residents are entitled to ask whether the long-term cost of leasing has been fully compared against retaining and renewing a building Council already owns.
This is where many members of the community are struggling to find clear answers.
What options were considered before the recommendation to dispose of Ray Walsh House was reached?
Were alternative remediation strategies examined?
Were staged refurbishment options assessed?
Were other capital projects considered for deferral, redesign or cancellation before recommending the sale of a council-owned building?
Has the community been provided with a transparent comparison of all viable options?
These are not unreasonable questions.
Nor are they questions that should be dismissed as opposition to progress.
Large organisations regularly review projects, reassess priorities and test assumptions before making major financial commitments. Local government should be no different.
The significance of this decision extends beyond the building itself.
Ray Walsh House has served as the administrative centre of local government in Tamworth for decades. Once sold, it is unlikely to ever return to public ownership. Future councils will inherit the consequences of whatever decision is made this month.
That is why many residents are less concerned about the eventual outcome than they are about the process used to reach it.
If councillors ultimately determine that disposal is the best option after considering comprehensive and independently verified information, that is their role.
But if questions remain unanswered, if key assumptions have not been tested, or if alternative options have not been properly evaluated, then there is a strong argument that more work should be done before an irreversible decision is made.
Community consultation is not simply about informing people what has already been decided. It is about ensuring decisions are made with the benefit of scrutiny, transparency and public confidence.
Whatever position people take on the future of Ray Walsh House, most would agree on one thing.
Before a significant community asset is sold, councillors and residents deserve clear answers to some very important questions.
Robyn Lang is the Secretary of the Tamworth Regional Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc.
(TRRRA). She is actively involved in community advocacy and local issues across the Tamworth region, with a focus on community participation, clearer access to information, and helping local voices be heard on issues affecting the region.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.