He said one example was the Splash Centre, where lifeguards were paid a living wage.
At council deliberations last week, councillor Philippa Baker-Hogan said other volunteer sports clubs didn’t get the same level of funding as the service.
She supported the resolution to provide a further $15,000 but said the funding burden shouldn’t fall on the council alone.
“This [funding] is clearly around because it’s water safety at our beaches but there are other places for them to get some support.
“Surf Lifesaving New Zealand is important in this area and let’s just keep working with the surf club to ensure the safety, as [much as] possible, of beaches.
“We need to pay fair rates but not necessarily living wage in this case.”
Newell was disappointed by Baker-Hogan’s comments because the service wasn’t a sports club.
“That was a little bit insulting. We are a not-for-profit rescue organisation.
“The sport part of surf lifesaving helps keep members involved and it’s a bit of a reward after they’ve been patrolling.”
The council currently provides the service $97,619 per year but that will move to $112,619.
In a formal response to Newell’s request, the council said it didn’t support other volunteer agencies with their administration on top of their funding.
“Most councils we have checked with only contribute towards their lifeguard services. They don’t pay the full amount.
“We understand that the Whanganui Surf Lifeguard Service Inc receives funding from other sources.
“However, if we do not increase the surf lifeguard service contract, we may have to accept a reduced service level; currently we are getting a seven-day-a-week service from the end of December to the end of February.”
Newell, who is also the administrator of the service, said the council had strict reporting rules and required the service to have “all our ducks in a row”.
The $10,000 request was only for patrolling administration, he said.
“With any type of funding, there is a high level of accountability, as there should be. It’s taxpayers’ money and they [council] want to make sure it’s being spent well.
“That does come at a cost, though.”
The council said an initial business case on a new facility “should not incur any significant cost” and council staff would provide support.
“This project has not yet gone through this first initial point of entry business case. Should the project proceed to the next phase there will need to be funds budget for a more detailed budget case.”
Newell said planning for a new facility was in its infancy. A feasibility study had been completed. The recommendation was for a new build as opposed to refurbishment.
“We all know the Duncan Pavilion is due to be demolished so there have been calls for a joint facility with public toilets and maybe a community area,” Newell said
“Part of that business case was to investigate and find out what those needs were and incorporate that into our designs, then present it to the long-term plan.”
Newell said the WSLS received $156,000 in central government funding for the design and consent of the project but it was estimated to cost $250,000 to complete the work.
Other funding applications had been sent to make up the difference.
“Before the [local] elections, the councillors were asked a question at a Q&A evening about who would support a joint community facility with the Whanganui Surf Lifeguard Service,” he said.
“The majority put their hand up. It will be interesting to see where they stand now and if they still want to be involved.”
