Sign In
or Create a new account
What do you think is the best way for the Council to build or renovate community buildings and how should they be funded?
Council can:
- carry out the full seven year Buildings for our Community program,
- or reduce or modify the program,
- or not to go ahead with the Buildings for our Community program, but do the work over 50 years or more, by progressively reducing funding to current services and programs.
In the FAQs there is information on the possible ways of paying for a full or a modified Buildings for our Community program. These are:
- having a special 2.71% levy on rates for three years
- going into debt
- cutting services and programs
- increasing user fees and charges
- engaging in speculative entrepreneurial activity
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to website: http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Your_Council/Community_consultation/Buildings_for_our_Community/index.aspx
Comment 1 17 Feb 2010, 9:52 PM
The best mechanism for funding is through commercial development of underutilised Council owned land.
For example some of the numerous sealed at grade car parks in the Randwick Local Government Area (LGA) could be redeveloped. Particularly those near/in town centres. Public car parking could be continued to be provided at these locations above (in the building/rooftop) and/or below the development (in basements) while other development such as retail, commercial or residential could occur on these sites.
Developer contributions (Section 94 contributions ) from all development in the LGA could be increased to provide additional funding.
Debt, reduction of services and increased rates are undesirable and not acceptable.
Comment 1.1 22 Feb 2010, 1:50 PM
Can Council advise what assets it holds which could easily be sold. There are properties in Randwick Junction (20 Silver Street and in belmore Road) which do not seem to be core to Council. While these properties bring in rents, perhaps this could be replaced by cost savings and the capital raised from sale diverted to core Council services.
I also also ask if Council can detail it's current revenue sources. A discussion forum for another Council detailed this as (for example): Rates 75%, State Government Grants 20%, fees and charges 3%, other 2%.
The point being, I think there is too much reliance by Council on one income source, being rates and all the special levies on top (environmental 3%, stormwater $25, waste $391 and now buildings a cumulative increase over 3 years of 16% permanently).
Comment 2 24 Feb 2010, 9:36 PM
I am perplexed as to why each of Clovelly, Maroubra and Coogee Surf Clubs need exactly the same amount of $350,000 and exactly the same description of works required. From this finger in the air approach to 3 vastly different buildings I question whether a thorough condition assessment has actually been carried out and remain concerned if this is a sample of the approach taken to 3 buildings how accurate or otherwise is the remaining collection of buildings. I also understand that Coogee Surf Club have recently received a State Govt. grant of $195,000 and wonder if the building needs saving then why not offset the $195,000 income against the $350,000 expenditure. Is surf lifesaving Australia or the surf clubs making a contribution? Why not allow them to operate like the surf clubs in Queensland.
With respect to Bunnerong Gym I feel uncomfortable with Randwick Council throwing in $1.583 million of "funding" to what is nothing more than a commercial operation and the same can be said for the indoor cricket centre nearby.
Comment 2.1 27 Feb 2010, 8:06 AM
Council should also include in estimates for proposed works, measures to improve the economic or environmental sustainability of these buildings so that they are not a burden for the future.
Comment 2.2 4 Mar 2010, 2:29 PM
I agree with Ian Mead
1. The Surf Club lobby group has won. The first three projects in the program are Clovelly, Maroubra and Coogee Surf Club upgrades. With the State Government awarding $200k to Coogee Surf Club last week- has this been taken into account- I doubt it. Surely Council could mix it up a bit, instead of putting childcare buildings last for example- they should balance the interests/needs of differencet groups in the community better.
2. Rate increase permanent- with 2.7% increase each year over the next three years- then making it permanent- isn't this a sneaky way of increasing rates generally? Especially when Randwick Council is not designating the monies from the rate increase into a community buildings fund after the 7 year program is finished - it will just going into general revenue- what a joke.
Comment 3 26 Feb 2010, 10:17 AM
The levy of about $50/per ratepayer is the way to go.
Its is the quickest most efficient way to get quality facilities into the area. The alternatives as suggested by JMD (while valid) will only result in further delays and red tape.
The upgrading of facilities is an urgent matter in my view.
The Winners will be the residents, the members/volunteers/parents/kids and players of the surf clubs, football clubs,soccer clubs,community clubs in the area.In other words the residents of Randwick.
I havnt got 20 years to wait .It needs to be done now and the levy is the cleanest and most efficient way to go.
The gains are to big to ignore.
Comment 3.1 27 Feb 2010, 7:58 AM
Understanding why upgrading facilities are urgent is very important. Council should provide a rationale for each proposed building works item identified. Obviously in some cases the rationale is to provide safety, improved building longevity and/or access however in other cases it is unclear.
The last thing residents, rate payers and council would want is underutilised facilities being constructed. We would all like lots of new facilities; however the real question is what facilities are sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. The needs of the community will change over the next 20-50 years as they have done in the past, it has not been demonstrated by council or members of the community that all these facilities are needed immediately.
Kenso ratepayer also notes that "the gains are too[sic] big to ignore" however without an understanding of the needs how can we understand the gains.
Comment 3.1.1 28 Feb 2010, 9:29 AM
JMD,
The proposal clearly details all the buildings up for works and there is a value is shown.
Perhaps you could visit one or a couple of the listed sites and identify which ones are not in need for renovation or renewal . I am not sure i could identify a Building on the list which unworthy of attention. Not that i have seen them all but the ones i have seen are valid listings. So i am assuming the list is consistent . Does anyone know of a building listed which is not in need of work?
At some stage more…
Comment 3.1.1.1 2 Mar 2010, 6:11 PM
I agree with Kenso ratepayer that there is no doubt that there are some rate payers who have encountered negative experiences with state and local government agencies and that this should have no bearing on consideration of this proposal.
I strongly support Randwick Council’s stance (and Kenso ratepayers point) of being proactive in attempting to maintain and upgrade facilities to be safe for use and to serve the community needs now and into the future. Furthermore I support the seeking of funds to urgently to repair, maintain and modify these facilities that have been neglected in the past. This should more…
Comment 3.2 6 Mar 2010, 6:30 AM
You say the winners will be the residents of Randwick. I say the losers will be the ratepayers of Randwick. Facilities should be paid for & maintained by existing rates as controlled by the elected Government. If you want to play games then go with "user pays".
Comment 4 2 Mar 2010, 8:18 PM
From what I can see in the mailout and council website there is no demosnstrated link betweenthe works proposed under the levy and any overall strategic documents, such as a strategic property assets plan, community facilities plan or even plns of mangement for the parks -and I know Council has these. Are we supposed to trawl through the website to try and find if the works are linked to any of these? I think this is a fundamental quaestion, for how are we supposed to be assured that the works proposed are valid, and that council will not amend the works program, and/or add to it over time based on whatever the politcal pressures are of the day? Let's have a bit more rigour to the process please.
Comment 4.1 3 Mar 2010, 10:34 AM
Time to have a look at Walter Burien and the continuing saga of what is called CAFR.
A good start to be to realize that the land was first sold by the council for which they charge rates which in turn gives them the money to buy back the land.
So they effectively keep 2 sets of books. The one that says it cost X$ to run the show every year with a little extra for the kitty and the extra bits like this proposal and the other set which has all the property they already have bought back for which they get commercial income.
Your council should not be in business, exploiting the stakeholders yearly payments to build themselves jobs for themselves ( ever tried to get a job with council?), power and persuasion; when is fact we have employed them to keep the water flowing, the toilets flushing and the streets clean, not build fiefdoms.
Next election, vote them all out. If they have been in once, that should be it. No-one from other councils, and you must live in the area to serve.
Comment 5 9 Mar 2010, 12:04 AM
I think raising the taxes is a brilliant idea. Why stop there? Why not just have all three tiers of government take a third of our income each. A more perfect plan.
I vote for:
1. more taxes, and at a higher rate.
2. bigger V8 cars for the ministers and councillors
3. Free lunch for all politicians
4. more concrete on beaches
5. more signs. Randwick does not have enough signs
6. steeper penalties for such crimes as parking your car, and walking your dog.
Comment 6 11 Mar 2010, 12:28 PM
While I support a building program, I found the presentation of the funding to be incredibly confusing, and my suspicion is that it was done so deliberately.
The description "having a special 2.71% levy on rates for three years" would make anyone think that the proposal is to add an additional 2.71% for three years and then remove it, however that is not the proposal. It turns out that was is being proposed is a permanent 8.35% increase in rates ((1+.0271)^3-1), phased in over three years. This is above and beyond the rate pegging increases.
In last night's Randwick precinct meeting, not a single person in the room understood initially what was being proposed, even after the council representative's presentation. It was only under extensive questioning were we able to find out the true proposal.
Whether this is a good idea or not is up to debate, but I find the council's handling of this very dishonest.
Comment 7 16 Mar 2010, 1:49 AM
This is a money grab by Council.
With this new special levy for community facilities, Council is proposing to charge 2.71% each year for the next 3 years then “the accumulated increase remains in your rates thereafter. It will continue to fund the agreed building program until it is completed.” The accumulated increase is 8.13% (3 x 2.71%) READ THE COUNCIL PAMPHLET VERY CAREFULLY. It is deceptive and misleading. It is not just 2.71% and it is not just for three years.
This will be the third levy (tax or charge) that Council has imposed on its ratepayers in addition to more…
Comment 8 18 Mar 2010, 9:07 AM
I prefer the concept of an additional levy. In addition to the comments from Kenso Ratepayer, which I agree with, I believe that if ratepayers bear a cost for upgrading/providing public infrastructure they tend to value it more and hopefully use it more.
Comment 9 24 Mar 2010, 8:54 PM
I find the statement above ("special 2.71% levy on rates for three years") deceptive and misleading. This is not for 3 years only but will continue ad infinitum. This is a proposal for a general rate increase not a special "3x3" type one-off levy.
I also feel strongly that RCC has given an "all or nothing" type approach here. It has presented a wish list and not a structured proposal with options - only "tell us what you'd leave out"
I question seeking funding from ratepayers for commercial enterprises e.g. Des Renford Multi Purpose Fitness Centre or child care centres. If ratepayers more…
Comment 9.1 25 Mar 2010, 3:50 PM
I agree entirely with the first four paragraphs. I accept I may be influenced by residing in North Ward which gets nothing out of it and pays the highest levy. I am a self funded retiree and do not get pay rises as things continually go up.