The first community organisation to be offered a new council Community Licence Agreement, Saratoga and District Sport and Recreation Association , has labelled the document completely out of touch with the realities of managing and maintaining a community facility.
The Community Licence Agreements were introduced by the former Gosford Council and only apply to facilities in the former Gosford local government area. Approximately 34 buildings with leases that expired before or since May 2015 have been required to enter the new licences. Almost one year ago, the former Gosford Council presented Saratoga and District Sport and Recreation Association (SDSRA) with a Community Licence Agreement for the management of the community-owned tennis courts at Saratoga.
“Council’s use of the word ‘community’ in the title of the licence agreements is a misnomer,” said association spokesperson, Mr Alan Skinner. “When concocting the licence agreements, the former council had obviously lost sight of the fact that a council’s primary function is to service the community that pays its way,” Mr Skinner said. “The licence agreement presented to SDSRA completely overlooked the fact that the construction of the Saratoga tennis courts had been substantially funded by SDSRA some 35 years earlier, and that the tennis courts had been managed, maintained and improved over the years as a community facility by that non-profit community group, without financial assistance from council or any other source, solely for the benefit of the local community,” he said. “Gosford Council was, instead, obviously intent on having all the community operated facilities under its control managed as part of its so-called business.”
Council demands
According to Mr Skinner, council demanded that it received more than 50 per cent of turnover from the running of the facility. He said he would contend that the former Gosford Council did not support tennis “full stop”. “Even though Gosford Council willingly managed and maintained the playing surfaces, the cricket pitches, the goal posts and the floodlighting at many other sporting facilities under its control, and then charged participants token fees for the use of those facilities, for whatever reason, the community-owned tennis centres under council’s control have long been left to fend for themselves. The Saratoga association took the same stance as the Macmasters Beach and District Progress Association when it was asked to sign a similar agreement if it wished to continue managing its community hall, and refused to sign the agreement.
“After 35 years, the association had little choice other than to walk away from the tennis courts, which have remained completely abandoned since October 2015 under council’s direct control,” Mr Skinner said. He said he believed it was clear that the new Central Coast Council, by adopting Gosford Council’s Community Licence Agreements, showed “exactly the same contempt for the many volunteers that are putting in valuable time and effort to help manage and maintain council’s assets for the benefit of the community. “The new council obviously intends to equally distance itself from the management and maintenance of those assets supposedly under its care,” Mr Skinner said.
“The so-called community licences increase the costs of operating the community facilities and do nothing to alleviate the responsibility on the shoulders of those voluntarily managing and maintaining a community owned asset on council’s behalf,” he said. “The tennis courts at Saratoga would have been impossible to manage and maintain efficiently under the proposed agreement unless court hire charges were increased substantially to an unsustainable fee.” Costs that would have had to have been met under the agreement included: the annual cost of the licence and associated legal fees; payment in advance for any assistance by council staff; costs related to the increased responsibilities and the safety issues; and, council’s claimed 50 per cent share of the takings.
35 years of experience
“SDSRA was also required to indemnify council against any claims for damages, loss, injury or death which might occur in or around the facility, which happens to be located within a public reserve,” Mr Skinner said. “As a voluntary group that had managed and maintained the community owned asset at very little cost to the community for the preceding 35 years, the personal risks to volunteers of assuming responsibility for the management of the community-owned and community-used asset were already too high,” he said. “SDSRA has neither the expertise nor the finances to adequately assess all of the safety risks associated with the management and maintenance of a community-owned tennis centre.
‘Money-Grabbing’
“Surely that is one reason why we all, as ratepayers, elect councillors to employ qualified staff, for professional advice and assistance, not to adopt a pompous position of authority and then proceed to relieve themselves of all the responsibility that warranted their employment. “At the moment, Council’s behaviour is very much a case of the tail wagging the dog. “For the continuing use of small-scale community operations such as the tennis courts at Saratoga and the Macmasters Beach Community hall, it is imperative that Central Coast Council revert to assuming full responsibility for the safety aspects of those assets and retreat from the present small-minded, money-grabbing , supposedly businesslike approach of its senior officers.” Mr Skinner said he called on Mr Rob Noble, Central Coast Council’s chief executive officer to review “not only council’s inherited policies but, more importantly, the capabilities and the attitudes of its adopted staff”.
When the new leasing policy was announced by the former Gosford Council in May 2015, the CEO, Mr Paul Anderson, said it would improve the use, availability and long-term sustainability of many of Gosford City’s sport, recreational and other community facilities under the Community Leasing Policy. Mr Anderson said the new policy provided a modern and consistent approach to leasing council owned facilities. “We’ve revamped our previous policy to make sure the use of community buildings is fairer, equitable and transparent,” Mr Anderson said. “Importantly, there will be less exclusive use of buildings, which means that over time, more and more community facilities will become available for use by other community groups and residents. “Plus, the new leasing policy sets out a consistent process for granting and renewing leases for our facilities across the whole city.
“It delivers greater clarity by identifying the roles and responsibilities for both council and the lessees. “At the end of the day, we want to support all community groups in Gosford City as much as possible and give everyone the chance to benefit from our community assets,” he said. “There is a lot of demand for our community facilities and buildings,” Mr Anderson added. “Our new policy will ensure everyone acknowledges that community assets are for all to benefit from and that any leases need to deliver these benefits,” he said. The new policy was discussed and developed at a Gosford Council Strategy and Policy Workshop held in March 2015 and endorsed by council at a subsequent meeting in April. “Currently there are many examples of unsatisfactory use of community assets,” a report back to council from the strategy and policy workshop said.
Clarity
“The underlying concept is that Council and community tenants are firstly responsible to the community as a whole, over and above any special terms a single community tenant receives,” the report said. “Community leases should set clear responsibilities and obligations on all parties to ensure the assets used and the lease terms set, deliver optimal community benefit.” According to the report, the policy was intended to encourage more intensive asset use, by: targeting multiple community uses in many assets and rewarding the participants with lower overall costs; embed the principle that community assets are for all; provide accountability and guidelines, so councillors and council officers can manage community facilities consistently, and avoid risks of perceived impropriety; maximise council’s control of community assets – without compromising its key function of providing subsidised accommodation to deserving community users; and, prevent the community suffering major annual financial losses on community assets.
The report back to council also stated the policy was not intended to: maximise rent through moving community rents towards market levels; use competition to maximise income from community assets and tenants; and, impose new costs on community tenants. apart from their own basic operating and usage costs such as water, gas, electricity, rubbish and similar. “Despite receiving generous terms, numerous community tenants fl atly refuse to share with other community users, or require generous payments. “This is not in the greater community’s interest and means council cannot assist many deserving users. “Greater utilisation is the simplest and cheapest answer, but current leases provide exclusive occupancy rights. “Long term control of numerous community properties has been lost, through very long leases (up to 25 years) being granted. “Shorter leases increase the control council has over its portfolio, allowing it to deliver major property outcomes for community benefit, when needed.
Council
“Lease renewals also protect Council from ongoing legislation changes. “Council should be able to relocate subsidised tenants, to similar community buildings, when needed, at council’s cost. “Moving tenants when necessary could allow major community projects to be delivered on existing council land, as needed. “Macro portfolio decisions can occur, without key areas being inaccessible, due to long leases in place. “Long leases, poor cost recovery and passive management, has contributed to a concept of ‘full ownership rights’ for some community users. “Council rights are often disregarded and clear examples exist of illegal or unapproved activities in community buildings. “For many leases the community suffers a financial loss, because basic user charges are not met. “This is conservatively estimated at $350,000 per annum across the portfolio. “In many cases, not only are rents subsidised, but many tenants are not responsible (or refuse to pay) their own utility charges. “These requirements must be strengthened.
“Council’s Property Group will increase the pro-activity of its overall lease management, and frequency of property inspections, to ensure lease obligations are honoured. “Major ‘profiteering’ from subleasing and other deals occur. “Unapproved single bookings for social functions across halls and other buildings regularly deliver more than council’s entire annual rent to the tenant involved. “Income generated from community assets, if approved by Council, should be fully disclosed to council and shared with the wider community, for disclosure, probity and fairness. “Standard community leases will reduce costs and management issues and create consistency across asset use, for all tenants. “Council will seek to direct sublet space arising in community assets, to other community tenants under separate licences, wherever possible. “Where not possible, then for all revenue raising opportunities, council will receive 50 per cent of the revenue.” However, the report delivered to Gosford Council in May 2015 argued that the new licence agreements were not a revenue raising exercise.
34 leases expired
“In the next few years this sum will be minimal as existing leases remain in place for most tenants. Thirty four leases had expired by the end of 2015 and a further fi ve were due for renewal in 2016. Between 2016 and 2020 another 35 community leases will be renegotiated and all 70 would be renewed by 2047. “Based on current known subleases and revenue initiatives, annual income to council would be expected to increase by circa $250,000 per annum within the next 5-8 years and probably grow annually thereafter. “It is recommended that future revenue raised from Council’s share of sublease income and tenant revenue activities, is split equally between maintenance of council’s community buildings and a fund to assist community tenants with genuine fi nancial needs, regarding their existing council tenancy, or general operations,” the report to Gosford Council said.
Surf clubs were excluded because they have been part of a state-wide review of issues between local governments, surf clubs and crown land, the report said. “A new lease structure may see sublease income, commercial activity and other revenue revert to a managing trust entity, which distributes proceeds according to fixed guidelines. “The pure community functions of the clubs may continue to receive concessional rents, though some minor details remain to be finalised. According to the Saratoga and District Sport and Recreation Association, the licence agreement they were offered by council would have required an estimated minimum court hire fee at Saratoga of $30 to $35 per hour to cover the costs of council’s conditions. “While a court hire fee in that range might be realistic in a business sense, it was clearly an unsustainable figure for a community facility that was originally intended to encourage participation in sport by all members of the community, regardless of their age or financial status,” Mr Skinner said. “Council had already demonstrated an unwillingness to consult and SDSRA had no option other than to completely reject council’s unworkable licence agreement, which meant walking away from the tennis courts,” he said. According to Mr Skinner, negotiations are still under way between the Gosford District Tennis Association and council to allow the association to take over management of the Saratoga facility under its own terms and not subject to a community licence agreement.
Email, Aug 9, 2016 Alan Skinner, Saratoga and District Sport and Recreation Association, Media release, May 26, 2015 Gosford Council media Agenda item SF3, April 28, 2016 Gosford Council ordinary meeting