Ratepayers’ funds better spent on kerb and guttering

Artists impression of the proposed boardwalk at Terrigal.Artists impression of the proposed boardwalk at Terrigal.

[Forum] In regards to the Terrigal Boardwalk proposal, I refer to the proposal as outlined in Coast Community News (edition 196), which shows the proposal with an architect’s impression and aerial view, with mentioned cost of a $5.9m spend, of which $2.9m is to be contributed by Council and thus Central Coast ratepayers.

We offer the following feedback and complaints regarding this proposal, including but not limited to: The previously mentioned advertised cost was to be $2.9m, provided by a State government grant, we now witness an increase of a further $2.9m, to be provided by Councils. We also recognise the assumed benefits claimed by the Council CEO to increase growth, jobs and cash flow to local businesses, the latter benefit subsided by rate payers. Should business be supporting this proposal, why is business not making financial contributions to meet the $5.8m costs, as they will be the ultimate beneficiaries?

As this proposal is being proffered as a tourist destination and recognising the existing and compounding problems associated with traffic flows and parking, what measures are being proposed and/or adopted in parallel with this boardwalk? Has Council or its employees, or as usual, external consultants, completed sufficient geo-technical surveys, engineering design and construction techniques to a sufficient and appropriate point that detailed construction estimates have been, or can be prepared? Have Council incorporated delays such as approvals, EIS assessments and amenities provisions, which are in short supply, in association with this proposal to meet increased tourist demand, or do we expect the existing Trojan Clubhouse facilities to meet this increased demand?

Will cost increase to adequately provide these facilities, including disabled facilities in accordance with the Anti Discrimination Act? Has Council considered construction methods, and site access and materials deliveries, and thus can provide the community with a time line for documentation predicating tendering, tender acceptance and construction details so as to inform the community of all inconveniences to be incurred? It is our contention that Council should meet its obligation to provide essential services such as kerb and guttering and stormwater drainage needs, before entering into yet another public project that will be an ongoing cost burden to the community, without first meeting its obligations to meet these needs.

Our rates have, or still include, sewer and stormwater drainage funds to meet the needs of these services and for ongoing maintenance of these services. Finally, we should also mention Council’s slothful approach to rectification of the Terrigal/Wamberal Beaches, resulting from storm inundation and erosion, particularly to the Wamberal Beach embankment, a need Council seems to have ignored, or determined too hard or impossible to resolve. Again, Councils’ efforts and resources would reach a higher achievement to meet stormwater, inundation and sea rise problems, and where ratepayer’s funds would be better spent. We do not need to dedicate funds in order meet local politician’s aspirations and ego massaging by constructing such an edifice as proposed.

Email, Dec 6 Richard Abrahams, Wamberal