Where the money will be spent!
The St Francis Property Owners (SFPO) to their credit have done a huge amount of work researching and consulting to develop a working proposal to save St Francis from the decline it is experiencing. It would appear that there are still many property owners who are unaware of what has been proposed as well as uncertainty on how money raised under the SRA will be spent. Below is a pie chart of the spend based on what the SFPO have proposed, 
To date held six public meetings, 13 monthly newsletters have been sent to the property owners database and two websites SFPO Association and the SFPO NPC have been setup to assist in informing owners. In addition a Facebook page as well as a WhatsApp, group have been set up to encourage debate. Many one on one meetings have also been held with individuals and small groups along with replies to queries answered both telephone or by eMail.
The SFPO Association committee, the directors on the SFPO NPC and the members of our Technical committee are all volunteers, focusing on the survival and restoration of our town. As all are themselves retired, they are acutely aware of the importance of the retired community to the well-being of St Francis. There is a plan being formulated to define exemption criteria to ensure that those who cannot afford the levy will be exempted to a lesser or greater degree. Property owners are encouraged to educate themselves on what has been proposed and why the suggested SRA levy.
The SFPO obviously believe in what they have proposed and will continue in their efforts to advise and educate, not only the property owners but the local public at large, on the importance of a solution to St Francis’ present declining infrastructure.
The Municipality has very significant financial constraints, as do many other Municipalities around the country and thus the SFPO sees the proposed SRA as a way forward but at the end of the day it is the property owners themselves who will make the final decision.
To date the voting count stands as follows:
Total Votes cast to date – 820 votes
On 26-1-17 St Francis Today printed SRA Q & A. This gave project costs, which when the figures were added, totalled R339,000,000.00.
According to the above Pie Chart, the percentages present a figure of R371,900,000.00.
Therefore, this is an escalation of R32,900,000.00 above the original estimate – plus omitted costs of Dedeat, Revetments/Beach maintenance, canal maintenance, all of which will need to be added to the new total at some stage.
The Pie Chart total also brings in 2 new costs, not included in the 26- 1 -17 SRA Q & A, for camera security of R23.73 m, and overheads of R10,17m.
Please will the SRA committee respond to the following questions :-
Do riparian owners pay the full 50% levy in addition to the R212 present
canal levy.
Do beachfront owners pay the full 50% levy in addition to the cost of repairing their own revetments.
Which areas and roads will be covered by the CCTV cameras.
Is the overhead of R10,17m, now introduced on the Pie Chart, to cover the cost of staff required 24/7 to monitor the above.
Am I understanding the proposed system correctly – that homeowners within private estates (totaling +- 1350) will not be liable for the levy.
That a R370,000,000.00 project will be funded by the remaining 2150 property owners. At todays prices, on average, this means each owner will incur a debt of
R172,093.00 as per your SRA proposal and this before escalation, inflation, rates re-assessments etc.
Is it correct that, as the debt is linked to Municipal rates, your home can be forfeited and auctioned to recover the debt if not paid in full.
I look forward to a response to the above questions.
Perhaps the SRA committee could consider downscaling the grand vision to a more realistically affordable goal for the average home owner where we can all participate.
As the votes are not sealed, the perception of many, is that a “no” vote could lead to victimization. This is especially worrying for those in a small business situation who are already battling to keep noses above water. This could result in their not voting at all, which is not a true indication of the will of the people.