03.10.2014 Views

agenda - City of Stirling

agenda - City of Stirling

agenda - City of Stirling

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

AGENDA OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL<br />

13 NOVEMBER 2012<br />

A3. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Stirling</strong> has been debt free for approximately 15 years and ratepayers<br />

have benefited by not having to fund annual interest payments on loans through their<br />

rate accounts. An equity position in a Local Governments financial statements does<br />

not provide any indication <strong>of</strong> its financial capacity to undertake large capital projects<br />

or raise loans to undertake them. The majority <strong>of</strong> equity lies in the huge infrastructure<br />

investment made in previous years (Roads, Parks, Drainage, Footpaths etc.). This<br />

infrastructure cannot be sold or used as collateral for loans and is a source <strong>of</strong><br />

ongoing expense requiring extensive maintenance to ensure it continues to provide<br />

appropriate services to the community. Current legislation allows any Council to<br />

increase rates to any level and based on this alone, the <strong>City</strong> is capable <strong>of</strong> delivering a<br />

Coastal Aquatic Facility. Whether this is financially prudent and acceptable to the<br />

community is a matter for the Council to decide.<br />

5.1.10 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - H VIVIANI<br />

The following question was submitted by Mr H Viviani, 2 Park Street, Trigg WA 6029 at<br />

the Council meeting held 30 October 2012.<br />

"Q1.<br />

My question relates to the proposed coastal boardwalk. Given that the current<br />

options in the report are going to cost between $1 million and $3.8 million for not only<br />

the design concept but the alternatives <strong>of</strong> widening the path four (4) metres how<br />

much would that cost please?"<br />

A1. The Mayor advised the question would be taken on notice and a written response<br />

provided.<br />

Additional Information<br />

A1. The <strong>City</strong> advises that the safe provision <strong>of</strong> shared paths is predicated on the fact that<br />

there is a suitable alternative on road route for fast cyclists. In this location, West<br />

Coast Highway does not provide that safe on road route. This is explained in the<br />

report (in the first paragraph <strong>of</strong> page 299 <strong>of</strong> the minutes <strong>of</strong> the meeting available<br />

online) with the following wording: “The section <strong>of</strong> Recreational Shared Path between<br />

the southern Trigg car park and The Esplanade at Scarborough Beach is very<br />

substandard, in that it barely achieves a 3.0m standard and, alongside a busy West<br />

Coast Highway (road speed limits between 60 and 80 km/hr), fails to have a viable<br />

alternative on-road route.” Consequently the minimum requirement, to provide<br />

essential segregation, is that <strong>of</strong> option. The cost <strong>of</strong> doing this would be close to the<br />

cost <strong>of</strong> Option 1 at $1 million.<br />

16

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!