Where are you..........Home » The Facts

PRESS RELEASE

ST FRANCIS BAY BEACH

14 January 2007

After in depth meetings during the past week between representatives of the Trust and the objecting parties, Pat Kelly, representing the Trust, and Joe Oosthuizen, representing the objecting parties, announced that a new body had been formed and that their first task would be to give the property owners an opportunity to give a clear mandate to this body on their feelings regarding the restoration of the beach and the possibility of raising funds via a levy.

Joe Oosthuizen confirmed that many of the questions of concern had been clarified and his committee now had sufficient information to inform property owners of the implications of the restoration process.
The Trust acknowledged that they had erred in not consulting the community sufficiently and in keeping them informed of the progress of the Trust.
The Beach Trust had to all intents and purposes completed its objectives by raising private funds to finance the research and once all commitments had been completed, would withdraw from the active participation in the scheme.
An independent Beach Joint Action Committee (BJAC) had been formed made up of Joe Oosthuizen, Emlyn Horne, Mike Wylie, Paddy Oosthuizen, Antony Ball and another local resident who would be co-opted onto the committee. The committee would be chaired by Emlyn Horne.
This BJAC would guide the process forward until a clear mandate had been obtained from the property owners, where after should a mandate be obtained a new company and structure would be put in place to start the construction of the reefs.
Mr Alan Tonkin had agreed to continue to play his part in the role of Chief Operational Officer and guide the technical side of the project as part of the new structure.
A further meeting of property owners would be held at 18:00 pm on Thursday, 18 January 2007, at the St Francis Links Golf Course, which meeting would give full details of the project to all concerned parties and the BJAC encourages questions and answers to be addressed to them at beach@dna-online.co.za
The BJAC would reinvestigate the financing of the project, but anticipate that the first phase will need to be financed by a levy on owners at a lesser amount than originally suggested by the Trust.
It was now important that property owners come forward with questions to enable their concerns to be adequately answered and to enable the BJAC to obtain a clear indication of the level of support for the beach route restoration and to obtain the necessary mandate from the property owners.
Notices for the meeting will be placed throughout the village and a question and answer brochure will be distributed to all post boxes and made available at various locations in the village. Property owners in outside areas will be contacted by e-mail and through the press and the post.
Communication with the BJAC can be made at beach@dna-online.co.za

On behalf of the Beach Joint Action Committee

Emlyn Horne and Joe Oosthuizen

Beach Project

Questions & Answers

What is the organisational structure going to be to take the Project forward? A holding company will be formed, with an operating subsidiary to oversee the tender contracts and to run the dredging and sand pumping operation. The Directors of the holding company will be equally appointed by the Concerned Group and the Trustees of the Beach Trust. Alan Tonkin will be appointed Chief Operations Officer in the subsidiary along with directors appointed by the holding company in equal numbers from each Group.

If nothing is done to the Beach is there any chance that the mouth of the Kromme River will silt up? There is every chance that this could happen in the next 10 years (per ASR). This will depend on whether the barrier dune is breached as it will change the hydrodynamics of the whole Estuary system.

What will the noise levels of the dredger be? At 90m from shore, 60dB acceptable/normal conversation. (Dredger will normally operate further than 100m from Shore Road)(per IMS) The dredge specified is used in marinas all over the US where noise pollution is strictly monitored.

Why do we need a levy and why not the various levels of government paying? All levels of government have been approached, with the following response – St Francis is a privileged property owning community and government has far greater priorities.

Will there be a rebate for pensioners? There would be a method in place to access the need for a rebate.

Will estate agents, bed and breakfast establishments pay a higher levy? Their properties should have a higher municipal value because they are businesses and therefore attract a higher levy.

Will property owners who made donations to the Beach Trust receive exemption from paying the levy? NO

Why should canal property owners pay the levy? There is every likelihood that the barrier dune seaward of Ski Canal will be breached within the next 10 years which will result in the collapse of the whole canal system.

Is the levy likely to escalate? It is possible, but there are still in excess of 1500 undeveloped properties in St Francis and the Golf Links that as the rates base grows, this could take care of escalation in the medium term.

If someone owns more than one property will the Municipality levy each property? YES

What protection would we have that the levies will be paid over to the Project Holding Company? The Kouga Municipality would sign a cession of the levy to the Lending Bank which would hold the municipality fully liable to pay over the levies. In addition, the Agreement with the Municipality has this clause included which will be legally binding.

Will it not be an option to simply have the beachfront property owners continue building revetments? The rocks will continue sinking into the sand with the need to continue replacing rocks, while at the same time the level of the beach will continue to drop. This will mean a very short time there will be no beach to walk on at any tide, and the effect will be that off a cliff overlooking permanent water.

Why can’t the Municipality reverse the sewerage levy, and pay those funds towards the Beach Project? Sometime ago the sewerage levy fell away and the Municipality charged an availability charge to cover the collection via the Honey-suckers.

Why does the first reef start near Main Beach and not nearer the canals? The movement of sand is from the SW to NE towards the mouth of the Estuary. It is therefore, necessary to replenish the beach from the Main Beach towards the mouth of the Estuary.

Why can’t we wait another year to enable us to get more information and to try and raise funds through another source? There will be further erosion this coming winter and we will face escalating costs, particularly on the dredger, pipeline (including pumps) and reef bags. The INCA loan is very competitive and was significantly better than DBSA. In addition, we already have most of the information and who will pay for any additional research?

How sure are we of the budgets produced, and that costs will not overrun? We are awaiting the final reef costs but have sufficient contingency to cover the costs of the project. The additional pipeline being requested on the Kromme Estuary is going to add a further R 2 million plus to the capital costs of the project. This excludes additional pumping operating costs.

How much will the levy be per Property? Based on all the phases going forward the levy will be .004471cents per Rand of the municipal valuation.

Can the levy be reduced if the capital loan is paid back earlier? YES

Has the Trust incurred any debt for which the Ratepayers would be liable? NO

Has the Project been put out to tender yet? NO

Is the Municipality going to taking a percentage for collecting the levy? NO

beach@dna-online.co.za

P O Box 598 St Francis Bay 6312

ÇTop

St Francis Reefs: “The Facts vs The Myth”

In considering the stance taken by a small group of residents the SFB Beach Trust wish to point out “The Facts vs the Myth.”

The Beach has been eroding at a rate of between 2 to 3 meters p.a. for 30 years and there have been a number of attempts to rectify the situation. The last attempt was not properly funded or researched and was estimated to cost in excess of R 80 m. This contrasts with the current budget of R 25 m which is 31% of the previous total.

The Estuary has not always been silted up as it is now. In the 60’s and 70’s people were able to sail dinghies in the area identified for dredging. It is only since the dams were built that the river has been silting up. See Nigel Sutherland e-mail in article below.

The Existing Sand Source in the Estuary is more than sufficient for the beach replenishment. In addition, the ASR research clearly indicates that sand will be re-deposited in the dredged area on the incoming tide. This will create a renewable resource for the future. The ASR recommendations are also fully supported by the latest study from the Institute of Environmental and Coastal Management at NMMU in Port Elizabeth.

Current costs of the Beach Project research are around 40% of those originally quoted in previous unsuccessful efforts to Save the Beach. In addition, the dredging costs of the dredge will be substantially less than those currently being charged by a private contractor to dredge the canals. This includes all costs including overheads.

Once St Francis Reefs have been constructed the African Surfing Reefs company will move on to other projects with a percentage of profits returning to St Francis for other sustainable development community projects.

Those who are objecting comprise less than 5% of the total number of property owners in the Village. Over 85% of residents live elsewhere and there are a significant number of local residents who support the Beach Project.

The ASR research clearly shows that what is required is an integrated approach to the whole question of the beach (including the dunes) and the Estuary. Unlike the previous recommendations which ranged from trucking 1 million tons of sand from the Sand River through the Village and destroying the roads to the permeable groyne which would not have worked, this research has been produced by one of the leading international organisations in the field of marine science and research. This was also confirmed in a peer review of the research commissioned by the Beach Trust conducted by Professor Lee Harris from Florida Institute of Technology in the US.

Where were the Kromme Trust who are now so concerned when the previous proposals were being considered in 2002. Why did they not object to the previous proposals which were totally unacceptable and would have resulted not only in spoiling the Village but wasting a significant amount of money? These proposals were also not acceptable to the Department of the Environment and Tourism.

The Agreement with Council requires that those objecting record their objections with a full motivation to the Council in writing. A municipality may by resolution – determine an area as a special rating area, levy an additional rate and differentiate between categories of properties. This has been done and will be part of the budget process for 2007/8. The budget is then open to public scrutiny prior to approval.

In terms of the Agreement with the Municipality the Trust is responsible for the Public Participation process and this is why this was done when the majority of owners are in the Village. Too often decisions are taken by a “small minority” who are not representative of owners as a whole. This is not in line with obtaining a balanced community decision.

Referendum Issue: At no stage has the Trust indicated it is too late to conduct a referendum. In the event of their being a significant number of objections submitted to the Municipality the Beach Trust would be prepared to commission a professional survey firm to ascertain the precise numbers of those not in favour. However, the Trust firmly believe that the objectors are a small minority.

Where did the “concerned residents” obtain the estimated levy amounts they are communicating to the public which are totally incorrect? Based on the current municipal values on 2577 properties the figures are as follows:

Number of properties paying less than R50 pm = 1031 (40%).
Number of properties paying between R51 pm and R100 pm = 191 (8%)
Number of properties paying between R101 pm and R150 pm = 255 (9%)
Number of properties paying between R151 pm and R300 pm = 710 (28%)
Number of properties paying more than R300 pm = 390 (15%)

The above figures clearly show that it is only a small minority of homeowners who will be paying the higher levies. These properties are generally larger properties on the beachfront and in other choice locations. In addition, these figures are conservative as they do not include future extensions in the St Francis Links development.

In cases of genuine hardship the Trust will be prepared to review the extent of the levy for those affected residents. However, these residents will be required to make their details known to the auditors of the Beach Trust in order to be considered for assistance.

The Beach Trust will be directly managing the project with the levies raised being paid over by the Municipality to the Trust within 30 days. The Trust have the expertise to manage this project successfully while the Municipality is short of resources. These funds will be audited on a regular basis by the Trusts accountants in order to show how the funds are being spent.

Who do the Beach Trust represent? A significant percentage of owners (non-residents and residents) including a database of in excess of 800 owners who are concerned about the beach. In addition, the current on-line Poll on the Beach Trust website shows a majority of respondents in favour of the Beach Levy. In addition, the Beach Trust has as Trustees prominent business leaders from public companies quoted on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange.

This is a community initiative to preserve the local economy. It goes far beyond a small elite group with sectional interests who are not interested in the wider issues. If the beach disappears St Francis will decline in popularity and property prices across the board will decline in real terms. Why is this small group so short-sighted?

More funding has been raised for the Beach Project research from the community than for any project in the history of St Francis. We are now at over the R700 000 mark with pledges of further funding flowing in since the meeting. In addition, the funding has come from a wide variety of owners from all parts of the Village, not only the beachfront properties. This indicates wide support for the project in real terms.

The Beach Levy has been discussed over the past 7 months since May, 2006 when Dr Shaw Mead from ASR visited St Francis and confirmed that the St Francis Reefs were feasible. There have also been articles in the press as well as on SABC TV 3 and SAFm. It is not true that this has not been widely discussed previously.

For more information we suggest that you visit the website on www.sfbbeachtrust.org or contact the Trust on 082 777 1519. We are also willing to receive e-mails of either support or objection which we will record on the website.

Alan Tonkin

SFB Beach Trust

27 December, 2006

ÇTop

The “St Francis Reefs” Project

Following the public meeting of 19 December, 2006 held at St Francis Links this is a comment and summary on the current situation on the “St Francis Reefs” project.

Over 200 people attended the public meeting which was divided into two sections, the first being an overview of the achievements by the Beach Trust in 2006 plus a presentation by Dr Shaw Mead from ASR on the submerged reefs and their design. The second session was a separate meeting which facilitated by SRK Consulting and covered the legal requirements for the EIA process. The notes of this meeting are available on www.sfbbeachtrust.org on the Home Page in the scrolling box.

We were extremely encouraged by the support expressed for the initiative from the floor as well as from numerous individual owners following the meeting. The two main concerns raised at the meeting were the dredging in the Kromme Estuary and the proposed Beach Levy. Further details on the meeting can be found on www.sfbbeachtrust.org on the Home Page in the scrolling box.

Estuary Dredging

A number of points were raised around the dredging in the Estuary including the fact that this would reduce the size of the large sandbank at the mouth. However, it was explained by Dr Shaw Mead that in terms of the ASR recommendations there would still be large sandbanks remaining at the mouth as the dredge area identified would be close to the second entrance to the canals near The Cove. This is also in line with previous recommendations from the Institute of Environmental and Coastal Management at NMMU updated as part of the EIA process in December, 2006.

It was also clarified that in terms of the recent results of the hydrodynamic survey of the Estuary conducted by ASR in July, 2006 that there would be no significant effects of this dredging on the currents in either the canals or the river.

Following the meeting Nigel Sutherland, a long standing resident of St Francis Bay confirmed that the area to be dredged was previously below the low water mark and I quote; “During the sixties and early seventies we regularly sailed an Extra dinghy in company with Sprogs and suchlike over 80% of the area between the two entrances to the canals (with the centreboards down) except during the low water springs. The present sandbank which will be dredged is a recent, and I believe unwelcome, symptom which is due to a considerable extent to the beach erosion. There can really be no valid reason for objections to its removal.”

In addition, the issue of the floating dredge line which would block the main entrance to the Ski Canal during dredging operations was raised. We again quote Nigel Sutherland; “One of the first real effects of the beach erosion occurred when in an easterly gale the seas broke over the seaward spit and filled the outlet from the ski canal with beach sand. There have been subsequent periods when the only access to the lagoon from the ski canal has been at high spring tides and been accomplished by walking a
boat down a knee deep narrow channel. For prolonged periods the only effective access to the lagoon was through the upper canal and even this required dredging. The point is that the canal residents should not complain if their access is confined to one canal during dredging.”

The SFB Beach Trust fully support the above comments from Mr Sutherland.

Beach Levy: The Facts

In terms of the Agreement between the Kouga Municipality and the SFB Beach Trust this agreement is structured in such a way that the funds will be collected by the Municipality and paid over to the Beach Trust within 30 days on a monthly basis. This is a legally binding Agreement and there is no chance of this levy being allocated for other purposes other than the beach project by the Municipality.

The overall objective of the Beach Levy is to levy homeowners based on the municipal valuations of their properties. The average amount of R150 quoted, is based on all 2700 registered owners in St Francis Bay including Santareme and St Francis Links contributing this average amount to the levy. However, beach front properties are valued at a higher value and it is only fair that these owners contribute proportionally more than those who live in the sections of the Village some distance away from the beach.

During January / February, 2007 the Beach Trust and the Municipality will be considering the Budget for 2007/8 and the exact rates in the Rand per property will be determined. We however, wish to stress that even houses right on the beach are unlikely to be paying significantly more than twice the average amount, with undeveloped stands paying significantly less. There is absolutely no truth in the rumour being spread by a small minority of locally based residents that the levy will exceed three times the average on a significant number of properties.

In addition, Sea Vista and Cape St Francis are excluded from the levy on the basis of Sea Vista residents being considered to be a “justifiable case for exclusion” with Cape St Francis having their own perfectly viable sandy beach.

There was discussion from the floor as to why the Kouga Municipality was not undertaking the funding of the beach restoration. It was however, pointed out that the Kouga Municipality have other more pressing priorities and unless St Francis residents became directly involved the beach would continue to erode. In addition, even if the Municipality were going to raise a loan to rehabilitate the beach they in turn would need to raise an additional Beach Levy to fund this expenditure.

In considering the ownership profile in St Francis Bay it is important to note that over 85% of homeowners are non-resident and live either in Gauteng or other parts of the country. These residents are fully supportive of the levy and how it will be utilised. In cases where real hardship is claimed the Beach Trust are willing to have their accountants review the financial situation of the particular individual based on their “ability to pay.” This may result in the Beach Trust offering some financial assistance depending on the circumstances of the individual resident involved.

However, it was also clarified at the meeting that any residents who wish to object to the levy would be required to address their individual objections in writing to the Municipal Manager of the Kouga Municipality in Jeffreys Bay. These objections should contain a clear motivation for the record as to why the individual owner was raising the objection.

In the highly unlikely event of there being a majority of objections to the levy (in excess of 50% or over 1350 homeowners), this would we believe have a significant impact on the property values in the Village, plus other losses in the local economy including the potential loss of employment opportunities in the future.

X

St Francis Reefs: “The Facts vs The Myth”

The “St Francis Reefs” Project

Estuary Dredging