Coffs Harbour City Council

31 January 2018

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

The above meeting will be held in the Council Administration Building

Cnr Coff and Castle Streets, Coffs Harbour on:

 

Thursday, 8 February 2018

 

The meeting commences at 5,00pm and your attendance is requested.

 

 

AGENDA

 

1.         Opening of Ordinary Meeting

2.         Acknowledgment of Country

3.         Disclosure of Interest

4.         Apologies

5.         Public Addresses / Public Forum

6.         Mayoral Minute

7.         Mayoral Actions under Delegated Authority

8.         Confirmation of Minutes

9.         Rescission Motion

10.      Notices of Motion - General

11.      General Manager’s Reports

12.      Notices of Motion – Business Services

13.      Directorate Reports – Business Services

14.      Notices of Motion – Sustainable Communities

15.      Directorate Reports – Sustainable Communities

16.      Notices of Motion – Sustainable Infrastructure

17.      Directorate Reports – Sustainable Infrastructure

18.      Trust Reports

19.      Requests for Leave of Absence

20.      Questions On Notice

21.      Matters of an Urgent Nature

22.      Consideration of Confidential Items (if any)

23.      Close of Ordinary Meeting.

 

 

Steve  McGrath

General Manager

 

 


Order of Business

 

  

General Manager's Reports

GM18/01         Joint Organisation for Mid North Coast Councils........................... 3

GM18/02         2018 National General Assembly of Local Government - Call for Motions.................................................................................................................. 84

GM18/03         Proposed Regional Cities NSW................................................................... 92

Directorate Reports - Business Services

BS18/01          Bank and Investment Balances for November 2017........................ 101

BS18/02          Bank and Investment Balances for December 2017........................ 123

BS18/03          Monthly Financial Performance Report for the month ended 30 November 2017................................................................................................... 144

BS18/04          Environmental Levy Projects Quarterly Report to 31 December 2017.................................................................................................................................. 162

BS18/05          Options to Reduce Council's Reliance on Rate Revenue............ 169

Directorate Reports - Sustainable Communities

SC18/01          Korora - West Sapphire - Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Status Update....................................................................................... 176

SC18/02          Draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) - Pre-Exhibition................................................................ 182

SC18/03          Development Application No. 0067/18DA - Demolition of Existing Structures, New Residential Flat Building (8 Units), Swimming Pool and Strata Subdivision - Lot 2 Sec 63 DP 758258, 117 Victoria Street, Coffs Harbour............................................................................................................... 189

Directorate Reports - Sustainable Infrastructure

SI18/01           Amendment to Alcohol Prohibited Reserves in the Coffs Harbour CBD.................................................................................................................................. 246

SI18/02           Coffs Coast Waste Services - Bulky Clean Up Service................ 252

SI18/03           Post Project Report - Fiddaman Road Upgrade.............................. 257

Trust Reports

T18/01             TRUST REPORT - LEASE OF KIOSK, JETTY FORESHORES, COFFS COAST STATE PARK........................................................................................................................ 265  

Questions on Notice

QON18/01      Coffs Coast Waste Services..................................................................... 268  


GM18/01      Joint Organisation for Mid North Coast Councils

Author:                        General Manager

Authoriser:                  General Manager

MyCoffs:                      D.1 Our leaders give us confidence in the future

Attachments:              ATT1  GM18/01  NSW OLG Correspondence - 1 December 2017 & JO Information Pack

ATT2  GM18/01  NSW OLG Correspondence - 20 December 2017 & JO Resolution for Councils

ATT3  GM18/01  JO Legislation

ATT4  GM18/01  JOMNCC Strategic Plan  

 

Executive Summary

One of the outcomes of the Independent Local Government Review Panel report was the proposed establishment of joint organisations in regional NSW.  This was confirmed in the NSW Government’s response to that report, entitled “Fit for the Future”, released in September 2014.  Five pilot joint organisations were announced in early 2015 and these pilots received initial funding to assist in the establishment of the joint organisations.

 

Coffs Harbour City Council along with Bellingen Shire, Nambucca Shire and Clarence Valley Councils sought to form a pilot JO through application to the NSW Government at the time however, the application was not successful.  In more recent times, the Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils (MIDROC, consisting of Bellingen Shire, Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour City, Kempsey Shire, Nambucca Shire and Port Macquarie Hastings Councils) has been working collaboratively with support from the University of Technology, Sydney Centre for Local Government (UTS:CLG) to develop a Strategic Plan in preparation for the further rollout of the JO framework in regional NSW.

 

In November 2017, the NSW Government passed the Local Government Amendment (Regional Joint Organisations) Bill 2017 which now allows for councils to voluntarily join new Joint Organisations (JOs) to strengthen regional coordination and improve delivery of important infrastructure and services for communities through strategic planning, collaboration and shared leadership and advocacy.

 

This report sets out the process and a formal recommendation to enable Council to participate in the establishment of a Joint Organisation (JOMNCC) based on the area covered by the former MIDROC area.

 

Recommendation:

In accordance with Part 7 of Chapter 12 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act), the Coffs Harbour City Council (Council) resolves:

1.   That the Council inform the Minister for Local Government (Minister) of the Council’s endorsement of the Minister recommending to the Governor the establishment of a Joint Organisation (Joint Organisation) in accordance with this resolution.

2.   To approve the inclusion of the Council’s area in the Joint Organisation area.

3.   That the Joint Organisation be established to cover the Council’s area and any one or more of the following council areas:

3.1     Bellingen Shire Council

3.2     Clarence Valley Council

3.3     Kempsey Shire Council

3.4     Nambucca Shire Council

3.5     Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

4.    That, on the expiry of a period of 28 days from the making of this resolution, the General Manager provide the Minister:

4.1     with a copy of this resolution including the date on which Council made this resolution, and

4.2     inform the Minister that this resolution has not been rescinded,

for the purpose of the Minister issuing a certificate under section 400P of the Act.

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

In August 2011, a forum entitled Destination 2036 was held at Dubbo and was attended by the NSW Minister for Local Government, Mayors and General Managers of practically every council in NSW at the time and other sector stakeholders.  Following this forum, the NSW Government established a Ministerial Advisory Group (LGNSW, Unions and Minister’s representatives) and some-time later appointed the Independent Local Government Review Panel (ILGRP).  The ILGRP was tasked with investigating and identifying options for governance models, structural arrangements and boundary changes for local government in NSW.

 

The ILGRP released its final report “Revitalising Local Government” in October 2013 and the NSW Government released its response to that report in September 2014 through a report titled “Fit for the Future”.  Each of these reports covered a range of issues pertinent to local government and its future, such as the system of rating; financial assistance grants; meeting infrastructure needs; leadership and governance arrangements to name a few.

 

One of the recommendations of the ILGRP Report was a proposal to establish new Joint Organisations (JOs) for each of the regions in NSW under proposed new provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.  The NSW Government supported this in its response, initially by way of establishing a pilot framework and inviting applications for 4/5 pilot JO’s across the State through a competitive process.  5 pilots were chosen and these pilots were supported in their evolution so as to potentially develop a stronger framework for future JOs once the system was formalised.

 

In line with the then suggested boundaries for JOs, Coffs Harbour City, Clarence Valley, Bellingen Shire and Nambucca Shire Councils sought to be part of the pilot process as the North Coast JO and this was supported by two separate Council resolutions.  Unfortunately, the then proposed North Coast JO was not selected to be part of the pilot process.

 

Following what was seen as the success of much of the pilot JO activity during 2015 and 2016 the NSW Government started providing strong indications that JOs would become part of the legislated framework for councils in regional NSW, with perhaps the main issue being whether participation would be compulsory or voluntary.

 

In December 2017, the NSW Office of Local Government advised that the legislation that enables councils to volunteer to be part of a JO passed through parliament and basically set out the process to be followed to enable JOs to be operational by 1 July 2018.  Copies of this correspondence and relevant material can be found at Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to this report.

 

Attachment 3 to this report provides a copy of the legislation relevant to the formation of a JO.  The legislation sets out the principle functions of a JO, the Board structure, role of the Board and Chairperson and a range of matters relevant to the operations of a JO.

 

As mentioned previously, CHCC, CVC, BSC and NSC originally sought to form a pilot JO in line with boundaries identified in the then final ILGRP Report.  Subsequently, a merger occurred with Gloucester Shire, Greater Taree City and Great Lakes Councils becoming Mid Coast Council and then being allocated to the Hunter Planning Region.  This left Port Macquarie Hastings and Kempsey Shire Councils without the original JO partners envisaged for them.

 

During 2017, with a knowledge that the JO framework was to be pursued by the NSW Government, the councils that are members of MIDROC (CVC, CHCC, BSC, NSC, KSC and PMHC) continued discussions regarding the formation of a JO and UTS:CLG assisted in various workshops with the development of a strategic plan that could be used as the basis for a JOMNCC.  A copy of the MIDROC (JOMNCC) Strategic Plan can be found as Attachment 4 to this report.

 

The MIDROC (JOMNCC) Strategic Plan has been prepared with strong reference to each of the member councils Community Strategic Plans, thus ensuring that the “regional” strategic plan has due regard to the various communities that make up the wider region.

 

In summary, whilst the evolution of JOs has been in the making since 2014, the formal passing of legislation only occurred in late November 2017 and the NSW Office of Local Government issued correspondence in December 2017 setting out the process to formalise voluntary JOs in time for commencement in July 2018.  Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to this report set out the formal steps required to progress the formation of a JO and the recommendation in this report reflects the formal wording as required by each potential member of a particular JO, in this case the JOMNCC.

 

Additionally, with the knowledge that the NSW Government was looking to progress the JO framework, MIDROC has been progressing the development of an updated strategic plan for MIDROC that would also satisfy the requirements for a JO strategic plan (Attachment 4).  The Board of MIDROC has agreed to progress the formation of a JO and it is understood that each of the member councils of MIDROC will be considering similar reports to this one at their respective Council meetings in February 2018.

 

To be clear, the vision for the JOMNCC Strategic Plan is:

 

“To improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of communities in the Mid North Coast region.”

 

The agreed mission for JOMNCC, reflecting the core and non-core functions of JOs, is:

 

“To take the lead to set priorities for the Mid North Coast region and work collaboratively with government and non-government organisations to achieve them.”

 

The core and non-core functions of JOs, as identified by the NSW Office of Local Government in 2016, are:

 

§ Strategic planning and priority setting – robust processes for regional outcomes but with the flexibility to respond to changing priorities and the changing needs of member councils

§ Intergovernmental collaboration – focus on building good working relationships with our government (department and agency) stakeholders

§ Regional leadership and advocacy – a combined purpose and strategic direction for JOMNCC as a whole and a willingness to negotiate for the ‘greater good’ of the region rather than individual council interests

§ Building efficient and effective councils – by examining opportunities for shared services and capacity building across the region.

 

Issues:

The issues associated with this proposal can perhaps be best summarised as follows:

 

§ The concept of JOs in regional NSW has been the subject of consideration since 2014;

§ Pilot JOs were supported by the NSW Office of Local Government during 2015 and 2016 with a view to refining how JOs would operate once formalised;

§ Most of the pilot JOs were previously regional organisations of councils prior to becoming pilot JOs;

§ The Board of MIDROC has agreed that MIDROC should pursue becoming a JO once the legislation was passed enabling this to occur;

§ The NSW Office of Local Government has provided advice as to the process to be followed to enable JOs to be operational by July 2018;

§ Becoming a voluntary member of the proposed JOMNCC provides an opportunity for Coffs Harbour City Council to continue to have a voice on matters relevant to the broader Mid North Coast region.

Options:

The following options are available to Council:

 

1.    Adopt the recommendation provided to Council.  The wording of this recommendation is set out word for word in accordance with the advice provided by the NSW Office of Local Government.  It has been stated that for a JO covering a group of councils, each proposed member council must pass a resolution containing the wording provided by the OLG.

2.    Reject the recommendation and not progress to be a member of the proposed JOMNCC.  This option will result in Coffs Harbour City Council not having a seat at the table or a voice on broader issues impacting the Mid North Coast Region.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no direct environmental impacts associated with Council’s consideration of this report.  The vision of the proposed JOMNCC in part identifies the improvement of environmental wellbeing of the Mid North Coast community.

•     Social

Similar to the environment assessment, there are no direct social impacts associated with Council’s consideration of this report.  Once again the vision of the proposed JOMNCC in part identifies the improvement of social wellbeing of the Mid North Coast community.

•     Civic Leadership

One of the main aims associated with the formation of the JOMNCC is specifically to provide an increased opportunity for strong civic leadership within the Mid North Coast region.  The mission for the proposed JOMNCC identifies several core and non-core functions including “intergovernmental collaboration” and “regional leadership and advocacy”.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The vision of the proposed JOMNCC also identifies the improvement of the economic wellbeing of the Mid North Coast community.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

At this stage it is somewhat difficult to identify the exact impact on Council’s Delivery Program and/or Operational Plan.  Currently Council provides a subscription to MIDROC to contribute toward the expenses associated with the operations of MIDROC.  In the past, the subscription has been in the order of $20k, whilst at the present time the figure is more like $6k.  The reason that the subscription has dropped in more recent times reflects the fact that the operations of MIDROC have been scaled back somewhat given the uncertainty over the last couple of years as to exactly what the status of ROC’s versus JO’s.

 

At the November Board meeting of MIDROC, the Board nominated an initial funding for the proposed JOMNCC via a base rate of $250k, which equates to $41,666 per member council for 2018/19.  A population per capita rate may be determined above the base rate following the consideration of strategic plan priorities and JO organisational requirements.  Attention is drawn to Q10 in the FAQ document at Attachment 1, which states that the Government will provide up to $3.3 million in seed funding to JO’s across the State to support their establishment.  It is not known exactly how much funding will be available for each JO, however, it can be anticipated that subject to the NSW Government progressing an application for the proposed JOMNCC, some level of seed funding will be available which would offset the base rate etc. for the operation of the JO.

Risk Analysis:

In its broadest sense, any consideration of risk associated with various considerations of the Board of JOMNCC will be undertaken at the time of considering various matters at a regional level.  Perhaps the risk to be considered at this stage is more associated with being a part of a JO as opposed to not being a member of a JO.  Perhaps first and foremost, should Council not be a member of a JO, a risk may be attributed to not having a voice at the regional level on matters that may impact the Coffs Harbour community.  A further risk may exist should Council not pursue membership of the proposed JOMNCC and that is associated with the level of funding available to the JO.

Consultation:

At the time that the ILGRP report was released and again when the NSW Government released its response to that report, significant sector wide consultation occurred on all aspects of the findings and recommendations.  Whilst there were some negative comments made about the proposed JOs at this time, it would be fair to suggest that overall the feedback from the local government sector on the proposal for JOs was positive.

 

Significant engagement has occurred within the member councils of the proposed JOMNCC resulting in a unanimous decision at the 28 November Board meeting of MIDROC to progress with an application for a JO on the area covered by the councils that presently make up MIDROC.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Local Government Act 1993

Local Government Amendment (Regional Joint Organisations) Bill 2017

Implementation Date / Priority:

To enable the application to form a JO, the material from the NSW OLG requires that a resolution is passed by Council and notified to the OLG by 28 February 2018.  Thereafter, the Government will assess the application from all councils within the proposed JO area and then progress the matter for proclamation.  Should this process be completed in accordance with the Government’s schedule, it is anticipated that the JOMNCC would begin operation in July 2018.

Conclusion:

The concept of JOs has been promoted by the NSW Government since 2014 and the legislation to enable JOs has now been passed in Parliament.  Given the positive deliberations regarding the establishment of the proposed JOMNCC at the MIDROC Board level and Coffs Harbour City Council’s positive consideration of participation in a JO in the past, albeit in the context of the pilot process at the time, it is considered appropriate for Council to pursue the formation of a JO alongside the partner councils within MIDROC with a view to maintaining strong strategic planning for the Mid North Coast region and appropriate regional leadership and advocacy.

 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


GM18/02      2018 National General Assembly of Local Government - Call for Motions

Author:                        General Manager

Authoriser:                  General Manager

MyCoffs:                      D.1 Our leaders give us confidence in the future

Attachments:              ATT1  GM18/02  ALGA NGA - 2018 Australia's Future Let's Make it Local  

 

Executive Summary

This report provides notice that the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has advised that conference motions to be considered at the next National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government are to be matters of policy significance to local government nationally and are to be submitted to ALGA by Friday 30 March 2018.

 

Recommendation:

That:

1.       Councillors submit any motions in line with the Australian Local Government Association Discussion Paper to the General Manager by Thursday 8 March 2018.

2.       A separate report of any motions received, be submitted for the Council Meeting of Thursday 22 March 2018.

 

Report

Description of Item:

The 2018 NGA of Local Government will be held at the National Convention Centre in Canberra on the 17-20 June 2018.

 

As the major event on the annual local government events calendar, the NGA typically attracts more than 800 mayors, councillors and senior officers from Councils across Australia.  The NGA is an opportunity for Council to contribute to the development of national local government policy and receive updates on the top policy issues facing local government nationally.

 

The ALGA Board is calling for motions for the 2018 NGA under this year’s theme “Australia’s Future, Make it Local”.

 

To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers, motions must meet the following criteria:

 

1.   Be relevant to the work of local government nationally;

2.   Be consistent with the theme of the NGA;

3.   Complement or build on the policy objectives of state and territory local government associations;

4.   Be submitted by a council which is a financial member of their state or territory local government association;

5.   Propose a clear action and outcome; and

6.   Not ne advanced on behalf of external third parties that may seek to use the NGA to apply pressure to Board members or to gain national political exposure for positions that are not directly relevant to the work of, or in the national interests of, local government.

 

To assist councils in preparing motions, a Discussion Paper has been prepared and is provided as an attachment to this report.

 

The ALGA seeks all conference motions to be submitted no later than 11.59pm on Friday 30 March 2018.

Issues:

Council representatives have in the past attended the ALGA NGA Conference.

 

As the closing date for conference motions is Friday 30 March 2018, Councillors should give consideration to any matter they may wish to raise with a view to submitting any proposed NGA motions as a Notice of Motion for Council’s consideration at its meeting of 22 March 2018.  This means that any Notices of Motion in respect of this matter will need to be with the General Manager by close of business on Thursday 8 March 2018.

Options:

It is proposed that the options will be considered within the report provided for any notices of motion that are lodged.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

Issues dealing with the environment are a regular feature on the agenda of the conference. The annual conference debates changes to policy and strategy.

•     Social

Social issues are also debated and policy and strategy adopted.  Councillors attending the NGA are able to network socially with their colleagues from across the nation and interchange ideas and best practice.

•     Civic Leadership

The submission of motions to the ALGA NGA is a way in which Council is able to pursue civic leadership on behalf of its community.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no economic implications associated with this report.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There are no Delivery Program or Operational Plan implications.

Risk Analysis:

A risk analysis may need to be applied to the context of any motions submitted for the consideration of Council.

Consultation:

Council has submitted motions to previous ALGA National General Assembly’s.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council considers the need for conference motions each year.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Any proposed motions for the 2018 ALGA NGA will need to be submitted to the General Manager by close of business Thursday 8 March 2018, to enable the timeframes set by ALGA to be achieved.

Conclusion:

There is no compulsion on Council or Councillors to submit motions to the ALGA NGA.  However, should Councillors wish to pursue the submission of motions, the timeframes set out in this report will need to be adhered to.

 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


GM18/03      Proposed Regional Cities NSW

Author:                        General Manager

Authoriser:                  General Manager

MyCoffs:                      B.2 A community achieving its potential

Attachments:              ATT1  GM18/03  Correspondence Tamworth Regional Council - Proposed Regional Cities NSW  

 

Executive Summary

The current members of the Inland Forum are proposing a gathering of a more broadly representative group of regional councils with a view to establishing Regional Capitals NSW.  An initial forum is to be held in Sydney on 1 March 2018 and the Mayor and General Manager have been invited to attend.

 

Recommendation:

That Council note the information contained within this report and that a further report is to be presented to Council.

 

Report

Description of Item:

Correspondence has been received from the Mayor of Tamworth Regional Council on behalf of the members of the Inland Forum advising of a proposal to create a new body to be known as Regional Cities NSW.  Attached to the subject correspondence is a model/discussion paper, which is apparently based heavily on a successful model that has been implemented in Victoria.

 

In brief, the concept is for the larger cities outside the metropolitan area to work co-operatively on issues and projects of mutual interest that affect regional cities in the State.  In the Victorian context, apparently a similar group has achieved some significant outcomes and established a strong partnership with the Victorian State Government.

 

An invitation has been extended for the Mayor and General Manager to meet with the current Inland Forum members and other identified regional cities at a forum to be held in Sydney on Thursday 1 March 2018 to further understand and discuss participation in the proposed Regional Cities NSW.  Attachment 1 to this report provides a copy of the correspondence from the Mayor of Tamworth Regional Council along with a brief overview of the proposal.

 

It is proposed that the Mayor or Deputy Mayor and General Manager will attend the forum with a view to gathering further information and a follow up report will be provided to Council.

Issues:

Coffs Harbour City Council is a member of various associations/groups and whilst the following is not intended to be an exhaustive list, some of the benefits of these memberships are:

 

·    Having access to focussed information on specific or specialist issues;

·    Providing a forum for Council to network and learn from peers and colleagues on matters of similar interest or concern;

·    Providing a forum for advocacy and/or lobbying to other levels of government on issues impacting the association/group members;

·    Providing an enhanced ability to influence policy direction being established by other levels of government;

·    Providing an opportunity to further enhance the built and natural environment for our community to enjoy and prosper within.

 

Once again, whilst not an exhaustive list, an example of some of the associations/groups that Council is a member of are:

 

·    Local Government NSW

·    NSW Country Mayors Association

·    Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils

·    National Seachange Taskforce

·    Regional Capitals Australia

 

It is suggested that it would seem appropriate for the Mayor and General Manager to attend the initial forum of the proposed Regional Cities NSW to gather further information to enable assessment of the potential benefits of membership of this new association.

Options:

Essentially, Council has two options in considering this report:

 

1.   Adopt the recommendation contained in this report, thus enabling the gathering of further information to enable Council’s further consideration of becoming a member of the proposed Regional Cities NSW; or

2.   Reject the recommendation and inform the Inland Forum that Council does not wish to pursue the Regional Cities NSW proposal.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no immediately identified environmental impacts as a result of considering this report.  It is anticipated that as policy and other issues are considered by the proposed Regional Cities NSW, that environmental matters would be considered as part of the deliberations.

•     Social

Similar to the environment, there are no immediately identified social impacts as a result of considering this report.  Social impacts would be considered as policy and other issues are considered.

•     Civic Leadership

Initial consideration of the material supplied suggests that the aim of the proposed Regional Cities NSW is to improve and grow regional NSW.  Potentially, participation in the Regional Cities NSW proposal provides the opportunity for Council to demonstrate civic leadership on behalf of its community.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

A number of the objectives identified in the attached discussion paper discuss the desire to generate improved employment and economic opportunities for regional NSW and in particular the regional cities.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

Council’s Delivery Program/Operational Plan currently makes no provision for membership of Regional Cities NSW.  The discussion paper supplied along with the correspondence from the Mayor of TRC makes reference to a membership fee of $10,000 per annum.  This fee will be considered as part of the draft budget for 2018/19 should membership of Regional Cities NSW be pursued.

Risk Analysis:

It is not considered that there are any inherent risks associated with Council considering this report.

Consultation:

No detailed consultation has occurred on this matter at this time.  Once the further information is gathered from the forum scheduled to be held 1 March 2018 in Sydney, it is anticipated that further internal consultation shall occur.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

There are no statutory requirements.  Coffs Harbour City Council has from time to time been a member of various associations/groups, always with a focus on the beneficial outcomes to be derived for the community etc.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Should Council adopt the recommendation, it is anticipated that the Mayor or Deputy Mayor and General Manager will attend the forum to be held on 1 March 2018.  An update report will then be provided for Council once the deliberations of the forum have concluded.

Conclusion:

It is considered entirely appropriate that further information is gathered regarding the proposal to form Regional Cities NSW to enable a more detailed assessment of the proposal and a subsequent report to Council. Adopting the recommendation will enable this to occur.

 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


BS18/01       Bank and Investment Balances for November 2017

Author:                        Section Leader Financial Planning

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

MyCoffs:                      D.2 We have effective use of public resources.

Attachments:              ATT1  BS18/01   Monthly Investment Performance for the Month Ended 30 November 2017  

 

Executive Summary

Council’s Bank Balances and Investments as at 30 November 2017 totalled $199,440,171.82.  Council receives independent advice and invests surplus funds in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy to maximise investment income and preserve capital to assist with funding requirements for projects listed under the My Coffs Community Strategic Plan.

 

Also included in the monthly report is a summary of Council’s investments broken down into Fossil Fuel Lending Authorised Deposit Taking institutions (ADIs) and Non Fossil Fuel Lending ADIs (refer attachment).

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council note the bank balances and investments totalling $199,440,171.82 (including from loans, Developer Contributions and other avenues that form the restricted accounts and are committed for future works) as at 30 November 2017.

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

A copy of the state of Bank Balances and Investments as at 30 November 2017 is attached.  Also included is a summary of Council’s investments broken down into Fossil Fuel Lending Authorised Deposit Taking institutions (ADIs) and Non Fossil Fuel Lending ADIs.

 

It should be noted that Council is required to account for investments in accordance with the Australian International Financial Reporting Standards.  Term deposits are shown at face value and all other investment balances at the end of each month reflect market value movements which would be inclusive of accrued interest.

 

Interest when paid, say quarterly, would result in reductions in the market value of the investments.  The Investment Report reflects the above requirements and reflects the interest earned (or accrued) on each investment, based on the acquisition price.

 

Reports written by Laminar Group Pty Ltd (Council’s investment portfolio advisors), which examine economic and financial markets data for November 2017 are available in the Councillors’ Resource Centre.

Issues:

There are no issues associated with the report.

Options:

As the report is for noting only, an options analysis is not required.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no perceived current or future environmental impacts from the information contained in this report.

•     Social

There are no perceived current or future social impacts from the information contained in this report.

•     Civic Leadership

Council invests surplus funds to maximise investment income and preserve capital to assist with funding requirements for projects listed under the My Coffs Community Strategic Plan.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

Council’s investments are held according to the requirements stated within Council’s Investment Policy and the returns are acceptable in relation thereto.  In the long term, earnings from investments can vary due to econcomic conditions and financial markets.  Council constructs its investment portfolio with consideration of current conditions and to comply with the Office of Local Government investment policy guidelines.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

As at 30 November 2017 it is noted that the total bank and investment balances was $199,440,171.82 comprising restricted and unrestricted General, Trust, Water and Sewerage Fund cash and investments.

Risk Analysis:

The likelihood of risks associated with New South Wales Local Government’s investing funds is now remote due to the conservative nature of investments permitted under statutory requirements.  The risk of capital not being returned in relation to each individual investment Council owns is indicated in the attachment.

 

The main risks for Council’s investment portfolio are liquidity and credit risk, both of which are being managed under the advice of Laminar Group Pty Ltd.  Liquidity risk is the risk that the Council is unable to redeem the investment at a fair price within a timely period and thereby incurs additional costs (or in the worst case is unable to execute its spending plans).  Credit risk is the risk of loss of principal stemming from a financial institutions failure to repay that principal when that principal is due.  Council is compensated for assuming credit risk by way of interest payments from the financial institutions issuing the investment security.

 

Credit risk is rated by various rating agencies.  Investment securities in Council’s current portfolio are rated by either Standard and Poors or Fitch, with the majority of the portfolio rated by Standard and Poors.  Standard and Poors credit ratings and an explanation of their ratings are as follows:

 

Rating

Ratings Explanation

AAA

Extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments.  Highest Rating.

AA

Very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.

A

Strong capacity to meet financial commitments, but somewhat susceptible to adverse economic conditions and changes in circumstances.

BBB

Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but more subject to adverse economic conditions.

BBB-

Considered lowest investment grade by market participants.

BB+

Considered highest speculative grade by market participants.

BB

Less vulnerable in the near term but faces major ongoing uncertainties to adverse business, financial and economic conditions.

B

More vulnerable to adverse business, financial and economic conditions but currently has the capacity to meet financial commitments.

CCC

Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.

CC

Currently highly vulnerable.

C

Currently highly vulnerable obligations and other defined circumstances.

D

Payment default on financial commitments.

 

Ratings from ‘AA’ to ‘CCC’ may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the major rating categories.

 

Types of investment securities by credit risk ranking from highest to lowest are as follows:

 

·    Deposits/Covered Bonds – these share first ranking

·    Senior debt – Floating Rate Notes/Fixed Coupon Bonds.

·    Subordinated debt

·    Hybrids

·    Preference shares

·    Equity shares (common shares).

 

Subordinated debt, hybrids, preference and equity shares are not a permitted investment under the current Ministerial Order.  Term deposits of $250,000 or less per financial institution are covered under the Commonwealth Government Deposit Guarantee Scheme and therefore by default have the same credit rating as the Commonwealth Government, ie AAA.

 

All credit unions, building societies and mutual banks are Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions (ADIs) and are regulated in the same way as all other Australian banks.  ADIs are regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission under the Corporations Act 2001, and by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority under the Banking Act 1959.

Consultation:

Council’s investment advisors, Laminar Group Pty Ltd have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council funds have been invested in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy (POL‑049), which was adopted on 24 August 2017.

Local Government Act 1993 – Section 625

Local Government Act 1993 – Investment Order (dated 12 January 2011)

Local Government General Regulation 2005

The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Sections 14A(2), 14C(1) and 14C(2)

Implementation Date / Priority:

Nil.

Conclusion:

Council should consider the information provided in the report and the Councillors’ Resource Centre and the recommendation provided.

 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BS18/02       Bank and Investment Balances for December 2017

Author:                        Section Leader Financial Planning

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

MyCoffs:                      D.2 We have effective use of public resources.

Attachments:              ATT1  BS18/02   Monthly Investment Performance for the Month Ended December 2017  

 

Executive Summary

Council’s Bank Balances and Investments as at 31 December 2017 totalled $198,349,553.69.  Council receives independent advice and invests surplus funds in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy to maximise investment income and preserve capital to assist with funding requirements for projects listed under the My Coffs Community Strategic Plan.

 

Also included in the monthly report is a summary of Council’s investments broken down into Fossil Fuel Lending Authorised Deposit Taking institutions (ADIs) and Non Fossil Fuel Lending ADIs (refer attachment).

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council note the bank balances and investments totalling $198,349,553.69 (including from loans, Developer Contributions and other avenues that form the restricted accounts and are committed for future works) as at 31 December 2017.

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

A copy of the state of Bank Balances and Investments as at 31 December 2017 is attached.  Also included is a summary of Council’s investments broken down into Fossil Fuel Lending Authorised Deposit Taking institutions (ADIs) and Non Fossil Fuel Lending ADIs.

 

It should be noted that Council is required to account for investments in accordance with the Australian International Financial Reporting Standards.  Term deposits are shown at face value and all other investment balances at the end of each month reflect market value movements which would be inclusive of accrued interest.

 

Interest when paid, say quarterly, would result in reductions in the market value of the investments.  The Investment Report reflects the above requirements and reflects the interest earned (or accrued) on each investment, based on the acquisition price.

 

Reports written by Laminar Group Pty Ltd (Council’s investment portfolio advisors), which examine economic and financial markets data for December 2017 are available in the Councillors’ Resource Centre.

Issues:

There are no issues associated with the report.

Options:

As the report is for noting only, an options analysis is not required.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no perceived current or future environmental impacts from the information contained in this report.

•     Social

There are no perceived current or future social impacts from the information contained in this report.

•     Civic Leadership

Council invests surplus funds to maximise investment income and preserve capital to assist with funding requirements for projects listed under the My Coffs Community Strategic Plan.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

Council’s investments are held according to the requirements stated within Council’s Investment Policy and the returns are acceptable in relation thereto.  In the long term, earnings from investments can vary due to econcomic conditions and financial markets.  Council constructs its investment portfolio with consideration of current conditions and to comply with the Office of Local Government investment policy guidelines.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

As at 31 December 2017 it is noted that the total bank and investment balances was $198,349,553.69 comprising restricted and unrestricted General, Trust, Water and Sewerage Fund cash and investments.

Risk Analysis:

The likelihood of risks associated with New South Wales Local Government’s investing funds is now remote due to the conservative nature of investments permitted under statutory requirements.  The risk of capital not being returned in relation to each individual investment Council owns is indicated in the attachment.

 

The main risks for Council’s investment portfolio are liquidity and credit risk, both of which are being managed under the advice of Laminar Group Pty Ltd.  Liquidity risk is the risk that the Council is unable to redeem the investment at a fair price within a timely period and thereby incurs additional costs (or in the worst case is unable to execute its spending plans).  Credit risk is the risk of loss of principal stemming from a financial institutions failure to repay that principal when that principal is due.  Council is compensated for assuming credit risk by way of interest payments from the financial institutions issuing the investment security.

 

Credit risk is rated by various rating agencies.  Investment securities in Council’s current portfolio are rated by either Standard and Poors or Fitch, with the majority of the portfolio rated by Standard and Poors.  Standard and Poors credit ratings and an explanation of their ratings are as follows:

 

Rating

Ratings Explanation

AAA

Extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments.  Highest Rating.

AA

Very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.

A

Strong capacity to meet financial commitments, but somewhat susceptible to adverse economic conditions and changes in circumstances.

BBB

Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but more subject to adverse economic conditions.

BBB-

Considered lowest investment grade by market participants.

BB+

Considered highest speculative grade by market participants.

BB

Less vulnerable in the near term but faces major ongoing uncertainties to adverse business, financial and economic conditions.

B

More vulnerable to adverse business, financial and economic conditions but currently has the capacity to meet financial commitments.

CCC

Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.

CC

Currently highly vulnerable.

C

Currently highly vulnerable obligations and other defined circumstances.

D

Payment default on financial commitments.

 

Ratings from ‘AA’ to ‘CCC’ may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the major rating categories.

 

Types of investment securities by credit risk ranking from highest to lowest are as follows:

 

·    Deposits/Covered Bonds – these share first ranking

·    Senior debt – Floating Rate Notes/Fixed Coupon Bonds.

·    Subordinated debt

·    Hybrids

·    Preference shares

·    Equity shares (common shares).

 

Subordinated debt, hybrids, preference and equity shares are not a permitted investment under the current Ministerial Order.  Term deposits of $250,000 or less per financial institution are covered under the Commonwealth Government Deposit Guarantee Scheme and therefore by default have the same credit rating as the Commonwealth Government, ie AAA.

 

All credit unions, building societies and mutual banks are Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions (ADIs) and are regulated in the same way as all other Australian banks.  ADIs are regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission under the Corporations Act 2001, and by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority under the Banking Act 1959.

Consultation:

Council’s investment advisors, Laminar Group Pty Ltd have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council funds have been invested in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy (POL‑049), which was adopted on 24 August 2017.

Local Government Act 1993 – Section 625

Local Government Act 1993 – Investment Order (dated 12 January 2011)

Local Government General Regulation 2005

The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Sections 14A(2), 14C(1) and 14C(2)

Implementation Date / Priority:

Nil.

Conclusion:

Council should consider the information provided in the report and the Councillors’ Resource Centre and the recommendation provided.

 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BS18/03       Monthly Financial Performance Report for the month ended 30 November 2017

Author:                        Section Leader Financial Planning

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

MyCoffs:                      D.2 We have effective use of public resources.

Attachments:              ATT1  BS18/03   Monthly Financial Performance Report for the month ended 30 November 2017  

 

Executive Summary

This report presents the monthly financial performance report for 30 November 2017.  The report provides information on the actual to budget position at the financial statement level and capital expenditure reports for the current financial year.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council note the monthly financial performance report for 30 November 2017, including the following Consolidated Income Statement.

 

CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT as at 30 November 2017:

2017/18 Original Budget

2017/18 Projected Budget

2017/18 Year to Date Budget

2017/18 Year to Date Actuals

Recurrent Revenue

‘000s

  ‘000s

‘000s

‘000s

Rates & Annual Charges

94,845

94,689

94,689

93,301

User Charges & Fees

30,750

30,603

12,853

11,435

Interest & Investment Revenue

5,140

  5,140

2,026

2,941

Other Revenues

15,171

15,164

6,195

3,383

Grants & Contributions provided for Operating Purposes

12,620

9,925

 

3,830

4,941

RECURRENT REVENUE

158,526

155,521

 

119,593

116,001

 

 

 

 

 

Recurrent Expenditure

 

 

Employee Benefits & Oncosts

48,718

48,176

20,228

21,117

Borrowing Costs

10,621

10,621

2,746

2,739

Materials & Contracts

117,366

148,351

43,434

38,062

Depreciation & Amortisation

46,170

38,907

16,211

16,227

Other Expenses

1,667

  1,661

699

2,935

 

2017/18 Original Budget

2017/18 Projected Budget

2017/18 Year to Date Budget

2017/18 Year to Date Actuals

Less: Capitalised Expenses

(58,482)

(86,996)

 

(19,316)

(20,498)

RECURRENT EXPENDITURE

166,060

160,720

 

64,002

60,582

NET OPERATING (DEFICIT) / SURPLUS

(7,534)

  (5,199)

 

55,591

55,419

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Revenue

 

 

 

 

Capital Grants, Subsidies, Contributions and Donations

25,793

33,924

 

8,914

7,672

CAPITAL REVENUE

25,793

33,924

 

8,914

7,672

NET SURPLUS

18,259

28,725

 

64,505

63,091

 

 

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

The monthly financial performance report provides information on Council’s actual to budget performance. The report has been introduced to provide accrual based information to Council on a monthly basis. The reports include a graphical representation of key performance indicators in order to provide key summary financial information.  A statement of comprehensive income is included which details monthly performance for November 2017.   This statement compares actual to budget on a monthly and year to date basis at the financial statement level.   Also included are the capital expenditure reports for the current financial year.

 


 

CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT as at 30 November 2017:

 

2017/18 Original Budget

2017/18 Projected Budget

2017/18 Year to Date Budget

2017/18 Year to Date Actuals

Recurrent Revenue

‘000s

‘000s

‘000s

‘000s

Rates & Annual Charges

94,845

94,689

94,689

93,301

User Charges & Fees

30,750

30,603

12,853

11,435

Interest & Investment Revenue

5,140

  5,140

2,026

2,941

Other Revenues

15,171

15,164

6,195

3,383

Grants & Contributions provided for Operating Purposes

12,620

9,925

 

3,830

4,941

RECURRENT REVENUE

158,526

155,521

 

119,593

116,001

 

 

 

 

 

Recurrent Expenditure

 

 

Employee Benefits & Oncosts

48,718

48,176

20,228

21,117

Borrowing Costs

10,621

10,621

2,746

2,739

Materials & Contracts

117,366

148,351

43,434

38,062

Depreciation & Amortisation

46,170

38,907

16,211

16,227

Other Expenses

1,667

  1,661

699

2,935

Less: Capitalised Expenses

(58,482)

(86,996)

 

(19,316)

(20,498)

RECURRENT EXPENDITURE

166,060

160,720

 

64,002

60,582

NET OPERATING (DEFICIT) / SURPLUS

(7,534)

  (5,199)

 

55,591

55,419

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Revenue

 

 

 

 

Capital Grants, Subsidies, Contributions and Donations

25,793

33,924

 

8,914

7,672

CAPITAL REVENUE

25,793

33,924

 

8,914

7,672

NET SURPLUS

18,259

28,725

 

64,505

63,091

Issues:

The report attached is for November 2017 and includes an Income Statement, Key Performance Indicators and capital expenditure progress reporting.

Options:

An options analysis is not provided as the report is for noting only.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no perceived short or long term environmental impacts for the information contained within the report.

•     Social

There are no perceived short or long term social impacts for the information contained within the report.

•     Civic Leadership

Council supports the delivery of high quality, sustainable outcomes for Coffs Harbour and invests surplus funds to maximise investment income and preserve capital to assist with funding requirements for projects listed under the MyCoffs Community Strategic Plan.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

This report assesses the current year’s budget position only.  Any variations approved by Council are subsequently reflected in Council’s Delivery Plan and may affect future economic sustainability.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The year to date operating surplus is estimated to be $55.4 million as at 30 November 2017.  This is much higher than the end of year predicted surplus as the whole amount of the Rates Levy is recognised in the month of July.

Risk Analysis:

Not applicable.

Consultation:

Group Leaders and their relevant staff have been provided with electronic budget reports for each cost centre on a monthly basis for review.  Any variations adopted by Council have been incorporated into the report.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Local government regulations require the Responsible Accounting Officer to submit a quarterly budget review to Council.  There is no obligation to provide monthly financial performance reports but as part of prudent financial management we have opted to do so.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Not applicable.

Conclusion:

This monthly financial performance report provides information on the actual to budget results at the financial statement level along with capital expenditure reports for the current financial year.

 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BS18/04       Environmental Levy Projects Quarterly Report to 31 December 2017

Author:                        Grants Administration Officer

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

MyCoffs:                      C.2 A natural environment sustained for the future

Attachments:              ATT1  BS18/04   Environmental Levy Quarterly Status Report to 31 Dec 2017  

 

Executive Summary

This report provides Council with a quarterly status update to 31 December 2017 on the projects funded under the Environmental Levy (EL) Program for Council’s consideration and noting.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council notes the status of the Environmental Levy Program projects as at 31 December 2017 as outlined in the attachment.

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

This report provides an update on the status of the EL Program projects as at 31 December 2017 and a project status report is attached.

Issues:

There are no issues associated with the report.

Options:

As the report is for noting only, an options analysis is not provided.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The EL Program is designed to ensure that environmental strategies as outlined within the My Coffs Community Strategic Plan “A natural environment sustained for the future” theme are addressed.  All projects recommended for funding state how they are linked to a Council approved action or priority in a Natural Resource Management strategy or plan.  All recommended projects will result in beneficial outcomes for the environment of the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area (LGA) and some may have positive flow-on impacts outside the LGA.

•     Social

Determination of successful projects is based on assessment criteria which includes the following:

 

•  Generate a community benefit;

•  Be community based, and

•  Protect and / or rehabilitate the natural environment.

•     Civic Leadership

Council’s EL Program seeks to promote sound environmental practices and promotes leadership and involvement in key environmental issues which accords with Council’s strategic theme of “A natural environment sustained for the future”.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The EL Program funds environmental projects that would not otherwise be undertaken with general Council funding.  For 2017/18 twenty eight submissions were received requesting a total of $1,860,700.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The EL Program is funded through a special rate and is accounted for separately.  There was $1,323,400 available for the EL projects in 2017/2018, which included income from the EL and a contribution from the Water Fund of $50,000 towards the Orara River works.  Nineteen projects/programs totalling $1,323,400 are included in the Operational Plan with $24,867 held as a matching grants fund.

Risk Analysis:

Each individual project will have individual risk profiles which are considered by the project owners.

Consultation:

Council staff and relevant community groups have contributed individual reports which have been collated to prepare this report.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Submissions are assessed in accordance with Council’s Environmental Levy Policy.  Council receives quarterly reports on the status of EL projects throughout the year.

Implementation Date / Priority:

The EL projects will continue to be monitored to ensure their implementation.

Conclusion:

This report summarises the quarterly status of the EL Program project for Council’s consideration and noting.

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BS18/05       Options to Reduce Council's Reliance on Rate Revenue

Author:                        Group Leader Financial Services and Logistics

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

MyCoffs:                      D.2 We have effective use of public resources.

Attachments:              Nil

 

Executive Summary

Coffs Harbour City Council has, for a number of years, undertaken positive progress to facilitate an improvement in its financial sustainability into the future.  This has included thorough reviews of its expenditure and revenue levels and constructive action in both areas to ensure that it is able to maintain its services and assets for the community now and into the long term future.

 

Councillors have requested through the performance management framework that options be explored to reduce Council’s reliance on revenue from Rates and Annual Charges. This report provides background and possible options for the Council to consider. The report also demonstrates that Coffs Harbour City Council is already well placed in comparison to other Councils across Australia in relation to this matter.

 

It is recommended that Council note this report and also note that options to reduce reliance on rate revenue will be reviewed by Council staff on an ongoing basis.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.   Note the report; and

2.   Note that options to reduce reliance on rate revenue will be reviewed by Council staff on an ongoing basis.

 

Report

Description of Item:

Councillors have requested through the performance management framework that options be explored to reduce Council’s reliance on revenue from Rates and Annual Charges. This report provides background and possible options for the Council to consider.

 

Coffs Harbour City Council has been rightfully focussed over the most recent past on financial sustainability to ensure it can maintain its very large asset base and levels of service to the community now and into the long term.  In September 2014, the New South Wales Government released its Fit For the Future program which detailed the requirements for Council’s within NSW to place a concerted effort into this long term financial sustainability focus.

 

Prior to this, Council’s 2013-2024 Resourcing Strategy, adopted by Council 11 April 2013, set out “Council’s unsustainable position” in particular:

 

·    A widening gap between revenue and expenditure (an underlying operating deficit) estimated at $1.8 million per annum.

·    Deterioration of infrastructure (resulting from insufficient spending on maintenance, renewal and management) estimated at $6.2 million per annum.

Four options to bridge the “financial sustainability gap” were identified, including:

 

1.   Productivity improvements (changing the way services are delivered)

2.   New revenue opportunities (e.g. commercialisation of Council services)

3.   Reductions in current levels of service delivery

4.   Additional rate income

Council then undertook to seek a Special Rate Variation and implemented the Transformation to Sustainability Program which implemented both options 1 and 4 of the four options above.  The Council continues to operate five commercial business units which generate returns for the organisation and in turn the community.  When the Council submitted its Council Improvement Proposal under the Fit for the Future program it was declared by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal as being ‘Fit’.

 

The following table shows the proportion of the Council’s revenue which comes from Rates and Annual Charges and how this has tracked over the past 5 years:

 

Coffs Harbour City Council Rates and Annual Charges

Rates and Annual Charges '000

Total Operating Revenue '000

Rates and Annual Charges as a % of Total

2012/13

71,430

138,095

51.73%

2013/14

75,971

135,882

55.91%

2014/15

81,083

151,285

53.60%

2015/16

85,968

160,231

53.65%

2016/17

91,319

184,867

49.40%

 

The following table shows how Coffs Harbour City Council compares to a selection of other Council’s within our region and across Australia.

 

Various Councils Rates and Annual Charges as a % of Total Revenue 2015/16

Council

Rates and Annual Charges '000

Total Operating Revenue '000

Rates and Annual Charges as a %

Cairns

241,268

281,274

85.78%

Stirling

125,723

209,604

59.98%

Ballarat

98,179

170,718

57.51%

Coffs Harbour

85,968

160,231

53.65%

Tweed *

71,960

132,594

54.27%

Armadale

58,618

87,233

67.20%

Port Macquarie Hastings

56,179

107,396

52.31%

Scenic Rim

44,193

65,031

67.96%

Wodonga

41,106

55,864

73.58%

Bunbury

33,984

53,107

63.99%

Clarence Valley

33,200

82,965

40.02%

Albany

32,709

55,917

58.50%

Kempsey

21,149

47,599

44.43%

Nambucca

13,901

26,053

53.36%

Bellingen

9,272

22,632

40.97%

* Tweed included for 2016/17 as 2015/16 is unavailable.

 

The table shows that almost all larger or comparative sized Councils have a greater reliance on rates and annual charges than Coffs Harbour City Council. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council has a similar level of reliance as Coffs Harbour. Smaller Councils generally have a lower rate base and therefore rely more heavily on grant revenue to provide sufficient revenue.  Also, due to revenue their constraints they are not always able to offer the same mix and levels of services as larger Councils.

 

The last ten years has seen an extensive focus placed upon financial sustainability within the Local Government Sector in Australia.  This greater focus was reinforced with the establishment of the Australian Council of Local Government in 2008 by the Federal Government and the establishment of national reporting requirements around Asset Management and the National Asset Management Framework.  Since then, there has been a large effort by many Councils to decrease their reliance on grant funding and increase their own source revenue.  Rates and Charges is a large component of most Councils own source revenue and, apart from rate pegging, is mostly within Councils’ control.  Other components of a Council’s own source revenue can be subject to market forces, such as Development Application Fees, commercial activities and lease revenues and therefore funding core services from these sources of revenue can have significant consequences if market downturns dictate lower returns in these areas.  Generally it is considered most prudent to fund core services from revenue sources that are not considered to be at risk.

 

To set further context, the following table shows how Coffs Harbour City Council compares to other similar Councils within New South Wales for average rates assessments across the three categories of rateable properties:

 

 

A 2016 a paper by Dr Enid Slack ”Improving Local Government Revenue in NSW: What are the Options” presented at the LGNSW Finance Summit highlighted the following:

 

·    the revenue raising capacity of NSW councils is tightly constrained by rate pegging, the regulation of fees and charges and a narrow taxation base, to the extent that it is damaging the financial sustainability of councils;

·    intergovernmental fiscal transfers to local government have failed to keep pace with economic growth and do not achieve full horizontal equalisation;

·    there is significant cost shifting from the State and Commonwealth Governments onto local government, further undermining the financial base of councils; and

·    NSW local government has a large infrastructure renewal backlog that a significant proportion of NSW councils will not be able to resolve under the current financial model.  This finding has been verified through numerous sources.

 

At the same time, it is broadly agreed that local government is facing:

 

·    ever increasing demands for existing services;

·    growing demand for new services in response to changing community expectations, climate change and an ageing population; and

·    the continuing imposition of new roles, responsibilities and standards onto local government by the State and Commonwealth Government (for example health and environmental standards).

 

To reduce the Council’s reliance upon rates revenue to provide services to the community, the Council is faced with two options, find alternative funding sources or reduce the level of service to the community.  Community consultation as part of the Special Rates Variation applications undertaken by Council in 2014 and 2015 demonstrated there was not a significant desire by the community to see a reduction in the level of service being offered by the Council across its service areas and therefore the Council must investigate alternative funding sources.  Alternative funding sources does not only mean an increase in revenue but it may also consist of Public Private Partnerships which see some Local Government services being offered in partnership with the private sector.

Issues:

Whenever a Council wishes to look at either reducing service levels, increasing revenues or investigating alternative ways of delivering services, it can generate quite an amount of angst within a community.  This report is not providing a specific recommendation to the Council on pursuing any of the possible options the Council has to consider, but is merely providing the Council with a list of options it has at its disposal. These will be subject to ongoing review by Council staff and some may become worthy of further consideration in the future.

 

As indicated above, certain revenue generation activities such as commercial ventures are subject to market volatility.  Therefore it is not prudent to rely on these sources of revenue for ongoing core service delivery.  Rather these revenue sources are better used as discretionary funding for one-off projects or initiatives.

Options:

To reduce the Council’s reliance upon rates revenue to provide services to the community, the Council is faced with two options, find alternative funding sources or reduce the level of service to the community.  Community consultation as part of the Special Rates Variation applications undertaken by Council in 2014 and 2015 demonstrated there was not a significant desire by the community to see a reduction in the level of service being offered by the Council across its service areas and therefore the Council must investigate alternative funding sources.  Alternative funding sources does not only mean an increase in revenue but it may also consist of Public Private Partnerships which see some Local Government services being offered in partnership with the private sector.

 

Other possible options for Council to consider are as follows (but not necessarily recommended or feasible for Coffs Harbour), with commentary below:

 

·    Toll roads;

·    Paid parking;

·    Increased commercial activity revenue;

·    Long term lease of profitable assets; and

·    Increase user pays for non-core services.

 

Toll Roads This option is more likely appropriate for large metropolitan Councils. It is extremely unlikely that the Coffs Harbour community has the appetite for a user pays road system and that the volume of traffic within Coffs Harbour would be sufficient, to support a positive business case to fund infrastructure under this option.

 

Paid Parking – This option has been discussed within Council and the community for a number of years. Also, limited paid parking exists, for instance at the Coffs Harbour Regional Airport. Many Councils throughout Australia utilise paid parking as an additional revenue source, but importantly also as a mechanism to manage parking demand.

 

Consideration under this option would need to be given to where it may be installed, for instance in commercial, tourism or recreational areas and how would it impact on the shopping behaviours of the community given the inherent nature of the community to wish to park in close proximity to retail outlets.

 

This option may be relevant to pursue in the future as part of a broader Integrated Transport and Parking Strategy.

 

Increased Commercial Activity Revenue – The Council over the years has been expanding its revenue base with commercial business activity. A further expansion of these activities would need to be undertaken giving due consideration to the risk appetite of the Council. Like any commercial business, growth and greater profits may come with a higher risk and this would need to be acceptable to Council and the community.

 

As part of Council’s financial sustainability strategies, an increased focus is now being applied to the five existing commercial busines units and this activity will continue to improve performance over time.

 

Long Term Lease of Profitable Assets – The Council has a number of businesses that are listed as Level 1 and Level 2 businesses under the National Competition Policy. These businesses operate assets which the Council could consider leasing either in part or as a whole and generate returns for the community. Some Council’s within Australia have undertaken such leases for their airport, water and sewer businesses. A number of large superannuation funds have been entering this sphere as they see these assets as providing a stable economic return for the long term for their memebers. A significant amount of due diligence needs to be undertaken for identified assets for Council to pursue this option.

 

Increase User Pays for Non-core Services – The Council provides a number of services to the community which may be able to be funded through a a greater proportion of user payment. To explore this option further, an analysis of the subsidy that is provided for these services would need to be undertaken and then consideration given to the appetite of the users to pay more.

 

Each of these options provide the opportunity to reduce the Council’s reliance upon Rates and Annual Charges and should Council wish to investigate these further at this time; a more detailed options analysis will need to be undertaken.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no perceived short or long term environmental impacts for the information contained within the report.

•     Social

There is limited perceived short or long term social impacts for the information contained within the report.  Should the Council consider implementing any of the options outlined above, then further analysis of the social impact of each option should be investigated further.

•     Civic Leadership

Council supports the delivery of high quality, sustainable outcomes for Coffs Harbour and the consideration of reports such as this enables the Council to base its decision on the allocation of scarce resources appropriately to achieve the outcomes outlined within the MyCoffs Community Strategic Plan.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

Council is focussed on the financial sustainability of the organisation to ensure it can maintain its very large asset base and levels of service to the community now and into the long term.  To this end Council is looking to ensure it has the right mix of revenue and expenditure to facilitate its objectives.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There is limited perceived short or long term delivery program or operational plan impacts for the information contained within the report.  Should the Council consider implementing any of the options outlined above, then further analysis of the impacts of each option should be investigated further.

Risk Analysis:

When considering options to generate revenue from other sources, Council core services still require funding from revenue streams which are not at risk.  This ensures that adequate funding of these services still occurs should alternative revenue sources fail.

Consultation:

No consultation has occurred at this stage. However, depending on options pursued into the future consultation with the community and relevant stakeholders will be required.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

·    Local Government Act 1993 and associated Regulations

·    Long Term Financial Plan

·    Revenue Policy

Implementation Date / Priority:

Options to reduce Council’s reliance of rate revenue with be subject to ongoing review by Council staff.

Conclusion:

There are number of options for the Council to consider to reduce the Council’s reliance upon revenue which is raised from Rates and Annual Charges which have been outlined in this report.  Coffs Harbour City Council compares favourably to other Councils across Australia in the proportion of its revenue which is raise through Rates and Annual Charges.  When considering options to generate revenue from other sources, Council core services still require funding from revenue streams which are not at risk.  This ensures that adequate funding of these services still occurs should alternative revenue sources fail.

 

It is recommended that Council note this report and also note that options to reduce reliance on rate revenue will be reviewed by Council staff on an ongoing basis.

  


SC18/01       Korora - West Sapphire - Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Status Update

Author:                        Planner / Urban Designer

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

MyCoffs:                      C.1 Liveable neighbourhoods with a defined identity

Attachments:              ATT1  SC18/01   NSW Department of Planning and Environment Response - KWSM Large Lot Residential Investigation Area - 7 December 2017  

 

Executive Summary

At its Ordinary Meeting of 10 August 2017, Council resolved to approach the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), requesting acceptance of a land release mechanism for Precincts 3, 4 and 5 within the Korora - West Sapphire - Moonee (KWSM) Large Lot Residential Investigation Area. DPE were notified of this resolution and requested to endorse that approach.

On 7 December 2017, DPE advised that endorsement of the KWSM Large Lot Residential Investigation Area is not supported (Attachment 1) because of inconsistencies with several State government policies for the North Coast as well as Council’s adopted Coffs Harbour Local Growth Management Strategy (LGMS) – Rural Residential Component 2009. This report supplies Council with DPE’s response, recommends that Council note the contents of that response and further recommends that Council takes no further action to revise the adopted LGMS - Rural Residential Component 2009 at this time.

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Note the contents of the response provided by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (Attachment 1) to Council’s request to endorse the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area.

2.       Take no action at this time to further review the land release program and recommendations of the Coffs Harbour Local Growth Management Strategy – Rural Residential Component 2009.

3.       Notify landowners within Precincts 3, 4 and 5 of the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area of Council’s resolutions, consistent with the response received from the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (Attachment 1).

 

Report

Description of Item:

This report applies to certain lands within the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area, known as Precincts 3 (Maccues Road), 4 (Wakelands Road) and 5 (Gaudrons Road/The Mountain Way). The planning strategy for Precincts 1 (Korora Basin) and 2 (Tiki Road, Moonee) within the wider investigation area have been previously determined by Council. Precincts 3, 4 and 5 are located as shown in Figure 1.

 

 

Figure 1: Precincts 3, 4 and 5 of the Korora West Sapphire Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area

At its Ordinary Meeting of 10 August 2017, Council considered a report in relation to the subject investigation area. At that meeting, it was resolved:

1.    That Council acknowledges the recommended framework for the release of large lot residential development as described in the Joint Report – Coffs Harbour City Council and Planners North, Korora - West Sapphire - Moonee - Large Lot Residential Investigation Area dated 1 August 2017;

2.    That Council retains the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee – large lot residential investigation area as part of its adopted Local Growth Management Strategy; and

3.    That Council approach the Department of Planning and Environment requesting its acceptance of a release mechanism for the release of land in the Korora - West Sapphire - Moonee - Large Lot Residential Area whereby individual locations within the area are able to be released by way of specific Planning Proposal.

Issues:

A letter was subsequently sent to DPE requesting the Department’s endorsement in accordance with resolution Point 3. The DPE response (Attachment 1) advised that endorsement of the KWSM Large Lot Residential Investigation Area is not supported. They have advised that consultation with relevant government agencies and a revision of Council’s adopted LGMS - Rural Residential Component 2009 would be necessary prior to them endorsing the investigation area.

While the decision of DPE does not necessarily preclude or prevent applicants from lodging proponent led and funded requests for Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendment applying to Precincts 3, 4 and 5, it is unlikely that they would support such proposals, as those precincts of the investigation area are not consistent with Council’s adopted LGMS - Rural Residential Component 2009.

Options:

Council has several options regarding this report, which include:

1.   Adopting the recommendation of this report.

Comment: This option acknowledges the advice of DPE.

2.   Rejecting the recommendation of this report, and consider alternatives to the recommendation.

Comment: This option, and its implications, has not been considered by this report.

3.   Rejecting the recommendation of this report.

Comment: This option, and its implications, has not been considered by this report.

Option 1 is considered to be the most appropriate course of action, as per the recommendations of this report.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The recommendation of this report aims to achieve planning outcomes which are environmentally sustainable.

•     Social

The recommendation of this report aims to achieve planning outcomes which are socially sustainable.

•     Civic Leadership

Civic leadership is demonstrated in this report by addressing the following themes and indicators described in Council’s ‘My Coffs’ Community Strategic Plan (adopted 2017):

-     C1.2: We undertake development that is environmentally, socially and economically responsible.

-     C2.1: We protect the diversity of our natural environment.

-     D1.2: We undertake effective engagement and are informed.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The contents of this Council Report have no broader economic implications to Council. There is currently no funding available to undertake any further planning investigation in relation to the KWSM Large Lot Residential Investigation Area or to revise the LGMS - Rural Residential Component 2009.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The contents of this Council Report have no implications to Council’s Delivery Program or Operational Plan.

Risk Analysis:

The recommendations of this report present no risk to Council.

Consultation:

Council has undertaken appropriate consultation with the DPE, consistent with Council’s resolution of 10 August 2017. This report also recommends that Council notifies landowners within Precincts 3, 4 and 5 of the KWSM Large Lot Residential Investigation Area of the decision of the DPE.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The following policies and statutory instruments are relevant to this report:

-     Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013;

-     Local Growth Management Strategy - Rural Residential Component 2009;

-     Section 117 Ministerial Directions;

-     North Coast Regional Plan 2036;

-     Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations;

-     Land Capacity Assessment Audit – Local Growth Management Strategy Review – Stage 2 – October 2014; and

-     ’My Coffs’ Community Strategic Plan (2017).

Implementation Date / Priority:

Following the presentation of this report, landowners within the KWSM Large Lot Residential Investigation Area will be notified of Council’s resolutions as soon as possible.

Conclusion:

The report informs Council of the DPE’s response to Council’s request for endorsement of Precincts 3, 4 and 5 of the KWSM Large Lot Residential Investigation Area, recommending that Council note the contents of that response, and not progress with further action to revise the adopted Coffs Harbour Local Growth Management Strategy (LGMS) – Rural Residential Component 2009. The report also recommends that the relevant landowners be advised of the status of those precincts, consistent with the advice received by Council from the DPE.

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


SC18/02       Draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) - Pre-Exhibition

Author:                        Planner / Urban Designer

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

MyCoffs:                      C.1 Liveable neighbourhoods with a defined identity

Attachments:              ATT1  SC18/02   Draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach)  

 

Executive Summary

At its meeting of 27 April 2017, Council considered a Planning Proposal (PP) at 97 Pacific Street, Corindi Beach, to amend Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 to permit low density residential development, tourist accommodation and business development on the subject land. At that meeting, Council resolved to endorse the PP and seek a Gateway Determination from NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) to allow it to be placed on public exhibition. The PP is soon to be exhibited in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination (PP_2017_COFFS_002_00) and will apply to 95 and 97 Pacific Street, Corindi Beach.

To reflect the intent of the PP, it is also necessary to amend certain mapping controls contained in Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan (DCP) 2015. This report recommends that Council endorse the draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) (Attachment 1), and place it on exhibition concurrently with the PP. The report also recommends that the outcome of the public exhibition is reported to Council at a future meeting.

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Endorse and publicly exhibit draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) (Attachment 1) for a minimum period of 28 days, concurrently with Planning Proposal PP_2017_COFFS_002_00.

2.       Consider a further report following the public exhibition of PP_2017_COFFS_002_00 and draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach).

 

Report

Description of Item:

At its meeting of 27 April 2017, Council considered a PP at 97 Pacific Street, Corindi Beach, to amend Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 to permit low density residential development, tourist accommodation and business development on the subject land. It was resolved that Council:

1.   Endorse and forward a Planning Proposal to rezone land on Lots 371 & 372 DP 1026829 97 Pacific Street Corindi Beach, to NSW Planning and Environment seeking a “Gateway Determination”.

2.   Request that the Secretary of NSW Planning and Environment issue a written authorisation to Council to exercise delegation of the plan making functions under section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in respect of the Planning Proposal.

3.   Resolve to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal and undertake government agency consultation based on the Gateway Determination issued by NSW Planning and Environment.

4.   Note that a further report will be brought back to Council for consideration following the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

NSW DPE have issued a Gateway Determination which endorses the exhibition of the PP (designated as PP_2017_COFFS_002_00) subject to conditions which include:

-     inclusion of Lot 38 DP 233580 (95 Pacific Street, Corindi Beach) within the PP and application of a proposed zone R2 Low Density Residential to that property; and

-     further environmental assessment in the form of an updated fauna and flora report.

The PP has been amended to reflect the conditions set out in the Gateway Determination and is ready to exhibit.  The subject land is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:  Location of the Subject Land

To reflect the intent of the PP, it is also necessary to amend certain mapping controls contained in Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan (DCP) 2015, because the land is changing from rural to urban zones. Draft Coffs Harbour DCP 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) applies to the front setback; side and rear setback; and density maps (Attachment 1), and accords with the new zones proposed on the subject land.

Issues:

Project Timing and Joint Exhibition

While the PP was reported to Council on 27 April 2017, the corresponding draft amendments to Coffs Harbour DCP 2015 were not included in that Council report. Proceeding without updated DCP controls will leave the subject land with controls which are inconsistent with the proposed land uses described by the PP.

It is appropriate that the community should have an opportunity to view the PP and the draft Coffs Harbour DCP 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) concurrently to ensure transparency and clarity to the community. Draft Coffs Harbour DCP 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) requires endorsement from Council to proceed to exhibition. This will enable the PP and the draft Coffs Harbour DCP 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) to be jointly exhibited and then jointly reported back to Council following the exhibition period.

Options:

1.   Support the recommendations in this report and place draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) (Attachment 1) on public exhibition.

Comment: This option will ensure that the planning controls for the subject land are consistent with the intentions of the PP. This option also allows the exhibition of all documents to take place in a timely and logical manner.

2.   Proceed with the draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) with further amendments or alternatives to the contents of Attachment 1.

Comment: This option, and its implications, has not been considered by this report.

3.   Reject the recommendation provided to Council, and not proceed with draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach).

Comment: This option will leave the subject land with inappropriate development controls, which are inconsistent with the proposed land uses described by the PP. It is in the public interest to exhibit the draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) concurrently with the PP.

This report recommends that Council pursue Option 1.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

Draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) will enable development of the subject land to be carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner.

•     Social

Draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) has been designed to be compatible with the intent of the PP for the subject land which has been endorsed by Council.

•     Civic Leadership

Draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) is consistent with the following themes of the MyCoffs Community Strategic Plan and will aid the plan in achieving the following objectives:

-    “We undertake development that is environmentally, socially and economically responsible” and

-    “Liveable neighbourhoods with a defined identity.”

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no broader economic implications to Council as a result of the recommendations of this report.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The proposed draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) has been prepared in relation to a privately funded PP. There are no implications to Council’s adopted Delivery Program or Operational Plan.

Risk Analysis:

The DCP amendment process has been undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979, as well as the EP&A Regulation 2000. Endorsement of the proposed DCP amendment is considered to be of low risk to Council.

Consultation:

Draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) will be exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and will occur concurrently with the PP to ensure that the project is progressed in a logical timeframe.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) has been prepared to be consistent with the following statutory documents and requirements:

·      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

·      Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000;

·      North Coast Regional Plan 2017;

·      Coffs Harbour LEP 2013; and

·      Coffs Harbour DCP 2015.

Implementation Date / Priority:

If endorsed by Council, draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) and PP_2017_COFFS_002_00 will be exhibited as soon as possible. The Gateway Determination stipulates that this PP is to be finalised by 6 June 2018. The provisions of this proposed draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) will come into force following the making of the subsequent LEP amendment, and notification of the LEP amendment.

Conclusion:

This report presents draft Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 Amendment No. 6 (Corindi Beach) to reflect the intention of PP_2017_COFFS_002_00 applying to 95 and 97 Pacific Street, Corindi Beach. Council’s endorsement of the draft amendment (Attachment 1) will apply appropriate planning controls to the subject land and will assist the PP to be finalised in a timely manner.

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


SC18/03       Development Application No. 0067/18DA - Demolition of Existing Structures, New Residential Flat Building (8 Units), Swimming Pool and Strata Subdivision - Lot 2 Sec 63 DP 758258, 117 Victoria Street, Coffs Harbour

Author:                        Development Assessment Officer

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

MyCoffs:                      C.1 Liveable neighbourhoods with a defined identity

Attachments:              ATT1  SC18/03   Development Application 0067/18 - Section 79C

ATT2  SC18/03   Development Application 0067/18 - Proposed Plans

ATT3  SC18/03   Development Application 0067/18 - Draft Conditions

ATT4  SC18/03   CONFIDENTIAL          Development Application 0067/18 - Submissions

Confidential in accordance with Section 10A(2)(e) of the Local Government Act as it contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.  

 

Executive Summary

This report provides an assessment of Development Application 0067/18 for a Residential Flat Building (8 units), strata subdivision and demolition of existing structures, at 117 Victoria Street, Coffs Harbour. 

The development incorporates a variation to the height standard specified in clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings – of Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013. The development also will penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface map (OLS) which sets height limits for the operation of the Coffs Harbour Regional Airport. However, CASA has raised no objection as there are higher structures in the area including the crest of the hill, development and power poles.

The application was advertised and notified to adjoining land owners. In total 16 submissions were received.

At its meeting of 12 October 2017, Council adopted Development Applications – Consideration by Council – Policy which outlined:

       That development applications for approval involving substantial aspects of the following elements be referred to Council for determination:

-      Significant public interest and community input;

-      A proposed variation to the Local Environmental Plan that varies the development standard by more than 10%;

-      Significant land use;

-      Major environmental issue(s).

Given the number of public submissions received in response to notification of the application and the proposed variation to the LEP, this matter is reported to Council for determination.

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Support the request to vary a development standard made pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 for the variation to the height of buildings standard under Clause 4.3 of Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 in this particular case.

2.       Approve Development Application No. 0067/18 for a Residential Flat Building (8 units), strata subdivision and demolition of existing structures at Lot 2 Sec 63 DP 758258, 117 Victoria Street, Coffs Harbour; subject to the conditions provided in Attachment 3.

3.       Advise persons who made a submission on Development Application No. 0067/18 of Council’s decision.

 

Report

Description of Item:

·    The Site

The site is identified as Lot 2 Section 63 DP758258, 117 Victoria Street, Coffs Harbour. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013. The site is on the corner of Victoria and Solitary Streets, with frontage to Victoria Street. It is regular in shape and has an area of 1062m2. Victoria Street follows a landform ridge with elevated coastal views to the north, south and east.

The site adjoins residential areas mostly made up of dwellings. Many of the dwellings are single storey at the Victoria Street hilltop and have 2 and 3 storey form with the fall of the land. The area also has a number of medium density developments, including a residential flat building opposite in Solitary Street and dual occupancies in Victoria Street. The existing building on the subject site has been divided into four flats.

The existing development site can be seen in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Site plan

 

·     The Development

The proposed development involves:

-    Demolition of the existing building which has been divided into flats;

-    Construction of a residential flat building containing 8 units; and

-    Strata subdivision.

The building proposes two levels of residential units, including 3x3 bedrooms, 4x2 bedrooms and 1x4 bedroom unit with its own pool (Apartment 4). The building proposes a basement level for parking of 16 cars for the units and two visitors as well as waste and personal storage. The building will have frontage, pedestrian entry and vehicle access from Victoria Street. Balconies are concentrated to the rear (northern) elevation to take advantage of the aspect and extensive coastal views.

The building is contemporary in design and articulated in form. It has a flat metal roof and varied wall materials of rendered masonry, clad walls with feature stone cladding, glazing and metal screens. The colour scheme with be neutral with blue painted and stone features.

Issues:

The following is a summary of key issues of the assessment.

-     Variation to the height development standard

-     Penetration of the Obstacle Limitation Surface map (OLS)

-     Variation to some setback requirements

-     Amenity (potential overlooking)

-     Character – Building Design

-     Traffic and Parking

These assessment issues are discussed in detail in the section 79C evaluation provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

Options:

1.   Adopt the recommendation thereby granting consent to the application, subject to conditions.

2.   Reject the recommendation and list reasons for refusal to the application.

It is recommended that Council pursue option one, as outlined above.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The proposed development is not expected to result in any unacceptable environmental impacts. A complete assessment of potential environmental impacts is provided in the S79C Assessment Report provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

•     Social

The development will provide additional land for housing in the area.  Conditions will be imposed to ensure that potential amenity impacts during construction are minimised.  It is considered that the development is unlikely to result in any significant adverse social impacts to the locality.

•     Civic Leadership

The proposed development is considered consistent with the aims and objectives of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan. In particular, it is considered that the development is consistent with Council's “Places for Living” relating to urban development and sustainable living.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The development will provide construction related employment opportunities during the construction and operational phases of the development.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There are no implications for Council’s Delivery Program / adopted Operational Plan resulting from the proposal.

Risk Analysis:

A risk analysis has been undertaken and it is considered that approval of the development application as recommended, does not pose a significant risk to Council.

Consultation:

The proposed development has been advertised and notified in accordance with the requirements of Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015. In total 16 submissions were received all objecting to the development.

The submissions have been received from both residents adjoining the development and along Victoria and Solitary Streets. Council officers met on two occasions on the property of an adjoining owner to discuss the issues of concern to them.

A full copy of all of the submissions is a confidential attachment to this report (Attachment 4) as the submissions may contain personal or private information or other considerations against disclosure as prescribed under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The statutory instruments relevant to the development include the following:

-    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

-    State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

-    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

-    State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004

-    Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013

-    Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015

Each of these statutory instruments is considered in detail in the Section 79C assessment appended to this report as Attachment 1.

Implementation Date / Priority:

In the event that Council adopts the recommendation, a formal notice of determination will be issued for the development application. A formal notice of determination is valid for five years and the applicant can act on the development consent at any time within that period, subject to meeting any relevant conditions of the consent.

Conclusion:

A comprehensive assessment of the application has been undertaken in accordance with all statutory requirements and it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a number of conditions.

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


SI18/01         Amendment to Alcohol Prohibited Reserves in the Coffs Harbour CBD

Author:                        Acting Section Leader Survey & Design

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Infrastructure

MyCoffs:                      A.2 An active, safe and healthy community

Attachments:              ATT1  SI18/01     Proposed Alcohol Prohibited Area Amendments: CBD Parks and Reserves  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following a request from Coffs Clarence Police Local Area Command that Council consider changing all of the parks within the CBD Masterplan area (currently alcohol prohibited 9pm to 9am) to 24 hour/7 day prohibition areas the Council meeting held on 24 August 2017 resolved to: 

1.   Note the requests and reasons for potential changes of Alcohol Prohibited Areas within the vicinity of the CBD contained in the report.

2.   Endorse a 30 day public exhibition and consultation of the proposed changes in line with the requirements for establishing/extending Alcohol Free Areas pursuant to the ‘Ministerial Guidelines on Alcohol Free Areas, including:

2.1. Notification in a local newspaper

2.2. Notification to Police, Licenced premises adjoining the area, and the Local Aboriginal Land Council.

3.   Upon the receipt and consideration of any submissions which arise, receive a further report to establish Alcohol Prohibited Areas in certain CBD areas.

The matter was advertised as per the recommendation and just one (1) submission was received. The submission was in favour of alcohol prohibited areas in CBD parks to deter anti-social behaviour and littering. The propose changes should assist Police in their efforts to manage these issues.

Changing parks within the general vicinity of the CBD to Alcohol Prohibited 24 hours, 7 days a week, will address the primary issue of drunken behaviour and will alleviate any concern of relocating the Rotary Park and Baden Powell Park problems to elsewhere in the CBD. However the request is somewhat at odds with Council’s strategy to have some reserve areas available for limited alcohol consumption at specified times. For this reason it is proposed to implement a procedure whereby Council may suspend the alcohol prohibited area in parks and reserves at the administrative level.

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Amend the existing 9.00pm till 9.00am alcohol prohibition to a 24 hour prohibition for the following parks and reserves, exclusive of enclosed leased areas, pursuant to Section 632A of the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA):

1.1.    Rotary Park Lots 7033 and 7034 DP 1054032, Lot 4 DP 822832, Lot 7021 DP 1054164

1.2.    Baden Powell Park Lot 1 and 2 DP 758258, Lot 32 DP 717230

1.3.    Lions Safety Park Lot 1 DP 871883

1.4.    Coffs Harbour Community Village Lot 102 DP 1058414

1.5.    Fitzroy Oval Lot 259 and 282 DP 752817

1.6.    Coffs Street Reserves Lot 701 DP 1054073, Lot 2 DP 812699

1.7.    Reserve cnr Vernon and Castle Street Lot 1 DP 812699

1.8.    Brelsford Park Lot 100 DP 865320

2.       Sign post the reserves with the appropriate signage as per the Act.

3.       Supports the proposal that the alcohol prohibited area in parks and reserves is to be suspended for Council events involving limited alcohol consumption. The suspension to be advertised on the Council website and the Police informed.

 

Report

Description of Item:

Council has received numerous complaints in relation to the anti-social behaviour, during the daytime hours, of intoxicated persons within a number of parks within the Coffs Harbour CBD. This behaviour is impacting adversely on adjacent businesses and their patrons as well as passers-by, some of whom report feeling unsafe and anxious as a result of being exposed to the anti-social behaviour. Police from the Coffs Clarence Local Area Command have requested that Council consider amending the existing 9pm till 9am prohibition within the CBD reserves to a 24 hour prohibition.

Changing all parks and reserves within the general vicinity of the CBD to Alcohol Prohibited status 24 hours a day will address the concern of relocating the Rotary Park and Baden Powell Park problems to elsewhere in the CBD.

The Council meeting held on 24 August 2017 resolved to: 

1.   Note the requests and reasons for potential changes of Alcohol Prohibited Areas within the vicinity of the CBD contained in the report.

2.   Endorse a 30 day public exhibition and consultation of the proposed changes in line with the requirements for establishing/extending Alcohol Areas pursuant to the ‘Ministerial Guidelines on Alcohol Free Areas, including:

2.1. Notification in a local newspaper

2.2. Notification to Police, Licenced premises adjoining the area, and the Local Aboriginal Land Council.

3.   Upon the receipt and consideration of any submissions which arise, receive a further report to establish Alcohol Prohibited Areas in certain CBD areas.

The matter was advertised in the Coffs Coast Advocate on 6th and 20th September 2017 as per the recommendation and just one (1) submission was received. The submission was in favour of Alcohol Prohibited Areas in CBD parks to deter anti-social behaviour and littering. The proposed changes should assist Police in their efforts to manage these issues.

Issues:

The majority of the Coffs Harbour CBD parks and reserves are currently alcohol prohibited 9.00pm until 9.00am each day. Whilst this is effective at managing alcohol related anti-social behaviour during the night Council has now received complaints from adjoining properties concerned about alcohol-related inappropriate behaviour during the day. Concerns have been expressed in relation to the disruptive nature of the behaviour and the safety of staff and residents. This behaviour is not conducive to creating a safe and inviting atmosphere within the Coffs Harbour CBD.

Enforcement of the Alcohol Prohibited Areas is the responsibility of the NSW Police. The Coffs Clarence Local Area Command have indicated that once the extended prohibitions are in place they will conduct additional patrols within the known problem areas to reinforce the prohibition and effect a change in behaviour.

It is not considered that extending the current alcohol prohibitions to 24 hours would adversely impact most users of the parks and reserves.

However, a 24 hour alcohol prohibition could impact valid users such as sports groups, seasonal users, contracted hirers, lessees, or special events at Brelsford Park. However, Council may, under the Act, suspend an Alcohol Prohibited Area at the request of any person or body.

Council wrote to the key stakeholders who may be affected by the proposed changes including:

·    Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Lands Council

·    Coffs Harbour Community Village

·    Coffs Harbour Neighbourhood Centre

·    Dan Murphy’s liquor outlet

·    Woolworths BWS liquor outlet

·    Liquorland liquor outlet

·    Coles Bottleshop

·    Coffs Hotel

·    The Plantation Hotel

·    C.eX Coffs

·    The Coast Hotel

·    Galambila Aboriginal Health Centre

·    Aboriginal Family Wellbeing Centre

·    MNC Local Health District

The Office of Local Government has confirmed that the Alcohol Prohibited Area in parks and reserves may be suspended at the discretion of a nominated staff member and does not require a Council resolution. It is proposed that this decision rest with the General Manager. A process will be implemented to advertised the time and location of the suspension on the Council website and inform the Police of the changes.

Options:

1.    Adopt the recommendations.

2.    Modify the recommendation and adopt the process as a 12 month trial on a temporary basis and reassess Council’s position at the duration of the trial.

3.    Reject the recommendation. However, failure to extend the current 9.00pm until 9.00am prohibition to 24 hours, given the current concerns, may see an increase in the incidence of day time drinking and anti-social behaviour with subsequent negative impacts on the CBD businesses and local community.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

No negative environmental concerns will occur as a result of the amended alcohol controls.  Positive benefits will ensue, as alcohol related broken glass is of particular concern to reserve users including children and requires regular cleaning up by maintenance staff and locals.  Local residents and staff put themselves at risk handling broken glass when cleaning up following disturbances involving alcohol.

•     Social

Extended control on alcohol use in the nominated CBD parks and reserves during the day will have a positive impact on the local amenity.  The reserve users, local businesses and residents will be less likely to be confronted by intoxicated persons using these areas. Police will have a basis on which to act to control alcohol use in the Reserves.

Council’s strategy is to have some reserve areas available for limited alcohol consumption at specified times. For this reason it is proposed to implement a procedure whereby Council may suspend the alcohol prohibited area in parks and reserves at the administrative level.

•     Civic Leadership

This proposal works towards achieving the outcomes identified within the MyCoffs Strategic Plan and is directly connected to the themes of:

-     A.2 An active safe, healthy community and

-     C.1 Liveable neighbourhoods with a defined identity.

These areas are identified as outcomes/objectives in the Community Strategic Plan and Council is specified as both provider and facilitator and additionally, in the case of safe communities, an advocate

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

Improving the safety and amenity of the CBD will have positive benefits for visitors to the region and benefit the local economy, which relies heavily on tourism, by return visitation.

•      Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The cost of notifications and installing notices will be absorbed within current programs.

Risk Analysis:

The risks associated with having no daylight prohibitions in place, given the current police and community concerns, are an increase in alcohol-fuelled violence and anti-social behaviour, and an increasing risk of assault and malicious damage, which would negatively impact on the Coffs Harbour community and retail trade and tourism volumes. Extending the current 9.00pm to 9.00am prohibition will provide 24 hour coverage and act as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour and alcohol related crime, enabling the seizure and disposal of alcohol from persons who choose to consume alcohol in parks and reserves within the CBD.

Enforcement of the prohibition will be the responsibility of the NSW Police.

Consultation:

Internal consultation in preparation for the report tabled at the Council meeting on 24 August 2017. All relevant sections provided feedback, including Council’s Stadium and Major Events Section who liaise most directly with external bodies and formal users of the areas under discussion here.

The proposal has been advertised and notified as required and external consultation was conducted with key stakeholders as listed above and including the Coffs Clarence Local Area Command and the City Centre Masterplan Committee (a Section 355 Committee of Council, which advises the Council in regard to expenditure of the City Centre Special Rate Variation funds and associated marketing and events).

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council has previously used Section 632A of the Local Government Act 1993 to prohibit the taking and/or consumption of alcohol in reserves controlled by Council between 9.00pm and 9.00am. The current proposal is consistent with the intent of S632A in controlling alcohol related anti-social behaviour within public areas.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Upon the Council resolution notices will be installed soon thereafter. The Alcohol Prohibited Areas will come into effect once notices are installed.

Conclusion:

It is recommended, for Councillors’ consideration, that extending the existing alcohol prohibition within the CBD parks and reserves will provide a deterrent to anti-social behaviour and alcohol related crime, improve the safety and amenity of the CBD for the local community, retailers and visitors to the region, and better support the police to act on the matter.

 


PDF Creator


SI18/02         Coffs Coast Waste Services - Bulky Clean Up Service

Author:                        Team Leader Waste Services

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Infrastructure

MyCoffs:                      C.2 A natural environment sustained for the future

Attachments:              Nil

 

Executive Summary

Coffs Coast Waste Services (CCWS) is a partnership between Bellingen Shire, Coffs Harbour City and Nambucca Shire Councils for the purposes of providing waste collection and associated services to the communities of the three Councils.

CCWS has entered into a contract for the next waste collection and associated services with Handybin Waste Services (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd (Handybin) which are scheduled to begin in March 2018.

At its meeting on 9 November 2017 Council considered the matter of setting an appropriate charge for the optional ‘Option 4’ bulky goods clean-up service to be provided under the new contract, and it was resolved that a report would be presented to Council following community consultation regarding the proposed charge prior to reconsidering the adoption of the final charge by 5 March 2018.

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Make a Waste Usage Charge, pursuant to Section 502 of the Local Government Act, for 2017/2018 of $44.00 for each Domestic Waste Service – Bulky Cleanup Service (Option 4 – PAYG Book-In Service).

2.       Respond to all who made community submissions, advising them of the outcome and thanking them for their input.

 

Report

Description of Item:

In March/April 2017, CCWS awarded contract RFT-658-TO, which is a nine year contract commencing on Monday 5 March 2018, to Handybin Waste Services (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd (Handybin). The contract covers the provision of a wide range of waste related services by Handybin to Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca residents on behalf of the three CCWS councils.

A key service under that contract is the clean-up of household bulky goods. The tender called for Handybin to present six different options for the bulky goods service for Council’s consideration. At its meeting in March 2017 Council resolved to accept Bulky Good Service - Option 4.

For clarity, the Option 4 will supply residents with a maximum of two (2) collections at the premises by Handybin per annum (limited to residences which pay the Domestic Waste Charge – Occupied Land) on a fee-for-service basis which is payable by the residents who wish to utilise the service.

Council placed the proposed charge on public exhibition for a 28-day period from Monday 13 November 2017 until close of business on Monday 11 December 2017.

This report provides analysis of community feedback received during the consultation period, and makes recommendations to make the proposed charge.

The Importance of the Charge

A key component of Council’s strategy for bulky goods is to put in place price signals and education which lead to community cultural change regarding the generation of bulky goods, and which also maximise the quantity of bulky goods which are recovered, recycled or reused. The single most critical element of that multi-faceted strategy is the setting of an appropriate user pays charge for the pickup service.

Results of Public Exhibition

The submission period ran from Monday 13 November 2017 to Monday 11 December 2017 and residents were directed to make a submission online via:

www.haveyoursay.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/bulky-goods-waste-serivce or by writing or emailing Council.

Council has received eighty (80) formal written submissions, as well as a small number of telephone calls and thirteen (13) questions via the Have Your Say website ‘Q&A’ section.

Given that there are over 29,000 serviced premises, it represents a very low response level.

An analysis of the submissions demonstrates that 75 of the 80 submissions received made reference to the proposed charge.

72 of respondents who addressed the charge in their submission opposed the charge for this service. 16 of the 75 respondents, who addressed the charge in their submission, expressed that the introduction of a charge is a form of cost shifting, and see the charge as already covered by rates.

A majority (76.25%) of submissions argued against the service model change as a whole, however, that was not the subject of the consultation.

Those submissions opposed to the introduction of a charge provided the following reasons:

·    potential discrimination to low-income earners, elderly and infirmed, those without a trailer or car,

·    potential increase to illegal dumping,

·    potential decrease in scavenger recycling, and

·    see the imposition of a charge as double dipping.

Several submissions supported both the proposed charge and the changed service delivery model, indicating the following in support:

·    The previous service model left the streets a mess and an eye-sore for 32 weeks each year,

·    Illegal dumping was exacerbated by people adding to other people’s piles,

·    The Port-Macquarie Hastings Council implemented a similar system to the new model and it has worked very well with very few issues, and the streets are so much cleaner,

·    Tourists are put off by rubbish on the streets,

·    People were abusing the previous service model,

·    People should pay if they wish to use the service to make it equitable.

In reviewing the submissions, it is considered that the proposed charge is still equitable, accessible and represents best-practice. The prior service delivery model was clearly ‘broken’ and the introduction of the new services model with the proposed charge is considered to present an excellent opportunity to provide an improved service to customers, tourists and the general public. The new charge also seeks to change user behaviour by making the service more ‘user pays’, and to protect ‘non-users’ from having to unfairly subsidise those who do choose to use the service.

It should be noted that in the communication to the public, there was no indication that those receiving an infirmed service would likely be receiving up to one (1) collection per calendar year without additional user charge.

Cost Drivers of the Service

Under Option 4 of the Contract, Council will pay Handybin a contract fee for each bulky clean-up service rendered from an eligible domestic residence.

Council will also pay, under the NSW Government Section 88 ‘Waste Levy’, a further $79.60 per tonne of bulky goods waste which cannot be effectively recovered, recycled or reused and is therefore landfilled. Additionally there are several other disposal costs related to the bulky goods service e.g. cost to recycle mattresses, landfilling costs etc.

Recommended Level of the Charge to Residents for a Household Pickup of Bulky Goods

Following the analysis of the community consultation submissions it is still recommended that the charge to residents for each ‘Option 4’ service be $44. This price point would still represent a significant subsidy to the residential user, of the anticipated overall average cost incurred by Council in providing the service (this has been calculated as being approx. $150 per service including disposal related costs). Given this considerable subsidy (and coupled with the costs associated with the additional voucher system) any potential alteration to either the proposed charge (or to the ‘Domestic Waste Charge’) could have significant detrimental budgetary implications.

The $44 charge is at a level comparable to what other Councils charge for a similar service.

For clarity, the charge to residents would be GST free as it would be a Domestic Waste Management service included in the Fees and Charges (which are GST ‘exempt’).

Safety Net Recommendations

In order to cater for infirmed residents (who are qualified as such via the existing Waste Services review process), it is recommended that Council provide a single annual zero fee ‘Option 4’ book-in bulky goods collection service.

This recommendation would see any resident who qualifies for the existing ‘Wheel-Out, Wheel-Back’ service for their wheeled bins (and only at premises where the full ‘Domestic Waste Service – Occupied’ charge applies) be eligible to receive one free bulky goods residential pickup per annum at no additional charge.

It is recommended that no further subsidised ‘Option 4’ services be offered beyond this single exemption.

Issues:

The bulky goods clean up services will form part of the suite of services provided under the recently awarded waste collection contract (RFT-658-TO) which will be a nine year contract commencing on Monday 5 March 2018.

Options:

Options available to Council include:

a)   Adopt the recommendations (and therefore the charge). This offers the least risk to Council and provides high quality waste services to the community. This would ensure no potentially unforeseen impact to the waste budget.

b)   Amend the recommended charge and adopt a different charge. This could expose Council to significant risk of discontinuity of the proposed bulky clean up service and a significant detrimental impact on the waste budget (which would be un-funded).

c)   Reject the recommendations entirely and adopt an alternative. This could expose Council to significant risk of discontinuity of the proposed bulky clean up service and a significant detrimental impact on the waste budget (which would be un-funded).

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The new model for bulky clean up services (from 5 March 2018) will have a positive environmental impact. The level of the proposed charge is considered unlikely to affect this.

The provisions of the new model for collection and management of bulky clean up services, reflect and support the targets and key performance indicators of the councils adopted ‘Coffs Coast Region Resource Recovery and Waste Management Strategy: 2015-2027’, and those set out by the NSW Environment Protection Authority in the ‘NSW Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-2021’.

•     Social

With the recommended charge (and ‘safety net’ noted above) there is unlikely to be any significant adverse social impact by the new model for bulky clean up services (from 5 March 2018). Local employment and investment will continue, and the service will further enhance community wellbeing. The proposed charge for an ‘Option 4’ service is considered accessible and reasonable in the circumstances.

•     Civic Leadership

Pursuant to the Local Government Act, Coffs Harbour City Council is responsible for waste removal, treatment and disposal services and facilities. The outcomes of this report are consistent with the Coffs Harbour MyCoffs Community Strategic Plan. Coffs Harbour City Council will continue to provide civic leadership with best practice management.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The new model for bulky clean up services (from 5 March 2018) will continue to support local employment and cost effective services for the community.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

Anticipated expenditure for the new model for bulky clean up services (from 5 March 2018), including with the proposed charge, is currently included in the Domestic Waste Services budget. The new charge as recommended, will not adversely affect Council’s Operational Plan or Delivery Program.

Risk Analysis:

The major risks that have been identified and evaluated are:

1.       Compliance with Local Government Act regarding fees and charges, and

2.       Council significantly deviating from the recommended charge quantum.

These risks have been mitigated by compliance with the Act, and by seeking a reasonable, evidence based charge quantum.

Consultation:

The proposed charge of $44 was placed on public exhibition from Monday 13 November 2017 to Monday 11 December 2017 and residents were directed to make a submission online via www.haveyoursay.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/bulky-goods-waste-serivce or by writing or emailing Coffs Harbour City Council.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Under Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), Council is able to apply usage charges, including under Clauses 496, 501 and 502.

Implementation Date / Priority:

If Coffs Harbour City Council resolves to accept the recommendations as written, then the new charge payable by the domestic residential customers for the optional ‘Option 4’ bulky clean up service will commence when the new service commences from 5 March 2018.

Conclusion:

It is assessed that adopting the recommendations as written will ensure:

a)      that the new model for bulky clean up services (from 5 March 2018) aligns neatly with the Coffs Coast Region Resource Recovery and Waste Management Strategy 2015-2027 and NSW State and Regional Waste Strategy objectives; and

b)      that the cost of the new model for bulky clean up services (from 5 March 2018) is likely to provide best value for money and optimise the take-up rate for the community, and

c)      the continuity of a new bulky clean up service (from 5 March 2018) to a high standard.

These actions are within the requirements of the LG Act and Regulations and will reduce Coffs Harbour City Council's risks with regard to ensuring advantageous waste services.

 


SI18/03         Post Project Report - Fiddaman Road Upgrade

Author:                        Director Sustainable Infrastructure

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Infrastructure

MyCoffs:                      C.1 Liveable neighbourhoods with a defined identity

Attachments:              Nil

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the results and outcomes of one of Council’s most significant local infrastructure projects over the 2016/17 and 2017/18 period.

 

The Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project entailed the complete renewal, upgrading, and realignment of the entire length of the primary entry and access road into the Emerald Beach community for a length of 1,030 metres whilst keeping open the accesses to all adjoining private properties and businesses. Additionally the project involved the installation of 2,100 metres of concrete Kerb and Gutter, the undergrounding of all Fiddaman Road stormwater drainage assets, and the installation of more than one kilometre of 2.4 metre wide concrete shared cycleway/footpath from Solitary Islands Way, along the northern alignment of Fiddaman Road, to terminate at the Emerald Beach Foreshore.

 

The Project also marked Council’s initial adoption of a number of new procedural improvements to the Asset Management process and Asset-Related Community Consultation including for example: the community’s participation in the asset design process, and the identification and incorporation of strategically logical additional asset works in the vicinity of the Project – as an example the renewal of a section of the primary water main servicing the Emerald Beach community was undertaken concurrently with the Project because it was identified as highly proficient and cost effective to do so whilst the Fiddaman Road site was occupied.

 

This report discusses these issues, the beneficial outcomes, the lessons learned, and the further process improvements to Council’s Asset and Project Management processes which have resulted. The report identifies that the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project financial result is in excess of the Project Estimate but remains within the then target range of +/-10% of the original project budget estimate.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council Note the Report.

 

Report

Description of Item:

This item constitutes the Project Post-Operational Review and Report of the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project conducted at Emerald Beach during the period 2016/17 and 2017/18.

 

Overview

The genesis of the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project is contained in Council’s longstanding commitment to upgrade the primary access routes into the five northern villages of Sandy Beach, Emerald Beach, Mullaway, North Sapphire and Moonee. The Fiddaman Road upgrade is the fourth of the five village access upgrades to be completed. The final project in this sequence, the upgrade of Diamond Head Drive at Sandy Beach has a two year delivery timeframe, is currently underway and will be completed during the 2018/19 financial year.

 

The Scope of the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project

The community-endorsed scope of the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project included the complete renewal and reshaping of the entire length of the roadway (1035 lineal metres), the undergrounding of all stormwater flows by construction of kerb and gutter (2070 lineal metres), the installation of stormwater pits and pipes (725 lineal metres). Minor interfacing road works at the eight (8) connections to side streets which intersect with Fiddaman Road also comprised an element of the Project. This work was required to join the existing side street asphalt surface into the new lower level of the upgraded Fiddaman Road surface, and to ensure stormwater from the existing side street table drains flowed into the new kerb, gutter and underground drainage system along Fiddaman Road.

 

The Budget for the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project

The Project’s Budget Estimate totalled $3,103,000 and comprised the following funding amounts (which were to support the execution of the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Scope as detailed above):

 

·    An amount of $2,748,000.00 from the General Fund voted by Council during the 2016/17 budget setting process.

 

·    An additional amount of $159,000.00 in expected resident contributions under Council’s Footpath Contributions Policy as at March 2016.

 

·    An additional amount of $174,000 in expected resident contributions under Council’s Kerb and Gutter Contributions Policy as it stood at March 2016.

 

·    Additionally, in line with Council’s longstanding practice, residential property owners located on the Fiddaman Road frontage could engage Council, during the concrete kerb and gutter construction phase, to construct a new or renewed concrete driveway to the property, at the property owner’s cost. The discretionary uptake of that offer amounted to an additional non-Council funded amount of $21,700 by the conclusion of the Project.

 

Project Highlights

During the conduct of the Project several innovations to existing work processes were successfully trialled and validated:

 

·    Community Consultation and Direct Engagement in the Design Process. During the planning and design phase of the Project, staff conducted a very significant level of community engagement and consultation which ultimately led to the incorporation of direct community participation and representation on the Project Design Panel. As a result of that direct input the upgraded Fiddaman Road has a very different look, feel and local presence than would have been the case under Council’s historic approach to the creation of engineering designs. The final product and output of the new process is a road that more closely meets the Emerald community’s vision and wish to maintain a ‘village feel’ to the neighbourhood. The process described above was greatly assisted by the existence of the URGE group and their often courageous willingness to participate.

 

·    Changing from a Renewal and Upgrade Project to a Reconfiguration Project. From an engineering perspective the input of the community required a number of significant and challenging changes to the original Project vision. In short summary, the Project originally envisaged a simple renewal of the existing road at its existing width, with upgrades to the stormwater system. As a result of community input the intent was significantly changed to a major reconfiguration of the existing asset to create a narrower and more aesthetically fitting street with greater widths of open space road reserve on either side. In short, the community desired a ‘street for people’ rather than a ‘road for cars’.

 

This change to the intent of the project created a number of very complex engineering issues which were ultimately successfully resolved during the conduct of the Project. Nonetheless the changes desired by the community provided significant challenges to existing road building standards, especially for Council’s design staff, who in response were required to show very high levels of flexibility in their approach.

 

·    The Strategic Identification and Bringing Forward of Concurrent Beneficial Works. The significant size of the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project provided an obvious platform for the trialling of Council’s new approach to identifying strategic asset opportunities which may be related to a project. A detailed discussion is offered later in this report; however in summary the purpose of the strategic opportunity review is to identify other asset-related work which can be undertaken in conjunction with the primary project if it is proficient and cost effective to do so. Three significant opportunities of this type were identified to deal with other assets in the immediate area of the Fiddaman Road Project:

 

-     The opportunity to renew existing, but aged, stormwater assets.

-     The opportunity to renew existing, but aged, water main assets.

-     The opportunity to establish road, kerb and gutter, and underground stormwater system benchmarks in all eight local roads that connect to Fiddaman Road to facilitate future upgrade work savings.

 

Project Financial Performance Analysis

During the Project several cost escalations were encountered as described in the chart below.

 

 

The Project Estimate of $3,103,000 included an amount of $310,470 which was set aside as the Project Contingency Reserve reflecting the level of assessed cost-escalation risks (in this case adjudged to be 10% of the Cost Estimate) which were inherent in the Project.

 

The performance analysis above indicates that the actual cost of variations related to the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project were $567,502 versus the Variation Contingency Reserve contained in the Estimate of $310,470, which has created a funding shortfall of $257,032 related to the Project. The cost performance result of the Project is therefore an 8.5% overrun judged against the Project Estimate. The result is within the target performance range (as at 2016) set for Capital Projects of plus/minus 10% of Project Estimate, but is on the plus side. The two most significant causes of cost escalation during the Project, as identified in the chart above, were additional, unplanned levels of local traffic control, and additional unplanned excavation and replacement of poor subgrades in several sections of the Fiddaman Road alignment. These causes are discussed in further detail under the Lessons Learned section of this report.

 

Additional Capital Works Conducted Conjointly With the Project

Council’s recently implemented approach to the conduct of significant capital projects now involves a greater level of strategic review than might have been the case previously. The innovation of strategic opportunity identification has assisted to underpin the creation of the Asset Strategist role within the Strategic Asset Management Group and is now one of the core functions of that role.

 

The purpose of the strategic opportunity review is to identify other asset-related work which can be undertaken in conjunction with the primary project if it is more proficient and cost effective to do so. The intent of this activity is to minimise Council’s overall lifecycle costs by, for example, taking the opportunity to refurbish underground assets whilst the road surface has been removed rather than return at a later date.

 

The Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project was the first significant and extensive Capital Project to be systematically analysed for concurrent opportunities under the new approach. During the conduct of the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project the following major asset management opportunities were identified and, as a result, executed concurrently with the Project:

 

1.   Several existing stormwater lines located primarily to the north of Fiddaman Road provided the assets to which many of the new stormwater pipes along Fiddaman Road would ultimately connect. It was identified during the opportunity review that the existing infrastructure was within its renewal timeframe. On the basis that Council’s stormwater crews and plant were already on site it was deemed proficient to conduct the renewal of those assets and generate a saving against what would have been the cost of conducting the work as a separate project at some stage in the next two years. The cost of that work was $357,000 charged to the Stormwater Capital Budget.

 

2.   A section of existing water main located along and underneath Fiddaman Road was similarly identified as due for renewal. Given the road surface had been removed and appropriate excavation plant and teams were already on site it was deemed proficient to execute the renewal of the existing water main which has now been placed in the road reserve to facilitate easier access in future. The execution of that work concurrent with the Fiddaman Road Project has generated a savings against what would have been the cost of conducting the work as a necessary separate project in the near future.  The cost of that work was $191,000 using the Water Capital Budget.

 

3.   Fiddaman Road contains eight (8) intersections with smaller residential roads servicing Emerald Beach residents. The Project design and budget incorporated funding to conduct minor interface works for a short distance into each of the intersecting roads. The original project intent of the interfacing work was to simply conduct the minimum work required to achieve trafficable connections to the new Fiddaman Road which was to be reinstalled at a lower level than the original, and to ensure stormwater flows from the existing open drains in the intersecting streets drained appropriately into the new kerb, gutter and stormwater pits installed along Fiddaman Road.

 

The Strategic Asset Opportunities Review identified that the originally planned interface work would need to be deconstructed when the time came to install kerb and gutter to the intersecting side streets in the future. Given the existence on the Project site of all required road making and concreting plant, traffic control resources, and construction crews, it was deemed proficient to extend the new road levels, kerb and gutter, and underground drainage into the side streets for a minimum of one residential property boundary. The additional work conducted on these assets has established the benchmark levels and take-off points from which future upgrades of the side streets can now smoothly proceed without rework whenever funding becomes available in the future. The work done is required work which, in the normal course of events, would not be completed until the future upgrading and installation of kerb, gutter and underground drainage to the eight side roads.

 

The additional work across the eight intersecting roads was completed at a cost of $368,000 to the Local Roads Capital Budget. The bringing forward of this work has generated three significant future cost benefits:

 

-     The work completed does not require any rework when upgrading work eventually takes place.

 

-     The significant cost of the additional survey and design elements for the work done was minimised by adding it to the wider design work already required by the Fiddaman Road Project rather than leaving it to be done as a separate body of work in the future.

 

-     All future installations of kerb, gutter and/or drainage and footpaths into the eight side roads which may arise during either Council’s own future upgrading works, or in the course of private residential developments, now has quite definitive take-off benchmarks to work from. This circumstance creates a future cost saving during the set out, design, and control of any such future works in the eight adjoining streets.

 

Cost Analysis of the Fiddaman Road Upgrade and the Additional Strategic Asset Opportunities Which Were Conducted Concurrently With the Project

 


 

Summary of the Cost Analysis

 

The analysis above identifies that a total funding shortfall of $416,000 exists. Of that amount $257,032 has resulted from project cost escalations above the level of the contingency which was provided; the remaining $159,000 is required to acquit the non-collection of resident contributions for footpath due to a change of contributions policy during the Project. The nature of the cost escalations is discussed in detail in the Lessons Learned section of this report below.

 

Lessons Learned

 

Cost Escalation Drivers of the Project. Two areas of the Project were subject to significant cost increases when compared to the Project Estimate:

 

·    The Amount of Traffic Control Resource Required. The Project’s budget estimate allowed for significant traffic control resources to be engaged for the project. The quantity and intensity of actual traffic control required was clearly underestimated.

 

Significant additional traffic control resources (an additional cost of approximately $229,000) were ultimately required to maintain continuous access to all residential and business properties along Fiddaman Road, even during periods where sections of the road were non-existent or were operating as heavy plant work sites.

 

The intensity of the traffic control requirement along heavily trafficked and residentially dense main access streets has been recognised and is now incorporated into Council’s project knowledge base for future reference when setting budget estimates.

 

·    The Quantity of Additional Excavation of Unsuitable Subgrade Soils. The planned project cost underestimated the quantity of poor subgrade soils which were ultimately encountered during the excavation phases of the project. Additional costs above the estimated amount were incurred removing and replacing several sections of poor subgrade along the alignment of Fiddaman Road. The additional costs incurred from this cause amounted to $159,400.

 

This issue arose despite significant subgrade testing of the project site during the planning phase. The standard testing which was conducted involved the collection and analysis of borehole samples at pre-set chainages along the Fiddaman Road alignment. In total 11 borehole samples (approximately 1 sample per 100m) were collected and analysed. The testing conducted did identify numerous locations of poor subgrades whose treatment cost was successfully incorporated into the project cost estimate prior to the budget being set. However a significant further portion was not identified during this testing.

 

Until this particular project, the standard approach of 1 borehole per 100m had delivered a reasonable insight into the actual subgrade quality on the vast majority of past excavation projects. An improvement to the future accuracy of borehole testing may be found if future testing regimes (i.e. the number and spacing of boreholes) also incorporates a broader research and analysis of other available geological data which may be available. This upgraded process will be added to relevant Project Management processes within Council and trialled at the next opportunity.

 

Management of Additional Strategic Asset Opportunity Works Using the Enterprise Asset Management IT Module (EAM)

The costs of the three Strategic Asset Opportunity projects which were conducted concurrently with the Fiddaman Road Project were collected along with the Fiddaman Road related costs into a single Project Account. In retrospect the additional works budgets and workflows would have been more easily managed had they been created as separate Work Breakdown Structures (WBS) in the EAM module. This operational improvement has already been adopted and will benefit the conduct, financial reporting, and project management of future large projects.

Issues:

The key issues are separately discussed within the body of this report under the highlights and lessons learned headings.

Options:

As this is a receive and note report no explicit options are addressed.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project was conducted in strict compliance with the requirements under Part 5 of the EP&A Act. No non-conformances with those requirements were identified or reported. Additionally several environmental enhancements were incorporated in the Project outcomes including: cycleway, street ‘greening’ and greater control of stormwater and flood flows.

•     Social

The incorporation of close and direct community input into the design process has undeniably resulted in a local road asset that conforms more closely with the community’s aspirations and expectations than would have been the case under other historical engineering approaches.

 

The level of community engagement and facilitated participation was not cost free and of itself created a significant number of challenges for the design, budgeting, and construction phases of the project. However it is also reasonably clear that the resulting product, which is very different than that which was originally envisaged, is certainly well respected and utilised by the community that now uses the asset.

•     Civic Leadership

The project is an example of ‘demonstrated leadership by listening’ and marks a reasonably successful first trial of the concept.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The funding shortfall described above will be explicitly addressed in the next available Quarterly Budget Review and will require the transfer of $416,000 from other existing budget sources. The work to identify appropriate sources is underway and will be presented for Council review in the next Quarterly Budget Review report.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There are no Delivery Program or Operational Plan implications stemming from this report.

Risk Analysis:

Nil

Consultation:

The body of the report describes the extent and impacts of the public and community consultation which was conducted during the Project.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Nil

Implementation Date / Priority:

Not applicable

Conclusion:

This report has provided an overview of the Fiddaman Road Upgrade Project and the highlights and lessons learned during its conduct. The report identifies that the project financial performance was within the bounds set for capital projects during the relevant period but identifies that several significant improvements to the project management process have been identified and incorporated into existing practice.

 

The necessary financial adjustments which relate to the project will be explicitly addressed in the next available quarterly budget review.

  


T18/01          TRUST REPORT - LEASE OF KIOSK, JETTY FORESHORES, COFFS COAST STATE PARK

Author:                        Property Officer Leasing and Licensing

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

MyCoffs:                      B.1 A thriving and sustainable local economy

 Attachments:             Nil

 

 

Executive Summary

Council, as the Corporate Manager of the Coffs Coast State Park Trust, has recently completed a significant redevelopment of the Jetty Foreshore precinct which included the construction of a kiosk.  The facility was installed with a view to lease the kiosk to a suitably qualified operator.

 

Prior to the completion of the Jetty Foreshores (J4S) project, the Trust undertook an Expression of Interest process to find a suitable lessee.  However, the EOI did not produce a suitable applicant for the operation.  The Trust then engaged a local commercial agent who then went to market on behalf of the Trust to locate a suitable lessee.

 

As a result of that process a suitable lessee has been selected to lease and operate the kiosk for a period of three years.  Crown Lands currently require that all leases proposed to be entered into on Crown Land managed by Councils be the subject of a formal resolution of Council.

 

Recommendation:

That Council, as Reserve Trust Manager for Reserve No. 140102,:

1.       Lease the kiosk on part of Lot 21 DP 850150 at the Jetty Foreshores to Kirby Jael Burton for three years; and

2.       Delegate authority to the General Manager to execute the necessary lease documents.

 

Report

Description of Item:

Council, as Reserve Trust Manager of Reserve No. 140102, being part of the Coffs Coast State Park, manages occupation and relevant tenures consistent with the gazetted reserve purpose of Public Recreation and Environmental Protection.  Crown Lands currently require that all leases proposed to be entered into on Crown Land managed by Councils be the subject of a formal resolution of Council.

 

As part of the significant redevelopment of the Jetty Foreshores precinct in 2017, a kiosk outlet to supply food and drinks to the public was included on the plaza, which would be leased to a successful and appropriate applicant.

 

Council undertook an Expression of Interest process via Tenderlink, including advertising in the local Advocate newspaper; however, this process was unsuccessful in obtaining a suitable applicant.  Council then sought interest from local commercial agents to act on behalf of the Trust to attend to the letting of the kiosk.  A commercial agent, The Commercial Real Estate Agency,  was selected and attended to the marketing of the lease of the kiosk for a period of three years via the internet and local newspaper advertising.

 

This process led to the selection of Kirby Jael Burton as the most appropriate prospective lessee based on her submission, which was one of 13 qualified submissions received and assessed.

 

The selected proponent has been operating the kiosk under a Temporary Licence Agreement and has demonstrated capacity and capability to fulfill Council’s requirements.  Approval is now sought to proceed with issuing a three year lease to Kirby Jael Burton.

Issues:

Entering into a lease of the premises for three years ties the Trust to this operator for the full period.  The lease provides for management of issues associated with non-performance of required service levels by the operator.

Options:

There are two options available to the Trust, being:

 

1.   Adopt the recommendation provided to Council as Reserve Trust Manager and enter into a three year lease with Kirby Jael Burton.

 

2.   Reject the recommendation provided to Council as Reserve Trust Manager.  This would require Council  as Reserve Trust Manager to go back to the market to source an alternate tenant.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The installation of the kiosk has been subject to the development consent process and has met all requirements with regard to environmental matters.  The lease of the kiosk is consistent with the development consent provisions.

•     Social

The recently completed redevelopment of the Jetty Foreshores precinct has resulted in a significant increase of occupation of the space as anticipated.  The provision of a kiosk to service the increased number of public  is seen as meeting the needs of the community and visitors.

•     Civic Leadership

Leasing of the kiosk assists in supporting the objective of the MyCoffs Community Strategic Plan which states “we attract people to work, live and visit in the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area”.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The lease rental provides a new revenue source for the reserve, covers the costs to the Trust for ongoing maintenance of the facility and contributes towards the capital costs of the kiosk.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

As the kiosk has already been established as part of the planned upgrade of the Jetty Foreshores, there is no impact on the current Delivery Program or Operational Plan.

Risk Analysis:

The context of risk in this matter revolves around the likelihood of proposed lessee not being able to fulfill its obliagtions under the lease and how this may impact on the Trust’s use of the land.

 

The lease agreement includes provision to mitigate the negative impact of a breach of lease conditions.  In the documents requested and provided by Kirby Jael Burton as part of the submission proposal, the proponent has demonstrated proven capabilities as required to fulfill lease provisions.

Consultation:

Department of Industry – Crown Land & Water

The Commercial Real Estate Agency

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council is currently and has been Reserve Trust Manager for this and many other Reserves in the Local Government Area under the Crown Land Act of 1983.  Crown Lands currently require that all leases proposed to be entered into on Crown Land managed by Councils be the subject of a formal resolution of Council.   This will no longer be required through the streamlining of processes for the management of certain Crown Land leases under the Local Government Act 1993, once the Crown Land Management Bill 2016 comes into force.  This Crown Land reform is expected to take effect during 2018.

 

The use of the land remains consistent with the gazetted reserve purpose being Public Recreation and Environmental Protection.  The Expression of Interest process was carried out in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy.

 

The commercial agent was selected via an Expression of Interest process, and the letting process completed via public advertising campaign detailing requirements and a comprehensive submission and evaluation process.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Upon the Trust’s resolution the lease will be executed under delegated authority and forwarded to Crown Lands for processing.

Conclusion:

All relevant actions to date have been undertaken with due diligence and in accordance with Council’s policies and procedures.  A suitable proponent has been sourced via a competitive process and the proposed tenant has demonstrated sufficient expertise and capacity to fulfill the rlease equirements during the Temporary Licence Agreement period.

 

The lease is to be prepared in accordance with Department of Industry – Crown Lands & Water guidelines and when complete will require execution on behalf of the Minister.

 

  


QON18/01    Coffs Coast Waste Services

Author:                         Team Leader Waste Services

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Infrastructure

Attachments:              Nil

 

The following Question on Notice was received from Councillor Amos.

Question

"What is the council diversion rate from three bin collection system away from landfill?

Are there any plans to close Lowanna Tip facilities?

What is the predicted lifespan of the Coffs Harbour tip and is planning happening for succession to an alternate tip location as Coffs Harbour's current tip reaches capacity?"

Response

Q1 “What is the council diversion rate from three bin collection system away from landfill?”

Staff Response:

In order to reply accurately we are utilising the 2015/16 dataset, in order to avoid the complications of the changes implemented whilst the Biomass Facility was under repair – post fire during 2016/17.

The following data assumes: Coffs Harbour LGA data only, and only the three-bin collected waste only.

i)        Organics (green-lidded bin): Diversion away from landfill of ~94% (or 11,186 tonnes diverted, of 11,900 tonnes collected kerbside);

ii)       Recycling (yellow-lidded bin): Diversion away from landfill of ~92.8% (or 8,272 tonnes diverted, of 8,913 tonnes collected kerbside);

iii)      Mixed Waste (MSW) (red-lidded bin): Diversion away from landfill of ~45% (or 5,856 tonnes diverted, of 13,014 tonnes collected kerbside);

Therefore the 2015/16 result for the three bin service alone was a total collected quantity of 33,827 tonnes, with 25,314 tonnes diverted away from landfill via resource recovery or recycling. This equates to an overall diversion rate from the three-bin collection system away from landfill of ~74.8%.

For context, the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s Target for ‘diversion from landfill’ is for local government authorities to achieve a 70% diversion by 2021-22.

Q2 “Are there any plans to close Lowanna Tip facilities?”

Staff Response:

Conclusively it can be said that there is currently no definitive plan to change the current operations or close the Lowanna Waste Transfer Station, nor any other Transfer Station.

The adopted Coffs Coast Regional Waste Strategy does include an action to investigate the potential rationalisation of Council’s existing waste transfer station network (comprising 4 X existing stations, including Lowanna) and to recommend the possible closure of one station if any resulting business case supports doing so.

The analysis recommended by the Strategy, and any resulting business case has not yet taken place, and further, is not currently scheduled in Council’s forward work plans given it is one of the lower priority activities suggested in the Strategy. It is however acknowledged that the Lowanna Waste Transfer Station is a problematic service due to its ‘open access’ which has led to high levels of cross-contamination in the waste types which are tipped, very low levels of recovery and recycling of the materials there, and the high cost involved.

The closure of a waste transfer station would constitute a ‘change of service level’ for those relying on the service. Any such change may only proceed with Councillor endorsement, which would presumably rely heavily upon a staff recommendation based on a solid and supportive business case. No work has been done on either of those prerequisites.

Q3 “What is the predicted lifespan of the Coffs Harbour tip and is planning happening for succession to an alternate tip location as Coffs Harbour's current tip reaches capacity?"

Staff Response:

Currently the projection for the remaining lifespan of the landfill is approximately 4 years.

Staff are continuing the planning work to investigate potential facilities to succeed the current landfill. The potential options under review include the development of a new landfill in the Coffs Harbour LGA, or conversely to seek to utilise pre-existing facilities operated by others.