Coffs Harbour City Council

17 October 2018

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

The above meeting will be held in the Council Administration Building

Cnr Coff and Castle Streets, Coffs Harbour on:

 

Thursday, 25 October 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.      Notices of Motion - Trust

19.      Trust Reports

20.      Requests for Leave of Absence

21.      Questions On Notice

22.      Matters of an Urgent Nature

23.      Consideration of Confidential Items (if any)

24.      Close of Ordinary Meeting.

 

 

Steve  McGrath

General Manager

 

 


Order of Business

 

  

General Manager's Reports

GM18/30         Council Policy - Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy.................... 3

Directorate Reports - Business Services

BS18/60          Bank and Investment Balances for September 2018........................ 11

BS18/61          Audited 2017/18 Annual Financial Statements....................................... 32

BS18/62          Grant of Right of Carriageway over Council Land at Kratz Drive, Coffs Harbour................................................................................................. 183

BS18/63          Classification and Categorisation of Crown Reserves under the Local Government Act................................................................................. 187

BS18/64          External Communications Strategy..................................................... 265

Directorate Reports - Sustainable Communities

SC18/39          2018 Community Satisfaction Survey Report and 2018 Community Wellbeing Survey Report........................................................................... 294

SC18/40          RFP-1020-TO Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium Naming Rights.................................................................................................................... 406

Directorate Reports - Sustainable Infrastructure

SI18/22           Proposal to Name an Unnamed Creek at Korora as Williams Creek      409   


GM18/30      Council Policy - Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy

Author:                        Governance Coordinator

Authoriser:                  Group Leader Governance

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

Attachments:              ATT1  GM18/30  Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy  

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of policy is to document Council’s intent, commitment and/or a position on a particular topic as well as ensure transparency and accountability in local government.  This report presents the amended Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy for Council adoption.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the amended Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy.

 

Report

Description of Item:

The purpose of policy is to document Council’s intent, commitment and/or a position on a particular topic as well as ensure transparency and accountability in local government.

 

Policy Name

Policy detail

Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy

The purpose of the Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy is to ensure a consistent, equitable and transparent process for naming or placing memorials in Council owned, managed land and or parks, reserves and sports fields and associated facilities.  It also establishes the principles, criteria and considerations in which applications and proposals for recognition, naming, memorials and dual naming will be assessed.

 

This policy was adopted by Council on 26 October 2017, however a review is required to establish a policy position on the removal of unauthorised memorials.  The main example is the increased unauthorised plaques on headlands and rocks.  National Parks and Wildlife (NPWS) have recently removed some memorials on headlands managed by the Regional Park Trust Board (Council and NPWS).  As Council works in collaboration with NPWS it is considered appropriate to align our policy with theirs for consistency across the Local Government Area.

 

Issues:

There are no issues associated with this report.

Options:

It is considered that the following options are available to Council:

 

1.    Adopt the recommendation provided to Council.

2.    Amend the recommendation or policy provided to Council and then adopt.

3.    Reject the amended policy provided to Council meaning that the current policy without amendment will remain in place.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

•     Social

Policies are an important communication tool used by Council for providing our community and general public detail on strategic aims, commitments and obligations.

•     Civic Leadership

Policies are important for ensuring transparency and accountability in local government.  Their implementation enables Council to identify and respond to the community.  This is consistent with the MyCoffs Community Strategic Plan strategy D.1 Our leaders give us confidence in the future.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no broad economic impacts associated with the implementation of the recommendations.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The ongoing development and review of Council policies and plans are accommodated within Council’s budget structure.  This expenditure is monitored through Council’s monthly and quarterly budget reviews.

Risk Analysis:

There may be some reputational risk associated with removing memorials under the amended policy.

Consultation:

Internal stakeholders were consulted with the drafting of this policy.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Detailed within the policy as required.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Immediate.

Conclusion:

That council adopt the amended Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy.

 

 



 


 


 


 


 

 


BS18/60       Bank and Investment Balances for September 2018

Author:                        Section Leader Financial Planning

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

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

Attachments:              ATT1  BS18/60   Monthly Investment Performance Report for the month ended 30 September 2018  

 

Executive Summary

Council’s Bank Balances and Investments as at 30 September 2018 totalled $209,780,525.14.  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 Socially Responsible Investment Performance (refer Attachment 1).

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council note the bank balances and investments totalling $209,780,525.14 (including from loans, Developer Contributions and other avenues that form the restricted accounts and are committed for future works) as at 30 September 2018.

 

Report

Description of Item:

A copy of the state of Bank Balances and Investments as at 30 September 2018 is attached.  Also included is a summary of Council’s Socially Responsible Investment Performance.

 

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 September 2018 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 economic 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 September 2018, it is noted that the total bank and investment balance was $209,780,525.14 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 favourable 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


BS18/61       Audited 2017/18 Annual Financial Statements

Author:                        Section Leader Financial Support

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

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

Attachments:              ATT1  BS18/61   General Purpose Financial Statements 2017/18

ATT2  BS18/61   Special Purpose Financial Statements 2017/18

ATT3  BS18/61   Special Schedules 2017/18  

 

Executive Summary

The audited Financial Statements for 2017/2018 are being presented to meet legislative requirements under Section 419 of the Local Government Act in relation to their completion, audit and presentation.

 

The General Purpose Financial Statements and Special Purpose Financial Statements are the statements required to be produced by the Australian International Financial Reporting Standards whilst the Special Schedules contain additional information required for the NSW Grants Commission, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department of Primary Industries Water and Office of Local Government.

 

The final audited Financial Statements require certification by the designated signatories for the audit opinion and Conduct of the Audit Report to be issued, and for the Financial Statements to be then lodged with the Office of Local Government.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Approve the General Purpose Financial Statements – Statement by Councillors and Management and Special Purpose Financial Statements – Statement by Councillors and Management forms relating to the audited 2017/2018 annual Financial Statements for completion by the designated signatories.

2.       Receive and adopt the audited 2017/2018 Annual Financial Statements.

 

Report

Description of Item:

The audited Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2018 are attached.

 

Council’s auditor, Mr James Sugumar, Audit Office of NSW, will be in attendance to address Council during the Council meeting in relation to the audit of the 2017/18 Financial Statements through presenting the Conduct of the Audit Report.

 

The Financial Statements consist of three distinct sections:

 

1.       General Purpose Financial Statements (Attachment 1)

2.       Special Purpose Financial Statements (Attachment 2)

3.       Special Schedules (Attachment 3)

 

The General Purpose Financial Statements and Special Purpose Financial Statements are the statements required to be produced by the Australian International Financial Reporting Standards whilst the Special Schedules contain additional information required for the NSW Grants Commission, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department of Primary Industries Water and Office of Local Government.

 

It should be recognised that the Income Statement, Statement of Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Position, and Statement of Cash Flows of the General Purpose Statements provide a consolidated picture of a council’s operation and financial position and excludes transactions between General, Water and Sewer funds, e.g. water charges met by the Asset Construction and Maintenance section are reversed.

 

For a multi-purpose Council, such as Coffs Harbour City Council, the results achieved by each traditional fund (General, Water and Sewerage) are disclosed in Note 28(b) of the General Purpose Financial Statements.

 

The sections of the financial statements are set out below:

 

1.       General Purpose Financial Statements

 

In relation to the specific statements included in the General Purpose Financial Statements, the following comments are made:

 

a.       Statement by Councillors and Management

 

The statement requires Councillors and Management to declare that the financial statements are neither false nor misleading in any way and present fairly Council’s operating result and financial position for the year.  The draft statements were approved by Council for signature on 13 September 2018.

 

The Audit Office of NSW, as representatives of the Auditor General, require for the audited annual Financial Statements presented at this meeting to be approved for signature by the designated signatories prior to providing the audit report.  The audit report is required to be submitted with the annual Financial Statements to the Office of Local Government by 31 October 2018.

 

b.       Income Statement

 

The Income Statement summarises the $209.477 million of Income and $170.789 million of Expenses from Continuing operations that result in Council’s Net Operating Surplus of $38.688 million and a Net Operating Deficit before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes of $0.383 million.

 

The Net Operating Surplus is impacted by the following events;

 

i.    Assets recognised for the First Time

The revaluation process undertaken for operational land & buildings resulted in $3.557 million of assets recognised for the first time from improved asset identification, classification and measurement practices.

 

It is expected that improved asset identification, classification and measurement practices will result in further asset recognitions in future revaluations.  These events increased Grants and Contributions provided for Capital Purposes (Note 3(f) of the General Purpose Financial Statements).

 


 

ii.   Financial Assistance Grants

The State Government has paid Council $3.767 million, representing six months funding in advance for the 2018/2019 year.  This payment replicates the $3.589 million of funding paid six months in advance in the 2016/2017 year as part of funding for the 2017/2018 year.  In the event that the State Government ceases or modifies its program of advance funding Council will have a reduction in funding in the year that the change occurs.  The financial effect in the 2017/2018 year was to increase Grants and Contributions provided for Operating Purposes (Note 3(e) of the General Purpose Financial Statements) by $0.178 million (2016/2017 $3.589 million).

 

iii.   Employee Benefits and Oncost, Materials and Contracts, and Other Revenues

Council has a cost recovery agreement with Coffs Coast State Park Trust where employees benefits and oncosts of $2.970m and materials and contracts costs $3.183m are paid by Council and recognised in other revenues. The financial effect in the 2017/2018 year was to increase Other Revenues ($6.153m) and increase Employee Benefits and Oncost ($3.07m) and increase Materials and Contracts ($3.183m).

 

iv.  Land Under Roads Revaluation Decrements

Council receives Subdivision Dedications (Note 3(f) to the General Purpose Financial Statements) from developers of land under roads that are initially recognised at fair value.  The revaluation decrement (Note 4(d) to the General Purpose Financial Statements) of $1.355 million (2016/2017 $1.054 million) results from the re-measurement of the fair value of the land under roads to average fair value of Council’s Community Lands.

 

v.   Tip Clay Capping Material Costs

Council used clay capping stock material valued at $0.374 million during the course of the financial year.  Council requires clay capping material to provide cover over the land fill site as part of the daily operations of the Englands Road Tip.  The clay capping material is acquired from tip users for which Council pays the full EPA Levy on the clay.

 

The Operating Deficit for the year before Grants and Contributions provided for Capital Purposes of $0.383 million compares favourably with the Original Budget Deficit of $7.534 million and the 2016/2017 Operating Surplus of $1.791 million.

 

When consideration is given to the abnormal events mentioned above, an adjusted Net Operating Result for the Council for the year prior to contributions and grants for capital purposes of $1.268 million.  The following table shows these adjustments:

 

 

 

c.       Statement of Comprehensive Income

 

The Statement of Comprehensive Income reports on the movement in Equity resulting from the Income Statement operations surplus of $38.688 million (2016/2017 $53.813 million) and transactions that must by-pass the Income Statement because they have not been realised.  This includes a gain on Revaluation of Infrastructure, Property, Plant & Equipment $22.127 million (2016/2017 $77.397 million) and movements in Reserves $0 (2016/2017 $11.544 million).  These unrealised gains or losses do not result from operations but increase net assets and equity of Council.

 

d.       Statement of Financial Position

 

The Statement of Financial Position reports on the assets $2,284.425 million (2016/2017 $2,229.262 million), liabilities $187.056 million (2016/2017 $192.708 million) and equity $2,097.369 million (2016/2017 $2,036.554 million) of Council.

 

i.    Assets

Assets have increased by $55.163 million (2016/2017 $105.131 million) and excluding Revaluation Increments of $22.152 million (2016/2017 $65.843 million) the increase was $33.011 million (2016/2017 $39.288 million).

 

The increases in Cash & Cash Equivalents and Investments was $20.434 million (2016/2017 $24.288 million) Receivables $1.799 million (2016/2017 $1.783 million) Inventories and Other Assets $0.093 million (2016/2017 decrease $0.0483 million) Infrastructure Property Plant & Equipment $10.685 million (2016/2017 $13.1687 million).

 

The Cash & Cash Equivalents and Investments of $212.786 million (2016/2017 $192.352 million) had External and Internal Restrictions (Note 6 (c) to the General Purpose Financial Statements) of $208.258 million (2016/2017 $188.126 million) resulting in unrestricted cash of $4.528 million (2016/2017 $4.226 million).

 

ii.   Liabilities

Liabilities have decreased by $5.652 million (2016/2017 decrease $14.535 million) resulting from increases in Payables and Income Received in Advance of $3.573 million (2016/2017 decrease $0.817 million) decreases in net Borrowings $9.803 million (2016/2017 decrease $14.447 million) and increase in Provisions $0.578 million (2016/2017 increase $0.729 million). Borrowings increased by a new loan of $4.720 million for the Stadium.

 

iii.   Equity

Equity has increased by $60.815 million (2016/2017 $119.666 million) resulting from Operating Surplus of $38.688 million (2016/2017 $53.813 million) Asset Revaluations $22.127 million (2016/2017 $77.397 million) and other Reserve Movements $0 million (2016/2017 decrease $11.544 million).

 

e.       Statement of Changes in Equity

 

The Statement of Changes in Equity reports the movement in the Equity as reflected in the Statement of Financial Position.  Equity has increased by $60.815 million (2016/2017 $119.666 million) resulting from an Operating Surplus of $38.688 million (2016/2017 $53.813 million), Asset Revaluations $22.127 million (2016/2017 $77.397 million), and nil other Reserve Movements (2016/2017 decrease $11.544 million).

 

f.       Statement of Cash Flows

 

The Statement of Cash Flows reports the increase in Council’s Cash & Cash Equivalent resources by $4.944 million (2016/2017 $6.477 million) resulting from operating, investing and financing activities.  Cash Resources are $22.495 million (2016/2017 $17.551 million).

 

Operating activities generated net cash inflows of $70.554 million (2016/2017 $76.290 million) Investing activities generated net cash outflows of $55.760 million (2016/2017 $55.303 million) and financing activities generated cash outflows of $9.850 million (2016/2017 $14.510 million).

 

The operating surplus for the year is adjusted for non-cash items and movements in operating assets and liabilities to determine the Cash Flows from operating activities (Note 16 to the General Purpose Financial Statements). The effect of these adjustments is to remove non-cash items and movements in operating assets and liabilities subject to the accrual basis of accounting from the operating surplus to arrive at the cash inflows generated by operating activities.

 


 

 

Reconciliation of Operating Surplus to Cash Flows from Operating Activities

Operating Surplus
$ '000

Non-Cash Items and Movements in Operating Assets and Liabilities $ '000

Cash Flows From Operating Activities
$ '000

Revenue

Rates and Annual Charges

93,415

(51)

93,364

User Charges and Fees

34,767

3,095

37,862

Interest and Investment Revenue

6,524

(18)

6,506

Grants and Contributions

35,700

2,213

37,913

Bonds and Deposits Received

0

60

60

Other Revenues

39,071

(14,640)

24,431

Total Revenue/Cash Inflows

209,477

(9,341)

200,136

Expenses

Employee Benefits and On costs

46,350

(849)

45,501

Borrowing Costs

10,601

(15)

10,586

Materials and Contracts

53,225

8,952

62,177

Depreciation and Amortisation

42,429

(42,429)

0

Other Expenses

12,222

(904)

11,318

Losses from Disposal of Assets

4,589

(4,589)

0

Revaluation decrement

1,373

(1,373)

0

Total Expenses/Cash Outflows

170,789

(41,207)

129,582

Operating Surplus/Cash Flows from Operating Activities

38,688

31,866

70,554

 

g.       Financial Result and Financial Position by Fund

 

The operating surplus of $38.688 million (2016/2017 $53.813 million) is dissected by Water Fund $5.445 million (2016/2017 $5.030 million), Sewer Fund $4.486 million (2016/2017 $5.470 million) and General Fund $28.757 million (2016/2017 $43.313 million).

 

The operating deficit before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes of $0.383 million (2016/2017 Surplus $1.791 million) is dissected by Water Fund Deficit $0.396 million (2016/2017 deficit $5.082 million) Sewer Fund Deficit $2.868 million (2016/2017 Deficit $17.865 million) and General Fund Surplus $2.881 million (2016/2017 Surplus $24.738 million). 

 

The Net Assets of the Water Fund are $371.321 million (2016/2017 $358.730 million) and Sewer Fund $467.389 million (2016/2017 $452.687 million).

 

The detail of the Financial Performance and Financial Position of the Water, Sewer and General Fund is reported in Note 25 to the General Purpose Financial Statements and the Water and Sewer Funds are separately reported in the Special Purpose Financial Statements.

 

The Water, Sewer and General Fund operations include internal charges and recoveries made between the funds.

 

h.       Key Performance Indicators (Note 26 to the General Purpose Financial Statements)

 

i.    Operating Performance Ratio 3.23% (2016/2017 18.74%) Benchmark >0%

 

This ratio measures Council’s achievement of limiting operating expenditure within the available recurrent revenue.  Council’s operating expenses are 96.77% of its operating revenue.  The restatement of the 2016/2017 Assets Recognised for the First Time of $17.80 million in the prior year would result in an amended 2016/2017 ratio of 1.07%. Council performance is in excess of the benchmark.

 

ii.   Own Source Operating Revenue Ratio 73.20% (2016/2017 66.12%) Benchmark > 60%

 

This ratio measures the reliance on external funding sources such as operating grants and contributions.  Councils level of reliance on external grants and contributions for the funding of operational projects has continued resulting in a largely unchanged own source operating revenue ratio that is in excess of the Benchmark.

 

iii.   Unrestricted Current Ratio 9.64X (2016/2017 7.21X) Benchmark >1.5X

 

This ratio measures the adequacy of working capital to satisfy short term obligations for the unrestricted activities of Council.  Councils unrestricted cash ratio has improved reflecting the increase in short term investments of $36 million. Councils performance is in excess of the Benchmark.

 

iv.  Debt Service Ratio  2.33X (2016/2017 3.13X) Benchmark >2.0X

 

This ratio measures the relationship between Operating result before capital grants and contributions, excluding interest, depreciation, amortisation and impairment expenses and Loan Principal and Interest Payments to determine Council’s capacity to service debt.  The 2.33X result is in excess of the Benchmark 2.0X and reports that Council’s adjusted Operating Result would cover the loan principal and interest payments 2.33 times.

 

v.   Rates and Annual Charges, Interest and Extra Charges Outstanding Percentage 6.58% (2016/2017 6.62%) Benchmark 5%

 

This ratio assesses the rates and charges unpaid over the rates and charges levied and is a measure of liquidity and debt recovery effectiveness.  Council is above the Benchmark but has remained consistent with prior years indicating that the debt recovery activities undertaken have limited the growth in unpaid rates and charges.

 

vi.  Cash Expense Cover Ratio 10.2 months (2016/2017 9.1 months ) Benchmark >3 months

 

This ratio is a measure of the amount of time Council could fund operational expenditure from its available cash, cash equivalents and investments without any cash inflows from operations.  Council is in excess of the Benchmark due to the restricted cash held for developer contributions, unexpended loans, unexpended grants, Water, Sewer and Waste operations.

 

2.       Special Purpose Financial Statements

 

The Special Purpose Financial Statements include the Income Statements and Statement of Financial Performance for Council’s Business Activities (Water, Sewerage, Coastal Works, CitySmart Solutions, Environmental Laboratory and Airport) as required under National Competition Policy (NCP) guidelines.

 

The Income Statement includes internal transactions between business activities and Council’s General fund, and also shows notional transactions required under NCP (i.e. Imputation Payments, Corporate Taxation Equivalent and Notional Subsidies from Council).

 

The Statement of Financial Position sets out the assets, liabilities and equity of Council’s business activities.  The statement includes internal transactions between business activities and Council’s General fund.

 

Note 1 to the Special Purpose Financial Statements outlines the significant accounting policies complied with and other matters of note affecting the financial statements such as the National Competition Policy Imputation Payments utilised.

 

Notes 2 and 3 outline the tax equivalent payments, the dividends from operating surpluses that would be payable if the Best Practice Management Guidelines have been met and National Water Initiative Financial Performance Indicators.

 

3.       Special Schedules

 

These schedules provide additional information required for the NSW Grants Commission, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department of Primary Industries Water and Office of Local Government and also support data included in the Special Purpose Financial Statements.  The data is also used in the allocation of Financial Assistance Grants, incorporation in national statistics, monitoring of loan approvals, allocation of borrowing rights and monitoring of financial activities of specific services.  The auditor is not required to audit the Special Schedules with the exception of Special Schedule 2 – Permissible Income.

 

The Financial Statements and auditor’s report will be presented with Council’s Annual Report as required under S 419(1) of the Local Government Act.

Issues:

Failure to approve the abovementioned statements will result in non-compliance with relevant legislation.

Options:

This report is to enable Council to adopt the audited Financial Statements for 2017/2018.  This is required by legislation and therefore is the only option available to Council.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no perceived current or future environmental impacts.

•     Social

There are no perceived current or future social impacts.

•     Civic Leadership

There are no perceived current or future civic leadership impacts.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no perceived current or future economic impacts.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The Operational Plan process through budget reviews have reflected the financial results achieved in Council’s Annual Financial Statements.  Costs for preparation and audit of the Annual Financial Statements are allocated within Council’s budget.

Risk Analysis:

A risk assessment has been carried out and it is considered that endorsement of the recommendation does not present a risk to Council.

Consultation:

The Annual Financial Statements were collated with the assistance of various Council staff members in conjunction with the Audit Office of NSW (Council’s external auditors).

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The Financial Statements are prepared and presented on an annual basis in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.

 

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with:

 

1.       The Local Government Act 1993 and amendments

2.       Local Government Regulations

3.       Australian Accounting Standards (AASBs)

4.       The "Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting” published by the Office of Local Government

5.       The “Asset Accounting Manual” published by the Office of Local Government

6.       Instructions issued in circulars released by the Office of Local Government

7.       NSW Government Policy Statement 'Application of National Competition Policy to Local Government'

8.       Office of Local Government guidelines “Pricing & Costing for Council Businesses: A guide to Competitive Neutrality”

9.       Council’s policies and procedures

Implementation Date / Priority:

Under Section 416(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council’s financial statements for a year must be prepared and audited within the period of 4 months after the end of that year i.e. submitted to the Office of Local Government by 31 October.  The Financial Statements for 2017/2018 have been completed and audited, and will be lodged with the Office of Local Government by 31 October 2018 following adoption by Council.  The final audited Financial Statements require certification by the designated signatories for the audit opinion and Conduct of the Audit Report to be issued.

Conclusion:

This report presents the final audited Financial Statements for the 2017/2018 financial year to Council for certification and adoption.

 

 

 


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


 

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


BS18/62       Grant of Right of Carriageway over Council Land at Kratz Drive, Coffs Harbour

Author:                        Team Leader Property Development

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

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

Attachments:              ATT1  BS18/62   Plan with Location of Easement for Transfer  

 

Executive Summary

Council own a parcel of land known as Lot 13 DP 881149 at Kratz Drive, Coffs Harbour.  An adjoining owner has approached Council to obtain a right of carriageway over a small section of the land to enable access to the rear of their property.  The proposed easement will affect the existing handle shaped portion of Council’s land that is already used as a driveway by Council and is concrete sealed.  This access is already impacted by an existing easement that benefits an adjoining private property directly to the east.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.    Grant a Right of Carriageway easement over Lot 13 DP 881149 in favour of Lot 1 DP 1142912 defined as “Right of Carriageway 6 wide and variable” as shown in DP 881149.

2.    Accept an amount of $2,500 inclusive of GST as compensation for the grant of the easement.

3.    Agree that all costs associated with the matter are payable by the applicant and owner of Lot 1 DP 1142912.

4.    Execute under seal any required documents to complete the matter.

 

Report

Description of Item:

Council purchased a parcel of land known as Lot 13 DP 881149 at Kratz Drive, Coffs Harbour in 1999 from Section 94 funds to add land to an existing open space network and improve connectivity for wildlife.  At the time the land was purchased an access handle was included to facilitate future maintenance and allow other Council operations on the land.  The handle was concrete sealed because it is reasonably steep and it allows firefighting vehicles to access the area.

 

At the time Council purchased Lot 13 DP 881149 it was already encumbered by an easement for right of carriageway that services a private residential block to the east known as Lot 1 DP 881149.

 

An adjoining owner to the west of the access handle has recently approached Council to obtain a right of carriageway over this part of Council’s land to enable access to the rear of their property.  Because the access is already impacted by an existing easement that benefits another adjoining private property, the granting of this easement over Council’s land is not considered a major impost.  The plan attached to this report shows the location of Council’s land and the position of the easement to be granted.

 

When Council originally purchased Lot 13 DP 881149 it formally classified the access handle as “Operational Land” under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, thus allowing Council to deal in the land.

 

The grant of the easement will facilitate legal access to the rear yard of the property at Lot 1 DP 1142912 which is currently vacant. Recently Development Application 0179/19DA has been submitted to Council for a large residential dwelling on the property.

 

As part of the negotiated process the applicant is to extend a small section of the concrete pavement to adjoin with their land so as to reduce any erosion issues because a considerable length of the driveway is steep.  The applicant is also to pay in addition to the $2,500 compensation (inclusive of GST) all costs of the matter including all charges at NSW Land Registry Service and both Council’s and their own legal expenses.

 

The grant of the easement is not anticipated to impact on Council operations and access by Council to its land.

 

The land affected by the proposed easement is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under the provisions of LEP 2013.

Issues:

There are no major issues in relation to this matter.  The easement will impact a section of Council’s land that is already impacted by an existing easement for an identical purpose which is not exclusive.  The easement grant will not adversely impact Council operations.

Options:

Council have two options in relation to this matter:

 

1.    Grant the easement as proposed.

2.    Refuse the applicants request and not grant the easement.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no environmental issues.  The existing driveway in the position of the easement is currently constructed from concrete.  Additional concreting of the driveway in a very small grassed area will eliminate any erosions issues with use of the access.

•     Social

There are no social issues in relation to this matter

•     Civic Leadership

The grant of the easement will facilitate practical and efficient use of land.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no broader economic implications in relation to this matter.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The grant for the easement will provide Council with a net amount of $2,500 in funds as compensation.  The funds can be used as general revenue or to make or assist with improvements to reserves in the vicinity.

 

Council’s qualified Valuer has negotiated the agreement with the land owner and the terms of the agreement are considered fair and reasonable to both parties.

Risk Analysis:

There is considered little or no risk in processing this matter.  Council’s interests in relation to the transfer will be protected by Councils solicitor who will facilitate the conveyance.

Consultation:

Internal consultation has occurred with the relevant sections of Council and there have been no objections raised to the proposed grant of right of carriageway.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council has in the past granted easements when appropriate.

The grant of the easement requires a resolution of Council pursuant to Section 377 (1) (H) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

In this case the section of Lot 13 DP 881499 to be impacted was classified in 1999 as Operational Land under the Local Government Act, 1993 via a resolution of Council.  This classification permits Council to legally deal in the land.

Implementation Date / Priority:

The matter will be dealt with immediately following Council’s resolution.

Conclusion:

The grant of the easement will not have any detrimental or significant impact on Council’s land and as such Council’s agreement to grant the easement on the terms detailed within this report is considered an appropriate use of resources.  The easement will facilitate the adjoining owner with improved access to the rear of their property.

 

 

 


 

 



BS18/63       Classification and Categorisation of Crown Reserves under the Local Government Act

Author:                        Manager Holiday Parks and Reserves

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

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

Attachments:              ATT1  BS18/63   Council Managed Crown Reserves – Amendments to DoI Crown Land Initial Classification/Categorisation Assessment

ATT2  BS18/63   Council Managed Crown Reserves – Concurrence with DoI Crown Land Initial Classification/Categorisation Assessment

ATT3  BS18/63   Classification Guideline

ATT4  BS18/63   Classification Guideline Annexure B

ATT5  BS18/63   Initial Categorisation Guideline

ATT6  BS18/63   Initial Categorisation Guideline Appendix B

ATT7  BS18/63   DLG Public Land Management Practice Note 1  

 

Executive Summary

The Crown Land Management Act 2016 (CLMA) was enacted on 1 July 2018 and authorises Council, as the appointed Crown Land Manager, to manage Crown reserves as if they were public land under the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA).

 

As part of the transition to the management of Crown reserves under the LGA Council must assign a classification and initial categorisation to all Crown reserves under its management.  The Department of Industry – Crown Land (DoI-CL) has provided an initial assessment of each reserve and a suggested classification and categorisation.  Council staff have undertaken a review of the Crown reserves and the initial assessment undertaken by DoI–CL and this report establishes concurrence with, or proposed amendments to, the suggested treatment of each Crown reserve (refer Attachments 1 and 2).

 

Any request for changes, particularly when requesting an Operational Land classification, must be made to the Minister administering the CLMA.  This report seeks Council’s endorsement to request an Operational Land classification of identified Crown reserves, request identified amendments to the initial categorisation assigned by DoI–CL and to establish a classification and initial categorisation where no guidance was provided (Attachment 1).  The report also seeks to confirm Council’s concurrence with DoI–CL initial classification and categorisation of identified Crown reserves (Attachment 2).

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council as Crown Land Manager:

1.       Request approval from the Minister administering the Crown Land Management Act 2016 to classify and categorise the Crown reserves listed in Attachment 1 (Council Managed Crown Reserves – Amendments to DoI Crown Land Initial Classification/Categorisation Assessment) in line with the proposed Council classification and categorisation.

2.       Advise the Minister administering the Crown Land Management Act 2016 of their concurrence with the initial classification and categorisation of Crown reserves listed in Attachment 2 (Council Managed Crown Reserves – Concurrence with DoI Crown Land Initial Classification/Categorisation Assessment)

 

Report

Description of Item:

The Crown Land Management Act 2016 (CLMA) was enacted on 1 July 2018 and authorises Council, as the appointed Crown Land Manager, to manage Crown reserves as if they were public land under the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA).  As part of the transition to the management of Crown reserves under the LGA, Council must assign a classification and initial categorisation to all Crown reserves under its management.  DoI–CL, in consultation with the Office of Local Government (OLG) have established guidelines for the classification and initial categorisation of Crown reserves (Attachments 3, 4, 5 & 6).  In addition, Council staff have also been directed towards Practice Note 1 (Revised) – Public Land Management (Attachment 7) issued by the Department of Local Government in 2000.

 

The CLMA provides that Crown reserves managed by Council must be managed as if it were Community Land unless the Minister administering the Act has given written consent to classify the land as operational.  In seeking an Operational Land classification Council, as Crown Land Manager, must satisfy the Minister that the land under management does not fall within any of the categories of Community Land under the LGA or could not continue with the current use if it was required to be used as Community Land.  Generally, Operational Land is land that may not need to be made available to the public at large because of the nature and use of the land and where the use of the land may exclude the public for their safety or Council operational reasons.  Examples of Crown Land uses that may not fall within categories of Community Land would include cemeteries, sanitary depots, reservoirs and water infrastructure, sewage works, quarries, coastal infrastructure, Council depots and emergency services.

 

Council staff have considered the historical and current use of each reserve under its management and the reserve purpose, in accordance with the DoI-CL and OLG guidelines and advice, and have identified reserves which should be classified as Operational Land (Attachment 1).  Once approved by Council, staff will lodge an application, in the prescribed form for consent, to the Minister administering the CLMA.  The DoI-CL will consider Council’s application on its merits and will notify Council in writing of the outcome once ministerial consent has been given or refused.  A further report to Council will be made once Council receives advice of ministerial approval or refusal.

 

Council, as Crown Land Manager, must also assign an initial category, under the LGA, to each Crown reserve. In accordance with section 3.23 (3) of the CLMA, the assigned category must be those that the Council considers to be the category that most closely relates to the gazetted purposes for which the land is dedicated or reserved.

 

In assigning each initial category, Council staff have considered:

 

·     the gazetted purpose of the reserve;

·     the historical and current use of the land by Council;

·     the LGA provisions which govern the management and use of each Community Land category;

·     the guidelines for the categorisation of Community Land prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005;

·     the DoI-CL suggested initial category; and

·     the guidelines for categorisation of Crown reserves as issued by DoI–CL and the OLG. 

 

The suggested initial categorisations are contained in Attachments 1 and 2.

 

After Council has assigned an initial categorisation to the Crown Land under its management, it must provide written notice to the Minister.  This must be done as soon as practicable in the prescribed form.  The Minister will consider the category initially assigned by Council and if the DoI-CL determines that the categorisation presented is appropriate, it will issue an acknowledgement notification to Council.

 

If the DoI-CL determines that the category does not meet the criteria it will issue a direction to Council requiring Council to alter the assigned category in accordance with Section 3.23 (5) of the CLMA.  The Minister or the DoI-CL may direct Council to alter the category if it is considered that the category is not the most closely related to the purpose for which the land is dedicated or reserved or the management of the land by Council with reference to the initial assigned category is likely to materially harm the use of the land for the purpose for which it was dedicated or reserved.

 

Once notified by DoI-CL that they acknowledge an assigned categorisation, Council, as Crown Land Manager, must proceed to develop and adopt a LGA Plan of Management (PoM) for the land.  All PoMs must be adopted by Council, after approval by DoI–CL, prior to 30 June 2021.

Issues:

A key issue is that during this phase of the transition to the CLMA, Council can only apply one category to each reserve despite multiple categorisations being permissible under the LGA. Many reserves under Council’s management have the potential to have multiple categorisations yet Council is constrained initially to selecting one category that most closely aligns with the gazetted purpose of the reserve.  Additional categories can later be assigned through the PoM process, subsequent to the Minister’s acknowledgement that the initial category is acceptable.

 

Another key issue is the requirement to develop a LGA PoM for all Crown reserves once the classification and categorisation process is completed and Ministerial acknowledgement is received.  The PoM process, which will include addressing Native Title, will be a large suite of work that must be completed by 30 June 2021.

 

There are some opportunities with regards to the PoM issue including the ability for Council to:

 

·     Consolidate reserves with similar purposes, uses and categories and develop generic PoMs that spans multiple reserves

·     Integrate Crown reserves into existing adopted LGA PoMs that already capture similar uses and categories. This process will also act as a catalyst for the review of existing LGA PoMs and establish avenues for improved management and opportunities for improvement.

Options:

The following options are available to Council:

 

1.    Adopt the recommendation.

2.    Make amendments to individual classifications and/or categorisations then adopt the recommendation.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no direct environmental impacts as a result of the resolution.  Environmental considerations will be part of the PoM process.

•     Social

There are no direct social impacts as a result of the resolution.  Social considerations will be part of the PoM process.

•     Civic Leadership

Council is the appointed Crown Land Manager for all reserves listed in Attachments 1 and 2. The classification and categorisation of Crown reserves under the LGA is a critical step in the transition to the new CLMA.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no identified broader economic implications in relation to the resolution.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The implementation of the CLMA has resulted in a range of additional activities that have direct impacts upon the Delivery Program/Operational Plan.  Further financial resources will be required during subsequent activities that flow on from this process and resolution.

 

A funding contribution of $40,714 has been allocated by the NSW State Government to Coffs Harbour City Council for the development of LGA Plans of Management (PoM) for all land classified as Community Land.  However; this funding allocation is minimal in relation to the estimated funding requirement for the development of PoMs, which will also include costs associated with addressing Native Title.

Risk Analysis:

If Council does not complete the classification of Crown reserves in line with the Guidelines (Attachments 3 and 4) issued by DoI–CL there is a risk that Council will not be able to use the land for its intended purpose.

 

If Council does not complete the initial categorisation of Crown reserves in line with the Guidelines (Attachments 5 and 6) issued by DoI–CL there is a risk that Council will not be able to use the land for its intended purpose.  Where a categorisation has been assigned that is not the most closely related to the reserve or dedication purpose, Council’s ability to validly manage the land in accordance with that category might be limited.

 

There is also a risk that the Minister may, by written notice given to the council manager, require the manager to alter an assigned category if the Minister considers that the assigned category is not the most closely related to the purposes for which the land is dedicated or reserved, or Council’s management of the land by reference to the assigned category is likely to materially harm the use of the land for any of the purposes for which it is dedicated or reserved.  This may also impact upon Council’s ability to effectively manage the land and any activities undertaken upon that land.

Consultation:

Consultation has been undertaken with:

 

·     Department of Industry – Crown Land;

·     Office of Local Government; and

·     relevant sections of Council

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council is the appointed Crown Land Manager for all reserves listed in Attachment 1 and 2.

 

Classification

 

Crown Land Management Act 2016

 

·     Section 3.22 (4) - A council manager of dedicated or reserved Crown land cannot (b) classify the land as operational land under the Local Government Act 1993 unless the Minister gives written consent for it.

·     Section 3.22 (5) - The Minister may give written consent under subsection (4) (b) for the classification of the land as operational only if the council manager satisfies the Minister that:

a)    The land does not fall within any of the categories of community land under the Local Government Act, 1993; or 

b)    The land could not continue to be used and dealt with as it currently can if it were required to be used and dealt with as community land.  

·     Section 3.23 (5) - The Minister may, by written notice given to the council manager, require the manager to alter an assigned category if the Minister considers that: 

a)    The assigned category is not the most closely related to the purposes for which the land is dedicated or reserved, or 

b)    The management of the land by reference to the assigned category is likely to materially harm the use of the land for any of the purposes for which it is reserved or dedicated. 

 

Local Government Act 1993 – PART 2 PUBLIC LAND 

 

·     Division 1 – Classification and Reclassification of Public Land

25.  All public land must be classified – All public land must be classified in accordance with this part. 

26.  What are the classifications – There are 2 classifications for public land – “community” and “operational”.  Note: certain land that is vested in or under control of a council is taken to have been classified as community land.

 

Categorisation

 

Crown Lands Management Act 2016 

 

·     Section 3.23 (2) -Initial assignment of categories - The council manager must, as soon as practicable after it becomes the manager of the dedicated or reserved Crown land (including because of the operation of Schedule 7), assign the land to one or more categories of community land referred to in section 36 of the Local Government Act 1993. 

·     Section 3.23 (3) - The assigned category or categories must be those that the council considers to be the category or categories that are most closely related to the purposes for which the land is dedicated or reserved. 

·     Section 3.23 (4) - The council manager must give written notice to the Minister of the categories to which it has assigned the land as soon as practicable after assigning them. 

·     Section 3.23 (5) - The Minister may, by written notice given to the council manager, require the manager to alter an assigned category if the Minister considers that: 

a)    The assigned category is not the most closely related to the purposes for which the land is dedicated or reserved, or

b)    The management of the land by reference to the assigned category is likely to materially harm the use of the land for any of the purposes for which it is dedicated or reserved. 

 

Local Government Act 1993 

 

·     Section 36 (4) - For the purposes of this section, land is to be categorised as one or more of the following:  

a)    a natural area;

b)    a sportsground;

c)    a park;

d)    an area of cultural significance or

e)    general community use. 

 

Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 

 

·     Part 4 – Community Land

·     Division 1 – Guidelines for the Categorisation of Community Land Sections 101-111.

Implementation Date / Priority:

A submission on the classification and categorisation of Crown reserves will be forwarded to the Minister administering the CLMA in accordance with Council’s resolution.

Conclusion:

The classification and initial categorisation of Crown reserves by Council, as the appointed Crown Land Manager, is the first step in a process that will enable Council to effectively manager Crown reserves in line with the LGA.  There are subsequent steps required, including the development of LGA Plans of Management, that will assist in the holistic, co-ordinated and efficient management of all Council owned and managed land within the Local Government area.

 

It is recommended that Council adopt the recommendation to enable the next phase of the process to commence.

 

 

 


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


BS18/64       External Communications Strategy

Author:                        Group Leader Customer Services

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

MyCoffs:                      A.1 A vibrant and inclusive place

Attachments:              ATT1  BS18/64   External Communication Strategy 2018-2020  

 

Executive Summary

Council’s Operational Plan for 2017-18 identified the development of an External Communication Strategy to provide a framework to guide all external communication from Council.

 

While Council is currently undertaking many communication activities in different parts of the organisation, a more co-ordinated, strategic focus will integrate these activities and strengthen Council’s overall identity.

 

The strategy provides Council for the first time a comprehensive approach to reviewing, managing and improving Council’s external communication with its customers and the community.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the External Communication Strategy 2018-2020 (Attachment 1).

 

Report

Description of Item:

Council’s Operational Plan for 2017-18 identified the development of an External Communication Strategy to provide a framework to guide all external communication from Council.

 

The strategy was developed with the assistance of external communications consultant Dr Neryl East.

 

The over-arching aim of this strategy is to ensure Council messages are communicated effectively, proactively and consistently. More specifically, it will ensure Council’s communications:

 

·     Promote a positive image of Council

·     Contain key communication messages linked closely to the MyCoffs Community Strategic        Plan (CSP) and Council’s Delivery Program

·     Are delivered through the most effective channels

·     Reflect quality and consistency in branding and presentation

 

To achieve this aim, the strategy presents five strategic objectives. Each is linked to a set of actions.

 

The strategy aligns with Council’s Internal Communication Strategy (currently under development), as staff and elected members play a significant role in external communication – both as an audience and a group of potential reputation ambassadors.

 

The strategy also supports Council’s Community Engagement Policy and Framework.

Issues:

The strategy provides Council for the first time a comprehensive approach to reviewing, managing and improving how Council communicates with its customers and community.

 

A key part of the strategy is the establishment of key organisational messages which reflect the priorites identified through the following documents:

 

·     The MyCoffs CSP

·     Council’s adopted Delivery Plan

·     Customer Satisfaction Survey

·     Council’s Vision Statement

Options:

The following options are available to Council:

 

1.    Endorse the External Communication Strategy 2018-2020.

2.    Amend the External Communication Strategy by removing strategic objectives and associated actions and/or include additional strategic objecttives with associated actions.

3.    Reject the External Communication Strategy.  This will leave Council in its current situtaiton with no comprehensive approach to reviewing, managing and improving external communication.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The recommendation of this report is unlikely to result in any environmental issues.

•     Social

The recommendation of this report is unlikely to result in any social issues.  Providing a more co-ordinated and strategic focus on external communication will strengthen Council’s overall identity and better inform the community of Council’s priorities, being those also shared by the community.

•     Civic Leadership

Through the strategy Council will seek out opportunities to better communicate the many services, events and initiatives it provides, to raise awareness and build stronger relationships within the community.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

A strategic approach to external communication will assist Council to deliver messages in a more effective and consistent manner which is likely to result in a better utilisation of Council resource.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The implementation of the External Communication Strategy will be primarily undertaken using current resources.  The strategy does however contain three actions which require estimated additional funds totalling $15,000 which are not included in the 2018/19 Operational Plan.  This cost will be funded from existing budget funds within the Customer Services Group for 2018/19.

Risk Analysis:

The External Communication Strategy provides a framework to guide all external communication from Council.  This reduces various risks (such as reputational and litigation) that come from ineffective or insufficient external communication.

Consultation:

The development of this strategy commenced in mid-June 2018 with three workshops facilitated by communications consultant Dr Neryl East.  These workshops involved key staff and Councillors.

 

The information gathered from the workshops enabled Dr East to develop a preliminary strategy to which ‘key messages’ and ‘objective action plans’ were added.  This draft strategy was distributed to staff who participated in the workshops for further feedback.

 

A briefing on the strategy was also provided to Councillors on 16 October 2018.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The strategy provides a framework to guide all external communication from Council.  It links closely with Council’s Community Engagement Policy and Framework; as external communication largely makes up the “Inform” level of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Community Engagement Spectrum.

 

It is also aligned with Council’s Internal Communications Strategy (currently under development), as staff and elected members play a significant role in external communication, both as an audience and as reputation ambassadors.

 

Most importantly, this strategy links to the messages contained in the MyCoffs CSP and Council’s response through the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Given the number of actions and initatives to be undertaken the strategy involves a timeline of two years to implement completely.  Implementation progress will be reviewed on a quarterly basis.

Conclusion:

The External Communications Strategy 2018-2020 is presented for Council’s consideration and is recommended for endorsement.

 

 

 


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 


SC18/39       2018 Community Satisfaction Survey Report and 2018 Community Wellbeing Survey Report

Author:                        Section Leader Community Planning & Performance

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

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

Attachments:              ATT1  SC18/39   2018 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report

ATT2  SC18/39   2018 Community Wellbeing Survey Report  

 

Executive Summary

Every two years, Council conducts a Customer Satisfaction Survey and a Community Wellbeing Survey. The Customer Satisfaction Survey aims to assess satisfaction with Council facilities and services using a random and statistically valid sample. The Community Wellbeing Survey aims to assess ‘Community Wellbeing’ to help us track how the broader Coffs Harbour local government area community is progressing in achieving the objectives of the MyCoffs Community Strategic Plan.

 

The 2018 surveys were carried out by an independent consultant during June 2018. This report provides the results from these surveys.

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Note the findings of the 2018 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report and 2018 Community Wellbeing Survey Report.

2.       Note the placing of the 2018 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report and 2018 Community Wellbeing Survey Report on Council’s website.

 

Report

Description of Item:

In 2012, Coffs Harbour City Council initiated a Customer Satisfaction Survey to help the organisation evaluate its performance in the delivery of services and assess community priorities in regard to those services. A decision was made at that time to conduct the survey on a two yearly basis to monitor changes in satisfaction levels and priorities over time.

 

In 2014, Council initiated a second survey – measuring Community Wellbeing – to assess broader social indicators associated with the implementation of the Coffs Harbour Community Strategic Plan. This survey has also subsequently been carried out every two years.

 

Following a procurement process, Council engaged Jetty Research Pty Ltd in May 2018 to conduct the two surveys on its behalf in 2018. Jetty Research has completed the surveys and collated and analysed the findings in comparison with results from previous years. The survey reports are tabled with Council at this time.

Issues:

Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

(Source: Jetty Research report - Measuring satisfaction and priorities with regard to Council-managed facilities and services)

In 2012, Coffs Harbour City Council commissioned Jetty Research to conduct a random telephone survey of 500 adult residents living within the local government area (LGA). That survey aimed to assess satisfaction with, and priorities towards, Council facilities and services using a random and statistically valid sample. It was also designed to provide baseline data from which longitudinal (i.e. time-based) comparisons could be made in future years.

This survey was repeated in August 2014, in May 2016 and now again in June 2018, to see how satisfaction levels had changed over the intervening years. In 2018, 506 randomly selected residents were polled over a two week period.

Based on the number of Coffs Harbour households, a random sample of 506 adult residents implies a margin for error of +/- 4.4% at the 95% confidence level. This means that if a similar poll was conducted 20 times, results should reflect the views and behaviour of the overall survey population - in this case “all Coffs Harbour LGA adult residents excluding council employees and Councillors” - to within a +/- 4.4% margin in 19 of those 20 surveys (for more information on survey methodology, sampling error and sample characteristics, see pages 9-10 of the Report).

 

Key findings from the 2018 Customer Satisfaction Survey include:

1.       Of the 25 facilities and services rated, three scored in the “very high satisfaction” region (where average rating is >4 out of a possible 5.) These comprised sewerage (4.30), water supply (4.23) and libraries (4.11). Lowest satisfaction was recorded among maintenance of unsealed roads (2.89), maintenance of public toilets (2.93) and DA processing (2.96).

2.       Only one statistically significant improvement in satisfaction levels was observed between 2016 and 2018, with satisfaction in maintenance of unsealed roads increasing by 12% (to 2.89 out of a possible 5.0) in 2018. Three decreases in satisfaction were statistically significant: council pools (down 8%), waste and recycling (down 8%) and coastal management (down 6%). All other measures remained reasonably stable and at a high level.

3.       In terms of importance, and using a skewed 1-5 scale (where 1 = not important, 2 = important, 4 = very important and 5 = critical), only five services achieved importance scores of 4 or more. These were waste and recycling (with a mean importance of 4.55), maintenance of sealed roads (4.38), water supply (4.28), sewerage (4.24) and protection of the natural environment (4.06). Only DA processing, online services and enforcement of local building regulations (2.90, 3.0 and 3.2 respectively) ranked below the 3.0 midpoint on the 5-point scale in terms of importance.

4.       None of the 25 facilities and services had decreased significantly in importance and only one had increased (maintenance of unsealed roads was up 15.1% on 2016).

5.       All of Council’s facilities and services are deemed by our community to be ‘Important’. When placed into a quadrant-style matrix of importance vs. satisfaction, and using an arbitrary 3.5 “dividing line” across both satisfaction and importance scores, the following picture emerged. Of the 25 facilities and services measured, cleanliness of streets, lifeguards, parks, reserves and playgrounds, sewerage, waste and recycling and water supply were perceived as being of highest satisfaction and highest importance:

 

Note from Jetty Research re quadrant-style matrix of importance vs. satisfaction: It is important to remember that the quadrant is broken into "higher" and "lower" satisfaction/importance - not necessarily "high" or "low". The distinction is important, in that the higher/lower approach allows us to see how particular services/facilities are scored relative to each other - rather than being an absolute ranking based on the 1-5 scale.

 

That in turn allows us to ensure that there are services/facilities in all four quadrants - whereas in absolute terms (and using 3 as a cut-off on both measures) almost everything would appear above the importance cut-off, and the vast majority would also be above the satisfaction cut-off - hence most items would be clustered in the top-right quadrant.

 

It must also be remembered that the scores are about perceptions - not always reality. And also that averages can hide big distortions - especially in "niche" facilities/services (e.g. DAs or online services, which are of huge interest to a minority, but zero interest to everyone else).

 

In summary, the quadrant analysis is just one of many tools Council might use to decide on future resourcing. While it hopefully provides some ideas or red flags around community perceptions of the adequacy of different services/facilities, it is not, in itself, a magic bullet determining where resources should be allocated.

6.       Overall satisfaction with Council increased slightly in 2018 with a mean rating of 3.29 – up 1.9% on the 3.23 mean score recorded in 2016. When plotted against five other (mid-North Coast and New England) regional Councils who have conducted similar surveys since 2016, results show that Coffs Harbour City Council has the highest overall satisfaction rating:

 

7.       To drill down into the specific drivers of perceptions of overall satisfaction, the survey undertook a driver analysis which seeks to understand the correlations between the specific satisfaction statements and overall satisfaction with Council. The driver analysis indicated that the strongest drivers of overall satisfaction with Council are DA processing, enforcement of local building regulations, economic development and maintenance of bridges, footpaths and cycleways. Thus, if Council were to improve in any or all of these measures, perceptions of Council’s overall performance would improve significantly.

8.       Respondents were also asked to rank the relative importance for future resourcing of any facilities and services they had ranked as a 5 out of 5 (excluding the “known criticals” of sealed road maintenance, water supply, sewerage and waste/recycling). Similarly to 2016 results, protection of the natural environment, lifeguards, parks, reserves and playgrounds, coastal management and flood management were considered top priorities.

The full final report is provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

 

Community Wellbeing Survey Results

(Source: Jetty Research report – Coffs Harbour City Council Community Wellbeing Survey)

 

The Community Wellbeing Survey captures public opinion about the quality of life in Coffs Harbour. Council surveys Coffs Harbour residents to gain feedback on a range of social indicators across categories including Community Inclusiveness, Civic Leadership, Arts and Cultural Activities, Recreational and Sporting Activities, Environmental Access and Learning, and Community Spaces.

These findings are particularly useful for Council in helping to meet its legislative requirements in tracking the progress of the Coffs Harbour “MyCoffs” Community Strategic Plan. Every four years, Council is required to deliver an End of Term Report, including a picture of the community’s sense of wellbeing in terms of the aspirations expressed in the MyCoffs Plan.

'Wellbeing' is a general term to cover the health, happiness, and prosperity of the Coffs Harbour community. It is important to note that the survey questions ask about matters that may be outside Council’s direct influence and relate more to a respondent’s personal choices and subjective opinions about Coffs Harbour.

The 2014 and 2016 surveys were conducted online by Council (utilising a resident database derived from the Customer Satisfaction Monitor and additional Council sources), with analysis provided by Jetty Research Pty Ltd.

In May 2018, Council commissioned Jetty Research to undertake the Community Wellbeing Survey with a sample of at least 500 adult residents in the Coffs Harbour LGA, utilising a random and representative CATI (telephone) survey methodology. The 2018 survey included a number of new questions introduced to address ‘data gaps’ in Council’s reporting on the MyCoffs Community Strategic Plan. This survey will act as a baseline monitor to which future surveys will be compared.

For a random telephone sample of 505 adult residents among the adult population of the Coffs Harbour LGA, random sampling error is +/- 4.4% at the 95% confidence level. (For more information on survey methodology, sampling error and sample characteristics, see pages 8-9 of the Jetty Research report.)

The following table and analysis are drawn from the executive summary of the Jetty Research report – they show the proportions and mean scores from the Coffs Harbour City Council Community Wellbeing Survey, including comparisons with 2014, 2016 and 2018 and differences outlined.

 

 

*Note that in 2018, this measure changed to a “yes” / “no” measure from a five-point scale (where 5 meant ‘I always have the opportunity’ and 1 meant ‘I never have the opportunity’).

 

Key findings from the 2018 Community Wellbeing Survey include:

1.    The mean social connectedness score in 2018 was 3.77 with 60% rating their feeling of being part of the community as a 4 (29%) or 5 (31%) out of 5.

2.    Perception of safety was highest when at home in the day (81% feeling "very safe") followed by at home at night (69%). Some 18% indicated feeling unsafe when walking alone at night, highest among those residing in the South (47%), those aged 60 years and over (42%), and females (40%).

3.    Over nine in ten (92%) said they visited the Coffs Harbour City Centre. Perception of City Centre vibrancy recorded a mean liveliness score of 3.5 (out of 5) during the day, and 2.1 at night.

4.    Just under half (44%) claimed to do voluntary work. Of those, over two-thirds (68%) claimed to do so monthly or more (80% among females).

5.    Almost two thirds of respondents (61%) felt they had an opportunity to have their say on important local issues.

6.    Over half of respondents (54%) said they regularly attended arts and cultural activities. Of those, almost three in ten (29%) said they did so monthly or more.

7.    Almost half (46%) felt very or quite satisfied with the opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities locally, while 16% were dissatisfied.

8.    Just over four in five claimed to regularly participate in recreational activities with others (81%). Of those, almost three-quarters (73%) claimed to do so once a week or more.

9.    Just under one-third (31%) said they participated in organised sporting events and of those, almost nine in ten (88%) participated at least weekly including 27% who participated three or more times a week.

10.  Almost one-quarter (23%) said they had participated in some form of environmental event, activity or group at some point over the past two years.

11.  Seven in ten said they used walking or cycling tracks and of those, there was a high level of satisfaction with three quarters providing a score of 4 or 5 (out of 5) against just 5% expressing dissatisfaction.

12.  Some 48% were satisfied against just 14% dissatisfied with opportunities to learn about the region’s natural areas.

13.  In terms of specific environmental initiatives, awareness was extremely high for the Botanic Gardens (nominated by 96% of respondents), the Coffs Creek Walk (90%) and the Solitary Islands Coastal Walk (83%). Meanwhile, just under one in five (18%) claimed familiarity with the Ambassador Tours.

14.  Only 16% of respondents said they had used local public transport within the last year. Usage was highest among those living in the City (at 23%) and those aged 18 to 39 years (29%).

15.  Net satisfaction with quality of life in the local government area was extremely high at +88%, with over half (56%) rating their quality of life as a five out of five.

16.  Almost half (48%) were able to correctly identify the Aboriginal name for the local Aboriginal nation, while a further 8% felt they knew the name but were incorrect. Some 44% were unsure. Awareness was highest among females (53%) and those aged 40 to 59 years (58%).

17.  Some 61% agreed that the presence of a broad range of cultures made Coffs Harbour a better place while 15% disagreed. Younger residents and women were the most welcoming of other cultures.

18.  One-quarter of residents agreed that the politicians representing them locally, state-wide and nationally acted in an honest, open and transparent way - in contrast to 42% in disagreement.

19.  Seven in ten of those surveyed rated their overall health as high (44% rated their health a 4 out of 5 and 26% a 5 out of 5). Just 8% rated their health as a 1 or 2 out of 5.

20.  Pride in the LGA was high, with a mean rating score of 3.9 out of 5. Over three in ten rated their pride as 5 out of 5 and a further 38% as 4 out of 5. Just 9% rated their pride as a 1 or 2 out of five resulting in a net pride rating of 61%.

21.  Some 77% agreed that the local streets, parks and reserves are clean, attractive and welcoming.

22.  Local residents were positive regarding the area’s public services with 72% rating their agreement as a 4 or 5 out of 5 against just 8% rating it as 1 or 2 (a net agreement rating of 64%).

23.  Perception of infrastructure was not quite as favourable with just over half (52%) rating their agreement that “the area has good public facilities and infrastructure” as a 4 or 5 out of 5 against 20% disagreement (a rating of 1 or 2).

The full final report is provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Options:

As this report is to enable the public release of an information resource for Council and the community, an options analysis is not required.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The surveys seek community feedback on residents’ engagement with the local environment and their satisfaction with Council services that aim to protect and enhance the environment.

•     Social

The surveys seek community feedback on the quality of life in Coffs Harbour and Council services and facilities that aim to foster a vibrant, inclusive and healthy community.

•     Civic Leadership

The surveys help to ensure that the community’s voice is heard in Council’s decision-making on strategic priorities and service delivery. In this regard, they contribute to the achievement of the Community Strategic Plan Objective D.2 We have effective use of public resources.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The surveys seek community feedback on Council services that aim to foster economic growth in Coffs Harbour.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The findings of the surveys will inform decision-making in the development of Council services in the future. Any budget impacts will be subject to the evaluation and consultation processes implemented in the preparation of Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan; any associated expenditure is monitored through Council’s monthly and quarterly budget reviews.

Risk Analysis:

Any risk associated with the staging of these surveys relates to the value generated from the investment. The local government sector has a heightened commitment to effective community engagement; surveys are recognised as a valuable and affordable tool in this process. The random phone poll, carried out independently across a statistically valid sample, provides a significant and non-partisan snapshot of community opinion on key issues at a given time. This information can be considered with a level of confidence that may not be matched as easily through other forms of community engagement. The survey findings help to inform Council’s ongoing monitoring of operational performance as well as the review and development of the organisation’s strategic directions. It could be argued that Council places itself at risk by not conducting such surveys.

Consultation:

The development of the survey questions required the participation of staff responsible for the delivery of Council services across the organisation.

 

The random sample methodology ensures that the surveys generate responses that are statistically valid and representative of the wider Coffs Harbour local government area community.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

There is no legislative requirement for Council to conduct community surveys; however they are recognised as a valuable resource in developing and monitoring Council programs. The outcomes of the 2018 surveys will contribute to community engagement strategies across the organisation, including those required under the Integrated Planning and Reporting provisions (Section 402) of the NSW Local Government Act 1993.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Once noted by Council, the survey reports will be distributed to Council staff and will be made available to the community through the Community Engagement section of Council’s website.

Conclusion:

That Council notes the findings of the 2018 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report and 2018 Community Wellbeing Survey Report.

 


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


 

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


SC18/40       RFP-1020-TO Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium Naming Rights

Author:                        Group Leader City Prosperity

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

MyCoffs:                      B.1 A thriving and sustainable local economy

Attachments:              ATT1  SC18/40   CONFIDENTIAL          Proposal assessment - RFP-1020-TO Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium Naming Rights 

Confidential in accordance with Section 10A(2)(c),(d)(i),(d)(ii) of the Local Government Act as it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business, and commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, and information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council.  

 

Executive Summary

The Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium naming rights is an important partnership for Council, particularly at this important time due to the significant upgrade of the venue.  This report provides Council with the outcome of an open market Request for Proposal and subsequent evaluation.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the recommendations as detailed in the confidential attachment.

 

Report

Description of Item:

In 2013, Council entered into a five year naming rights agreement for the Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium (currently known as C.ex Coffs International Stadium) with the C.ex Group, which has now concluded. 

 

Given the significant upgrade of the Stadium currently underway, having regard to probity considerations, and having sought advice from Venues NSW on best practice, the recommended process was to:

·    Release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium Naming Rights in September 2018 via the open market.

·    Offer one successful entity Naming Rights Sponsorship at the Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium for a Term of Five (5) years, with two options at the mutual agreement of Council and the Sponsor – the first option being for three (3) years and the second option being for two (2) years (5+3+2).

 

The Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on 11 September 2018 and distributed via Tenderlink, advertisement in the Coffs Coast Advocate and direct mail out.  The RFP closed on 5 October 2018.

 

Using Council’s tender value management system, submissions were evaluated on the following criteria:

·    The alignment or fit of the brand, products, name and message with the positive, fit and healthy lifestyle and thriving business opportunities that Council is encouraging

·    The geographical reference to the Coffs Coast community and Stadium

·    The community focus and values of the respondent

·    The capability of the respondent to attract new business/events/audiences to the Stadium and the Coffs Coast

·    Indicated level of annual financial investment

·    Any additional value the respondent could bring to the partnership (value added services)

Issues:

Please refer to the confidential attachment.

Options:

1.    Accept the recommendations as outlined in the confidential attachment

2.    Amend or reject the recommendations as outlined in the confidential attachment

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

•     Social

As outlined above, the community focus of potential naming rights partners was considered during the evaluation.

•     Civic Leadership

The Stadium plays a vital role in contributing to a thriving and sustainable economy.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

Sports tourism and specifically events held at the Stadium make a significant contribution to the Coffs Harbour visitor economy, which is conservatively estimated at $30 million annually.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

Please refer to the confidential attachment

Risk Analysis:

The naming rights agreement will ensure the values of the naming rights partner align with Council and this was a key consideration in the evaluation process.

Consultation:

Consultation on the single stage competitive process has been undertaken with regard to probity considerations, and with Venues NSW who has given permission to use their process and templates as the basis for the Request for Proposal.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council has had two previous naming rights partnerships for the Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium.

 

The calling, receiving and reviewing of the Request For Proposal was undertaken in accordance with Part 7 Tendering of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Please refer to the confidential attachment

Conclusion:

The Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium naming rights is an important partnership for Council, at this exciting time in the development of the International Stadium.

  


SI18/22         Proposal to Name an Unnamed Creek at Korora as Williams Creek

Author:                        Group Leader Strategic Asset Management

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Infrastructure

MyCoffs:                      C.1 Liveable neighbourhoods with a defined identity

Attachments:              ATT1  SI18/22     Map showing proposed Williams Creek  

 

Executive Summary

The NSW Geographical Names Board (GNB) has received a proposal from a member of the public to name a creek located within Korora as Williams Creek. The GNB has consulted with the community, receiving no objections to the proposal or alternate proposals to name the creek, and now seeks the endorsement of Coffs Harbour City Council to proceed with the final assessment of naming of the creek.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Advise the NSW Geographical Names Board that it supports the proposal by a local community member to name a creek at Korora as Williams Creek.

2.       Note the NSW Geographical Names Board’s community consultation and assessment of the proposal to commemorate deceased local farmers with the naming of Williams Creek.

3.       Note that the Geographical Names Board has received no objections to the proposal following advertising in the Coffs Coast Advocate inviting community comments.

4.       Update mapping to identify Williams Creek when it is Gazetted.

 

Report

Description of Item:

The NSW Geographical Names Board (GNB) has received and assessed a duly and properly completed application by a descendant of deceased local farmers to name an un-named creek at Korora as Williams Creek.

 

The creek originates about 17 metres north-east of the end of Jordans Way, extending south for about 1.7 km before joining Pine Brush Creek. The creek flows through land once farmed by the proponent’s father and grandfather, before joining Pine Brush Creek at the Pacific Highway and eventually flowing to an Intermittently Closed and Open Lagoon at Hills Beach (see map attached).

 

Cecil Theodore Williams (born 1914 - deceased 1987) purchased land in Korora in 1947 and farmed the land with his father, Benjamin Williams (b1877). Benjamin Williams lived on the property until his death in 1965.

 

Cecil and Benjamin principally grew tomatoes with peas, beans and bananas. Water for irrigation and household use was pumped from the unnamed water course running through the property.

 

The Geographical Names Act 1966, empowers the GNB to assign names to places, investigate and determine the form, spelling, meaning, pronunciation, origin and history of any geographical name and to apply names with regard to position, extent or otherwise.

 

Place means any geographical or topographical feature or any district, division, locality, region, city, town, village, settlement, railway station or school or any other place within NSW but does not include any road, any local government area, urban area, county district or electoral division.

 

Proposals for new place names, while determined by the GNB, must have the support of the local Council to gain final approval by the GNB.

 

The purpose of Council’s Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy is to acknowledge that people share a relationship with the land and that the names we give to places remind us of their significance, local history and identity. Names orientate us within the landscape and help us identify features and places.

 

The GNB’s guidelines and procedures are aimed at ensuring community input, giving all interested parties a say in a naming decision and minimising duplication of names.

 

The GNB has advertised the creek naming proposal in the Coffs Coast Advocate, seeking public comment. No comments were received during the consultation period.

 

The next step is for the Geographical Names Board to officially assign the name in the NSW Government Gazette, pending support from Coffs Harbour City Council.

Issues:

Council’s Reserve Naming and Memorial Policy states that Council is also committed to recognising Aboriginal cultural heritage by registering original place names given by Aboriginal people so they sit side by side with existing European names.

 

The GNB’s Commemorative naming guidelines state that the GNB’s primary directive is to give precedence in using names of Aboriginal origin associated with the feature or a name with an historical background in the area of the feature.

 

The use of Indigenous names is guided by the GNB’s Dual Naming supporting cultural recognition factsheet. The dual naming system applies to already named geographical features such as rivers, creeks, waterfalls, beaches, harbours, islands, mountains and caves – specifically those cultural and environmental features of significance to the local Indigenous community.

 

Should Council support the proposal, leading to the official Gazettal of the naming of Williams Creek, there may be an opportunity in the future for dual naming of the creek. Relying on community involvement, a dual name can be assigned where there is strong evidence, in the form of written or oral tradition, of a pre-existing Indigenous place name.

Options:

1.       Adopt the Recommendation to advise the Geographical Names Board that Council supports the proposal to name the waterway as Williams Creek.

2.       Reject the Recommendation and advise the Geographical Names Board that Council does no support the proposal.

 

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

Naming of the waterway may assist location directions for future environmental controls or remediation works.

•     Social

Naming of the creek as Williams Creek commemorates deceased local farmers and recognises the history of farming in the Korora basin. Naming of the creek also opens up the opportunity for dual naming in the future if there is evidence of a pre-existing Indigenous place name.

•     Civic Leadership

Consideration of a local resident’s proposal to name a geographical feature, review of dual naming opportunities and liaison with the GNB to enable thorough consultation and assessment of the naming proposal demonstrates Council’s effective participation in statutory processes to name places, giving consideration to local history and current community values.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no anticipated economic implications of this proposal.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There are no anticipated economic implications of this proposal. Potential mapping of a newly named creek would be conducted utilising existing resources. All advertising, including Gazettal, of a future name is conducted by the GNB.

Risk Analysis:

There is minimal risk associated with the naming proposal. Naming of the creek would reduce risk of damage to surrounding property and reduce risk of injury to surrounding residents, as specific locations would be more accurately identified by emergency services should the need arise.

Consultation:

The GNB resolved to advertise the name for public comment at its May meeting.  The proposal was thence advertised for public comment in the Coffs Coast Advocate on 11 July 2018.  The submission period ran through to 11 August 2018.  No comments were received during this period.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Geographical Names Act 1966.

Implementation Date / Priority:

GNB will consider Council’s recommendation prior to making a final determination whether to proceed with the naming and Gazettal of the un-named creek.

Conclusion:

Council’s support for the proposal to name the creek would honour local farming history, open up opportunity for dual naming in the future, and enable improved identification of geographical features within the Korora basin.

 

 


PDF Creator