NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

Works Inspection Committee - 20 February 2008

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        PRAYER

3        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES — Works Inspection Committee - 16 January 2008

5        DELEGATIONS—Motion to hear Delegations

6        QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

7        General Manager Report

7.1     December Budget Review

7.2     Report on Investments

7.3     Overview of Re-valuation

8        Director Environment and Planning Report

8.1     Presentation by Rural Fire Service Personnel

9        Director Engineering Services Report

9.1     Asset Management

9.2     DA1981/246 - Glen Sheather Drive

9.3     20-22 Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads

9.4     Policy Review--Beaches--General--Bonfires and Damage

9.5     Policy Review--Beaches--General--Horses on Beaches   

10      General Manager's Summary of Items to be Discussed in Closed Meeting

10.1   Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

  

11      MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

12      REVERT TO OPEN MEETING FOR DECISIONS IN RELATION TO ITEMS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED MEETING.

 



Works Inspection Committee

20 February 2008

General Manager's Report

ITEM 7.1      SF1071        200208         December Budget Review

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Craig Doolan, Manager Financial Services; Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services; Matthew Vinen, Accountant          

 

Summary:

 

General Fund:                This review revises the net operating result for 2007/08 to a deficit of $256,800 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $1,720,076, a decline of $512,200 since the Original Budget inclusive of the internal loan for Betts Bridge.

                                     

Council’s estimated Current Liquid Equity (available working capital at year end) is satisfactory at approximately $741,000 above the minimum level as per Council’s policy.

 

Water Supplies:             This review revises the net operating result for 2007/08 to a deficit of $110,900 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $1,225,180, a decline of $97,100 since the Original Budget.

 

Council’s estimated Current Liquid Equity (available working capital at year end) is satisfactory at approximately $778,000 above the minimum level as per Council’s policy.

 

Sewerage Services:        This review revises the net operating result for 2007/08 to a deficit of $113,600 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $580,362, a decline of $109,800 since the Original Budget.

 

Council’s estimated Current Liquid Equity (available working capital at year end) is satisfactory at approximately $233,000 above the minimum level as per Council’s policy.

 

The circularised budget review document includes, as variances, amounts required to match unexpected income/expenditure items plus resolved inclusions to the budget. Items varying $5,000 or more are briefly discussed commencing page 2 and are referenced to the page number in the body of the budget review document. Significant variations influencing the result are discussed further in this report.

 

Also circularised for Council’s information is a Quarterly Program review of Capital Works & Major Programs.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That the budget review for the quarter ended 31 December, 2007 be received.

 

2        That the recommended increases and decreases in votes be included as subsequent votes for the financial year 2007/2008.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Not applicable.

 

 


DISCUSSION:

 

GENERAL ACTIVITIES.

 

The summary of current liquid equity is on page 1 of the Budget Review document. The estimated current liquid equity surplus is $1,720,076 inclusive of the Betts Bridge internal loan.

 

The original 2007/08 budget forecast a net operating deficit of $1,600. Items revoted from 2006/07 amounted to $1,174,500. The balance of internal loans borrowed from current liquid equity was $344,715.

 

The September review revised the result for 2007/08 to a net operating deficit of $84,300. The result was a decline of $82,700 on the original budget deficit. The balance of internal loans borrowed from current liquid equity increased to $601,715 following the inclusion of the Betts Bridge internal loan.

 

This December review revises the result for 2007/08 to a net operating deficit of $256,800, a decline of $172,500 on the September review and a decline of $255,200 on the original budget deficit.

 

As advised at Council’s meeting of 17 January 2008 a variance for the poor performance of interest on investments was expected. The variance amounted to an overall reduction in expected returns of $551,200 and a reduction of $179,800 to General Activities’ working funds.

 

Also impacting on the operating result is an increase in Council’s Workers Compensation Premium $93,400. The increase relates to the claims history component, primarily three current claims that the insurer has forecast high cost estimates in relation to medical and legal costs. It is not expected that the figure estimated by the insurer will eventuate and therefore an adjustment in future premiums is expected to occur.

 

As discussed in a report to Council on 14 November 2007 a variance would be required for the maintenance of the Hydrotherapy Pool / Gymnasium. The additional amount required has been estimated at $40,000.

 

The land and Environment court action in relation to the West St development and legal advice regarding the Matthew St DA have required an increase to Town Planning legal expenses of $55,000. Court orders for the West St development offset the expenditure by $35,000.

 

A variance of $20,000 is also required as the funding request from DIPNR for Strategic Town Planning was unsuccessful.

 

Due to vacancies and delays in replacement of staff in the Engineering Services Department a saving of $138,000 has been included in this review represented through savings in salaries and superannuation. The traditional six month overhead distribution evaluation will slightly alter this figure in terms of the saving to general. The recalculation of overheads will be done upon the adoption of this review and variances will be included with the March Budget Review.

 

Also impacting favourably on the result, greater than expected patronage at the Waste Depot has led to an increase in expected gate fees revenue of $21,700.

 

Director Engineering Services has provided commentary on the following items:

 

3000-000 Bridge Maintenance

 

This item was expended early as strengthening of Lavertys and Touts bridges was necessary. Both bridges are due for replacement over the next three years.

 

The flood in January 2008 was significant in northern NSW but only minor in the Nambucca Valley. Repairs to bridges and approaches has cost $10,000 requiring an increase in the vote.

 

Damage is still being found so it may be necessary to re-visit this again in the March Budget Review.

 

Bridges

 

The program has been delayed due to the need to relocate the optic fibre cable at Betts Bridge before any other work can proceed. The company are expected to carryout the work after the Christmas break.

 

In the meantime staff have commenced McGuigans Bridge on the Allgomera Rd. The revised timetable still allows for the bridge program to be completed in June 2008.

 

The single land, single span bridges on Carsons Rd have come in under cost. Further inspections of the Albatross Bridge relating to the approvals for the by-pass indicate that extra costs will be incurred. For that reason some of the savings have been allocated to that bridge.

 

 

While this alone means a reduction in costs within the processing budget because of the date it is not proposed to adjust these until the March Budget Review when more accurate costs are known.

 

In the meantime the income has increased which more than covers the extra operation expenses. The following table identifies the variances required for this review:

 

Domestic

Job #

Estimate

Revised Estimate

Variance this Review

1510-000

$14,000

$24,000

$10,000

1510-002

$130,000

$142,000

$12,000

1510-004

$11,600

$13,600

$2,000

Other Waste

1580-000

$3,500

$11,500

$8,000

1580-002

$32,000

$35,000

$3,000

1580-004

$2,500

$3,500

$1,000

Leachate

1546-000

$5,000

$8,500

$3,500

Income

6625-000

($48,300)

($70,000)

($21,700)

6625-003

($54,000)

($60,000)

($6,000)

6663-002

($55,000)

($60,000)

($5,000)

6664-000

($80,000)

($99,200)

($19,200)

 

2850-000 Sealed Pavement Maintenance

 

Two factors have contributed to an increase in this item. The first being the retention of the Flocon truck as a second vehicle to “catch” up on the pothole repairs, this cost $20,000.

 

The second factor has been dealing with the wet weather. This has resulted in the need for regular pothole repairs however the main reason for the extra costs has been storm damage. This area did not sustain the major damage of the Northern NSW Councils but we did receive damage. The continuing wet weather is unlikely to allow savings to be made. The overall budget will increase by $40,000.

 

Stuart Island Causeway

 

The cost for this project increased from the estimated $97,300 to $128,000.

 

The increase is primarily from the extended construction period from having to work when tide heights were acceptable. The impact was much greater than anticipated.

 

Extra work was also required to lay the culvert units due to the broad tolerances of the precast concrete units creating uneven gaps that slowed placement and required filling of the voids with concrete. The manufacturer did not accept that the units had unacceptable tolerances.

 


The allocated funding is as follows:

 

Environmental Levy                    $71,600

Grant (Dept of Primary Industries)         $25,700

 

An application has been made to the Dept of Primary Industries for a further $15,350 or 50% of the additional cost. The Estuary Management budget has not been totally allocated for 2007/2008 and cannot be until the Estuary Management Plan is adopted.

 

The funding provided for estuary management has enabled the following projects to be undertaken all with additional grant funds.

 

Newee Creek                            $15,000

Stuart Island Causeway             $30,000

Tourist Office Wharf                   $27,000

 

There remains $145,800 of which around $20,000 will be spent on finalising the WBM Consultancy. This leaves $125,800 unallocated and it is proposed that the extra $30,700 for the causeway be funded from this allocation which still leaves $95,100 unallocated.

 

Budget Review 30 June 2007

 

The summary of Capital Works was prepared but accidentally omitted from the budget papers relating to the end of the financial year. Council requested that this still comes forward together with reasons for variances and implications for the current program. This summary is circularised.

 

The projects not completed or substantially completed have been broken up into 4 categories as follows:

 

A       Projects Deferred

 

·    Anderson Park Amenities

Unable to be funded without significant external funding. Deferred to 2009/10. No impact on 2007/08.

 

·    Buz Brazel Park

Application for Native Vegetation clearing denied. Project revoted and a new application made.

 

·    Nambucca Heads Skate Facility

No acceptable site. New DA submitted for Coronation Park in 2007/08.

 

·    Hyland Park Subdivision

Deferred until real estate market improves. Start date to be reviewed in 2008.

 

·    Cycleway

Delayed to allow continuous expenditure of 2006/07 and 2007/08 grant funds.

 

B       Projects completed but costs not finalised

 

·    Snakey Creek Bridge

Structure built, guardrail outstanding. No impact on 2007/08.

 

C       Projects partly completed

 

·    Waste Transfer Station

The delay in construction was due to the late delivery of precast components but had no impact as the station was still completed before it was needed.

 


D       Projects outstanding

 

·    Weighbridge (Waste)

Delayed until after the Transfer Station completed to ensure that new traffic movement patterns matched up.

 

·    Retaining Walls

Unable to secure designs. Still an issue with discussions underway with consultants.

 

·    Regional Road

Held over to provide sufficient funds for rehabilitation of Scotts Head Rd.

 

·    Scotts Head Reserve Improvements

Linked to the delay with Buz Brazel Park.

 

At the request of Cr Duffus Council has resolved that a report on maintenance operations be presented on a quarterly basis.

 

Data has been extracted from the Maintenance Management System (REFLECT) for the activities requested by Cr Duffus as follows for the period 1 October to 31 December 2007:-

 

Activity

No of Locations

Time Worked

Bitumen Pothole Patching

55

302 hrs

Reach Mowing

46

270 hrs

Rural Mowing with Slasher

63

224 hrs

 

As the Maintenance Management System is still in the implementation phase, data for Maintenance Grading is limited.  However full implementation of this activity is currently being undertaken.

 

Preliminary information shows that one grader serviced eight (8) roads in the period 7 November to 14 December 2007.  The actual length of road graded will be available in future reports.

 

WATER SUPPLIES.

 

The summary of current liquid equity is on page 1 of the Budget Review document. The estimated current liquid equity surplus is $1,225,180.

 

The original 2007/08 budget forecast a net operating deficit of $13,800. Items revoted from 2006/07 amounted to $763,200.

 

The September review revised the result for 2007/08 to an operating deficit of $87,000, a decline of $73,200 on the original budget deficit.

 

This December review revises the result for 2007/08 to an operating deficit of $110,900, a decline of $23,900 on the September Review and a decline of $97,100 on the original budget deficit.

 

As has been the case in the general fund a decline in working funds of $42,700 has been included for the result of the interest on investments.

 

The other major item is an increase in income of $22,000 for mobile phone tower rental due to new towers being erected at Nambucca and Valla Beach.

 

SEWERAGE SERVICES.

 

The summary of current liquid equity is on page 1 of the Budget Review document. The estimated current liquid equity surplus is $580,362.

 

The original 2007/08 budget forecast a net operating deficit of $3,800. Items revoted from 2006/07 amounted to $425,662.

 

The September review revised the result for 2007/08 to a net operating deficit of $67,100, a decline of $63,300 on the original budget deficit.

 

This December review revises the result for 2007/08 to a net operating deficit of $113,600, a decline of $46,500 on the September Review and a decline of $109,800 on the original budget.

 

As mentioned above in both General Activities and Water Supply the result of interest on investments has seen a decline in working funds of $27,900 for this activity.

 

A variance of $14,400 has been included for the principal and interest repayments on a loan that was renewed in June 2007. This amount was omitted from the original budget as at the time the budget was adopted it was proposed to pay this loan out. Council subsequently resolved to renew the loan.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Not applicable

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Not applicable.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Refer to discussion.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Works Inspection Committee

20 February 2008

General Manager's Report

ITEM 7.2      SF394         200208         Report on Investments

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Craig Doolan, Manager Financial Services; Matthew Vinen, Accountant          

 

Summary:

 

Return on investments year to date to 31 January 2008 is $276,930.31. January was another volatile month for investment returns with Council’s medium and long term investments performing poorly.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That the Manager Financial Services’ Report on Investments placed to 31 January 2008 be noted.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

This report is for information only.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report details all the investments placed during January and Council funds invested as at 31 January 2008.

 

I certify that the investments listed within the report have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended), the Regulations and Council Policy 1.9 – Investment of Surplus Funds

 

 

C P Doolan

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

1        Investments Matured & Interest Earned 1 to 31 January 2008

 

Managed Funds (medium term funds up to 5 years)

 

Institution

Amount

Period

(Days)

Performance for Month %

Interest Earned for Month

Annualised Performance FYTD

Interest Earned FYTD

Aberdeen

$5,420,200.32

31

-0.27%

-$14,411.41

2.36%

$74,972.44

Blackrock

$4,502,415.51

31

-0.79%

-$35,376.14

-3.60%

-$94,650.61

Macquarie Income Plus

$4,532,481.74

31

0.65%

$29,622.79

4.07%

$112,597.95

 


 

Long Term Funds (greater than 5 years)

 

Institution

Amount

Period

(Days)

Performance for Month %

Monthly change in Net Asset Value

LTD change in Net Asset Value

Interest coupons paid to date

NSW Treasury Corp

$995,310.82

31

-5.55%

-$55,263.17

-$62,914.13

N/A

Longreach 2-2007*

$909,080.00

31

-3.80%

-$34,590.00

-$125,510.00

$13,869.86

Longreach Series 26*

$448,150.00

31

-7.60%

-$34,050.00

-$85,900.00

$17,500.00

ANZ Averon II*

$446,975.00

31

-5.63%

-$25,175.00

-$78,200.00

$16,696.60

 

*Investments are capital Guaranteed on Maturity.

Longreach Investments pay an interest coupon bi-annually during the life of the investment.

ANZ Averon II pays an interest coupon quarterly during the life of the investment.

 

Another poor monthly performance has been experienced by Council and investment markets globally. Council’s estimated returns have been reviewed and as a result total interest on investments is now forecast to be $964,000 a reduction of $561,700 on the original budget of $1,525,700.

 

The variances to working capital are $179,800 for General Activities, $42,700 for Water Supplies and $27,900 for Sewerage Services.

 

January’s returns highlight a continuation of volatility in the investment environment. Term deposits will continue to be utilised for surplus cash with a review of this approach to coincide with a stabilisation of the non cash sector of the investment environment. For instance, Council’s third quarterly instalment of the Financial Assistance Grant due 18 February will be placed on a TD where as in the past was invested with one of the managed funds.

 

As shown in the table above, Council has three capital protected long term investments. Each pays an interest coupon during the life of the investment which is available for immediate utilisation. On the other hand the gains or losses on these investments are unrealisable until redeemed and along with the intention to hold these investments over the long term are therefore not available as working capital in the short term.

 

A line item separately identifying the unrealisable gains/losses on these particular investments is shown at item 4 below. 

 

It should be noted that the capital protection of these investments is lost if they are redeemed prior to maturity and any gain or loss impacting on the budget result.


 

3        Investments held at 31 January 2008 

 

Institution

Amount

Period

Maturity Date

BCCU

$573,246.03

184

14/02/08

LGFS

$813,502.25

121

03/04/08

Bankwest

$762,760.27

180

13/05/08

IMB

$506,075.62

90

05/02/08

Bankwest

$1,000,000.00

365

04/09/08

National Aust Bank

$1,500,000.00

183

13/06/08

Macquarie Bank

$2,000,000.00

90

20/03/08

Aberdeen

$5,405,788.91

N/A

N/A

Blackrock

$4,467,039.37

N/A

N/A

Macquarie Income Plus

$4,562,104.53

N/A

N/A

NSW Treasury Corp

$940,047.65

N/A

N/A

Longreach 2-2007

$874,490.00

5 Years

16/05/2012

Longreach Series 26

$414,100.00

7 Years

7/06/2014

Averon II

$421,800.00

7 Years

24/07/2014

TOTAL

$24,240,954.63

 

 

 

4        Investment returns:  January 2008

 

Total

Interest and capital variations to date

-$69,849.52

Plus

Interest due on maturity of Term Deposits

$109,319.83

Accrued  to 31/01/08

$39,470.31

Plus

Year to date unrealised changes in Net Asset Value of Capital Protected Securities

$237,460.00

Investment Returns to 31/01/08

$276,930.31

Amount of returns expected from all funds and reserves as per adopted Budget.

$964,000.00

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Grove Research and Advisory

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Not Applicable

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

A variance of $179,800 to General Fund, $42,700 to Water Supplies and $27,900 to Sewerage Services has been included in the December Budget Review.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Works Inspection Committee

20 February 2008

General Manager's Report

ITEM 7.3      SF630         200208         Overview of Re-valuation

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Jenita Hunt, Rates Officer          

 

Summary:

 

In January 2008 The Valuer General NSW issued new Land Values to all land owners in the Shire with a base date of 1 July 2007. 

 

Council has already been provided with the Valuation file.  The valuation total for the Shire has increased from $1,385,734,575 to $1,489,712,230 an increase of 7.5%.

 

Council is now able to make some reference to the impact on rates the new valuations are likely to have, bearing in mind that these valuations came into force from 1 July 2007 and will be applied for the first time for the 2008/09 rating year.

 

Councils rating structure has remained unaltered since inception of the 1993 Act but has been refined on a needs basis.  Reviews of the categories and sub-categories are undertaken on a regular basis.  A review of the Farmland category is scheduled for next financial year.

 

Ratepegging was introduced in 1977 and Council has maintained a policy of deriving the same percentage of revenue from each of the categories/sub-categories each year.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council adopt Forecast 5 below, maintaining a common ad valorem for all Residential sub-categories, and maintain the same percentage income derived from each of the other categories.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has several options when assessing the new valuations and the current rate structure.

 

Options include:

 

1        Maintaining the percentage yield generated from each sub-category as previous rating years, with a common ad valorem over all Residential sub-categories.

2        Increasing the yield generated from sub-categories Residential-Village/Estate and Residential-Town to better reflect growth from recent subdivisions

3        Changing the structure of Residential category to better reflect the difference in Land Values within each town centre.

4        Re-categorising Business-Caravan Park and Business-Manufactured Home Community to either Business or Business-Commercial, dependant upon where the caravan park is located.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has 9 rate categories/subcategories and the rate income for each category is increased yearly by the approved pegging (Sec 506).  New valuations can result in varying percentage increases/decreases to rate accounts as individual land values increase disproportionate to the percentage increase in total valuations for their rate category.

 

It is important to note that the increased values do not generate additional rate income – however they do redistribute the rate burden.


The following table identifies the Net Rateable valuation movement by category/sub-category:

 

Rate Category/Sub-Categories

2004 Values

2007 Values

% Increase

Farmland

140,439,880

163,230,170

15.61

Residential

-       Town

-       Village/Estate

-       Rural

TOTAL

 

742,252,716

292,739,880

79,872,320

1,114,864,916

 

747,640,916

339,239,590

90,737,510

1,177,618,016

 

0.73

15.88

13.60

 

Business

-       Manufactured Home Community

-       Commercial

-       Industrial

-       Caravan Parks

 

24,939,088

2,020,000

39,635,588

11,023,400

9,012,000

86,630,076

27,356,935

2,924,000

43,325,093

18,113,900

10,811,000

102,530,928

9.7

44.75

9.31

64.32

19.96

SHIRE TOTAL

1,341,934,872

1,443,379,114

7.49

 

 

The percentage income derived from each sub-category is tabled below:

 

Rate Category/Sub-Categories

2007/2008

Notional Income

% Total Income

Farmland

680,129

9.62

Residential

-       Town

-       Village/Estate

-       Rural

TOTAL

 

3,655,118

1,324,154

386,255

 

51.65

5.46

18.71

Business

-       Manufactured Home Community

-       Commercial

-       Industrial

-       Caravan Parks

 

178,119

13,741

370,298

99,409

90,934

2.52

0.195

5.23

1.4

1.29

Environmental

278,210

3.94

TOTAL

7,076,367

100%

 

 

ANALYSIS BY CATEGORY/SUB-CATEGORY:

 

Note:  the ad valorem rate for the Categories Residential-Rural and Business must continue to be the lowest rate for that particular category.

 

 

RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY

 

The 2007/2008 rating structure utilizes a minimum amount of $588 and an ad valorem rate of 0.360850.  This is currently applied to all Residential Sub Categories. 

 

The Residential Category (7864 assessments) is currently responsible for 75.82% of Council Rate Revenue raised.  

 

The Residential category is sub-categorised as follows:

Residential-Town

Residential-Rural

Residential-Village/Estate

 

Residential-Town category (5254 assessments) of which 72.33% assessment levied the minimum rate;

 

Residential-Rural category (591 assessments) of which 75.97% assessment levied the minimum rate;

 

Residential-Village/Estate (2019 assessments) of which 64.88% assessments levied the minimum rate;

 

To decrease the number of assessments on a minimum Council has the option of increasing the rate in the dollar and/or reducing the amount of the minimum.  However caution must be given to maintaining the notional income.

 

 

Forecast 1 – Current Rate Structure (land value base date 1/7/2004)

Illustrates the current 2007/2008 rating structure and notional general income.  Councils current structure utilizes both methods of rating: ad valorem to which a minimum applies, as well as a base amount to which an ad valorem is added (Farmland category).

 

0.36085

 Permissable Yield

 

Forecast 1

Residential-Town

    3,655,117.62

51.65%

 

2007/08 Rate Structure

Residential-Rural

       386,254.37

5.46%

 

Permissable yield and current ad valorem applied to 1/7/04 values

Residential-Village/Estate

    1,324,153.92

18.71%

 

 

TOTAL YIELD 2007/08

    5,365,489.98

75.82%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forecast 2 – New Valuations applied – notional income exceeded

In applying the new values to the 2007/2008 rate structure, general income is contrary to Section 509, whereby a councils income must not exceed the income from the previous year as varied by the percentage. No further discussion is necessary.

 

Forecast 3 – New Valuations applied – maintaining notional income

In applying the new values and maintaining the 2007/2008 notional general income for each rate category (and maintaining the current (2007/2008) minimums and base amounts) we find the following.

 

 

 

 

 

Forecast 3

Res-Town      0.373634

    3,655,119.79

51.65%

 

After applying new valuations and

Res-Rural      0.282205

       386,215.85

5.46%

 

maintaining Permissable yield - different ad valorem

Res-Vill/Est    0.317402

    1,324,154.34

18.71%

 

 

 Yield

    5,365,489.98

75.82%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rate in the dollar generated for each category is reduced whilst the number of assessments on minimum increases. 

 

Forecast 4 – New Valuations applied – movement between categories identified

 

When assessing the rate structure consideration should be given to the movement between Sub Categories.

 

Recent subdivisions have seen the sub-category Village/Estate increase in number of assessments, whilst the income generated from this sub-category has remained static.  This results in individual rate accounts decreasing as the burden is spread over more assessments.   Conversely, the burden is increased on the fewer assessments remaining in the subcategory from where the parent entry was cancelled.

 

By increasing the income generated from Residential-Village/Estate and Residential-Town sub category, the burden is more fairly distributed between assessments, however an increase in income to these sub-categories would require a corresponding decrease within another category/sub-category.

 

Similarly, the subcategory Residential-Rural has seen little change in number of assessments over the years and therefore it is expected that the percentage income generated from this category remain unaltered.

 

Number of Assessments Levied

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increase

 

Jul-05

Jul-06

Jul-07

from 2005

Residential-Town

5,134

5,172

5,249

115

Residential-Rural

577

583

587

10

Residential-Village/Estate

1,911

1,962

2,008

97

TOTAL

7,622

7,717

7,844

222

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forecast 4

Res-Town      0.374716

 

3,659,897.01

51.72%

 

 

Res-Rural      0.282205

 

376,462.72

5.32%

 

Increase yield generated from Village/Estate and Town Sub-Categories

Res-Vill/Est    0.317402

1,328,941.72

18.78%

 

Varying Ad valorem

 

 Yield

    5,365,301.45

75.82%

 

 

 

 

Forecast 5 – New Valuations applied – Common Ad Valorem

 

In maintaining the permissible yield and applying a common ad valorem we find the following

 

 

 

 

 

Forecast 5

Res-Town      0.350528

 

3,563,344.85

51.72%

 

Common Ad Valorem

Res-Rural      0.350528

 

403,195.80

5.32%

 

 

Res-Vill/Est    0.350528

1,396,321.10

18.78%

 

 

 

 Yield

    5,362,861.75

75.79%

 

 

 

 

Further analysis of individual rate assessments is provided in the tables below:

 


RESIDENTIAL-TOWN…

Assessment

Val 1/7/07

Account Analysis

2007/2008

Rates

Levied

Forecast

3

Forecast

4

Forecast

5

 

Seaview Street,

Nambucca Heads

217,000

689.22

810.79

813.13

760.65

Mann Street

2(b) Med Density

443,000

1,407.32

1,655.20

1659.99

1552.84

Liston Street

2(b) Med Density

317,000

1,349.58

1,184.42

1187.85

1111.17

George Street,

Bowraville

77,300

588.00

min

588.00

588.00

588.00

Wallace Street,

Macksville

155,000

588.00

min

588.00

588.00

588.00

Banyandah Road,

Hyland Park

180,000

588.00

min

672.54

674.49

630.95

Jones Street,

Valla Beach

188,000

588.00

min

702.43

704.47

658.99

Wentworth-Smith Street, Valla Beach

167,000

588.00

min

623.97

625.78

588.00

Matthew Street,

Scotts Head

824,000

2,298.61

3,078.74

3087.66

2888.35

Raleigh Street,

Scotts Head

134,000

660.36

588.00

588.00

588.00

Vista Way,

Scotts Head

265,000

1,176.37

990.13

993.00

928.90

 

 

RESIDENTIAL-RURAL…

Assessment

Val 1/7/07

Account Analysis

2007/2008

Rates

Levied

Forecast

3

Forecast

4

Forecast

5

Taylors Arm Road,

Thumb Creek

138,000

588.00

588.00

588.00

588.00

Kennaicle Creek Road, Missabotti

114,000

588.00

588.00

588.00

588.00

Kosekai Road,

Yarrenbella

185,000

613.45

588.00

588.00

648.48

Wallbridge Road,

Eungai Creek

248,000

725.31

769.81

699.87

869.31

Wards Road,

Utungun

180,000

588.00

588.00

588.00

630.95

Wilson Road,

Congarinni North

325,000

999.55

1,022.84

1031.56

1139.22

Butts Creek Road,

Taylors Arm

123,000

588.00

588.00

588.00

588.00

South Arm Road,

South Arm

238,000

772.22

738.77

671.65

834.26

Barnetts Road,

Gumma

403,000

1299.06

1250.94

1137.29

1412.63

 

 


RESIDENTIAL-VILLAGE/ESTATE…

Assessment

Val 1/7/07

Account Analysis

2007/2008

Rates

Levied

Forecast

3

Forecast

4

Forecast

5

Auld Close,

Valla

260,000

732.53

818.27

825.25

911.37

Bowerbird Lane,

Valla

209,000

591.79

657.77

663.37

732.60

Alexandra Drive, Nambucca Heads

106,000

588.00

588.00

588.00

588.00

Letitia Close,

North Macksville

166,000

588.00

588.00

588.00

588.00

Eungai Creek Road,

Eungai Creek

236,000

660.36

742.74

749.07

827.25

Florence Wilmont Drive, Nambucca Heads

162,000

631.49

588.00

588.00

588.00

Balance Tank Road, Bowraville

126,000

588.00

588.00

588.00

588.00

Uriti Road,

North Macksville

478,000

1190.81

1,504.37

1517.18

1675.52

 

 

BUSINESS CATEGORY

 

Business category (603 assessments) generates 10.6% of total rate income. 

 

The Business Category is Sub-Categorised as follows:

 

          Business

          Business-Commercial

          Business-Industrial

          Business-Manufactured Home Community

          Business-Caravan Park

 

The Business category has seen considerable increases in land values, particularly the sub-categories of Industrial and Manufactured Home Community.  When applying the increased land values and maintaining the permissible yield within that category, we find that the rate in the dollar decreases.

 

The Business category applies to ‘stand-alone’ businesses (eg. Corner store, timber mill) who do not fall into the Business-Commercial category. ie in a the CBD, or High Density area such as Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads.  Business-Commercial applies to properties zoned 3(a)

 

The sub-category Business-Manufactured Home Community currently has only two assessments being Faringdon Village and Newville Cottage Park.  Given that these assessments each have a high number of occupancies/dwellings utilizing Local Government Infrastructure, it is expected that income generated from this category be relevant to the number of occupancies.

 


In maintaining the current permissible yield we find the following:

 

Ad valorem: 0.469938

 

Assessment

Val 1/7/04

Rates 2007/2008

Val 1/7/07

Forecast Rates

% Val Change

% Rate Change

2495-03270-4

1,500,000

10,203.71

2,170,000

10,197.65

44.67

-0.059

2836-52700-8

520,000

3,537.28

754,000

3,543.33

45.00

0.171

 

Whilst the total land value has increased considerably (44.75%), the ad valorem used to calculate the rates has decreased to maintain the permissible yield.  This results in minimal change in rates levied on each assessment. 

 

 

BUSINESS-COMMERCIAL

 

The sub-category Business-Commercial has increased in total land value by 9.31%.

 

In maintaining the current permissible yield we find the following:

 

Assessment

Val 1/7/04

Rates 2007/2008

Val 1/7/07

Forecast Rates

% Val Change

% Rate Change

448-00000-0

65900

588.00

102000

803.10

54.78

26.78

2384-00000-2

334000

2839.21

384000

3023.43

14.97

6.09

2373-00000-5

118000

1003.07

135000

1062.92

14.41

5.63

945-00000-8

246000

2091.15

258000

2031.37

4.88

-2.94

1285-00000-4

192000

1632.12

201000

1582.58

4.69

-3.13

1439-00100-7

119000

1011.57

300000

2362.05

152.10

57.17

4093-00000-0

297000

2524.68

259000

2039.24

-12.79

-23.80

 

Business-Commercial has perhaps seen the greatest fluctuations in land value and hence rates forecast.

 

 

BUSINESS-CARAVAN PARK

 

The sub-category Business-Caravan Park has increased in total land value by 19.96%.

 

The impact is varied on individual assessments.  When maintaining the permissible yield for this sub-category we find the following:

 

Ad valorem: 0.841134

                  

Assessment

Val 1/7/04

Rates 2007/2008

Val 1/7/07

Forecast Rates

% Val Change

% Rate Change

1998-10000-0

527,000

5,317.66

711,000

5,980.46

34.91

12.46

2011-00000-3

575,000

5,802.00

660,000

5,551.48

14.78

-4.32

2812-10000-2

1,460,000

14,732.03

1,460,000

12,280.56

0.00

-16.64

2841-00000-9

1,000,000

10,090.43

1,160,000

9,757.15

16.00

-3.30

3219-00000-1

1,110,000

11,200.38

1,500,000

12,617.01

35.14

12.68

3334-50000-0

640,000

6,457.88

640,000

5,383.26

0.00

-16.64

3695-21000-9

1,450,000

14,631.12

2,500,000

21,028.35

72.41

43.72

32342-70102-9

2,250,000

22,703.47

2,180,000

18,336.72

-3.21

-19.23

 

It is evident here that an increase in land value does not necessarily result in an increase in rates levied.  As is highlighted above, two assessments (BOLD), the land value has remained the same in 2007 but resulted in a 16.64% reduction in rates, due to the reduced ad valorem.

 

Council has the option to consider re-categorising assessments within this sub category to fall within either Business or Business-Commercial sub-categories.  This would require increasing the yield of the Business and Business-Commercial sub-categories respectively.

 

 

BUSINESS-INDUSTRIAL

 

Business-Industrial total land value has increased by 64.32%. 

 

Whilst maintaining the permissible yield for this category and calculating the ad valorem required, individual rate accounts vary significantly.

 

Ad Valorem: 0.471827

 

ADDRESS

VAL 1/7/04

07/08

RATES

VAL 1/7/07

Forecast

% CHANGE

VAL

% CHANGE RATES

Yarrawonga St

94,600

621.98

1,500,000

7,077.41

1,485.62

1137.88%

Kylie St

300,000

1,980.82

396,000

1,868.43

32.00

-5.67%

Kylie St

88,900

588.00 min

400,000

1,887.31

349.94

220.97%

Binalong Way

85,400

588.00 min

143,000

674.71

67.45

14.75

Pioneer St

714,000

4,714.34

892,000

4,208.70

24.93

-10.73%

Duke St

145,000

957.37

188,000

887.03

29.66

-7.35%

Ken Howard Cres

161,000

1,063.04

210,000

990.84

30.43

-6.79%

Monro St

144,000

950.79

187,000

882.32

29.86

-7.20%

Old Coast Road

139,000

917.78

180,000

849.29

29.50

 

-7.46%

Old Coast Rd

231,000

1,525.23

235,000

1,108.79

1.73

-27.30%

 

Note: The excessive increase in land value in Yarrawonga Street (highlighted above) was due to a recent sale of the parcel with subdivision approval.

 

 

FARMLAND

 

The Farmland category (504 assessments) is responsible for 9.61% of Council Rate Revenue.  The number of assessments on Farmland has remained unchanged since 2005.

 

The current rate method for the Farmland category comprises a base amount of $403.65 with the ad valorem rate 0.337902; being the lowest ad valorem rate.

 

Caution needs to be given when considering base amounts as the base amount must not generate greater than 50% of the categories/sub-categories overall income. ie. rates should be primarily or predominantly determined via the ad valorem method.

 

Maintaining the permissible yield we find the following (including base):

 

Ad valorem: 0.292262

 

ADDRESS

VAL 1/7/04

07/08

RATES

VAL 1/7/07

Forecast

% CHANGE

VAL

% CHANGE RATES

Maras Creek Rd

157,000

934.16

171,000

903.42

8.92

-3.29

Maras Creek

159,000

940.91

220,000

1,046.63

38.36

10.10

Allgomera Rd

331,000

1,522.11

408,000

1,596.08

23.26

4.86

Pacific Hwy, Eungai

299,000

1,413.98

368,000

1,479.17

23.08

4.61

Welshs Creek Rd

287,000

1,373.43

337,000

1,388.57

17.42

1.10

Bellingen Rd

464,000

1,971.52

516,000

1,911.72

11.21

3.03

Congarinni Road

196,000

1,065.94

230,000

1,075.85

17.35

0.93

Gumma Rd

358,000

1,613.34

400,000

1,572.70

11.73

-2.58

Carsons Rd

280,000

1,349.78

305,000

1,295.05

8.93

-4.23

Greenhills Rd

212,000

1,120.00

231,000

1,078.78

8.96

-3.82

Browns Crossing Rd

257,000

1,272.06

317,000

1,330.12

23.35

4.37

Scotts Head Rd

312,000

1,457.90

346,000

1,414.88

10.9

-3.04

Searles Rd

496,000

2,079.64

612,000

2,192.64

23.39

5.42

 

 

It is anticipated that a Farmland review take place in 2008/2009.  Council’s last review was undertaken in March 2002 and is well overdue.  It is not possible to estimate what movement may occur as a result of the review.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Financial Services

Senior Adminsitration Officer

Local Government Act 1993

NSW Valuer Generals Office

Valuation of Land Act 1916

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

 

Social

Regardless of the structure adopted, it is not possible to appease all ratepayers and accommodate each individual scenario.  In setting the structure, we need to avoid excessive increases where possible and ensure a fair and equitable contribution from ratepayers.

 

The present rating structure has been well received by the public over the past 3 years and as such it would be preferable to maintain this level of public acceptance.

 

Economic

There are no economic issues associated with this report.

 

Risk

There is no risk associated with the issue of new valuations.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

The increased valuations do not generate additional rate income, however they do re-distribute the rate burden.

 

Rate income is limited to the previous years income and approved rate pegging as advised by the Minister (Sec 509).

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Relevant Legislation

 

 

 


Works Inspection Committee - 20 February 2008

Overview of Re-valuation

Attachment 1

Relevant Legislation

 

ATTACHMENT 1

 

 

Legislation

 

Maximum General Income for a Year (509) – provided as information only and the basis for showing the updated revenue derived for 2007/2008 using valuations base dated 1 July 2004.

 

1)   A Council must not make rates and charges for a year so as to produce general income of an amount that exceeds the notional general income of the council for a previous year as varied by the percentage (if any) applicable to the council under section 506 or 508 (2) for the year for which the rates and charges are made, except as provided by Section 511 or 511A.

2)   The notional general income of a Council for the previous year is the amount that would have been derived if the same rates and charges as were made to produce the general income for that previous year had been so made but, in the case of rates, had been made in respect of:

a)   The valuations of ratable land in the councils valuation record applicable as at 1 July in that previous year and required under this Act to be used in that previous year for the making and levying of rates (not including valuations of those parcels of rateable land for which supplementary valuations referred to in paragraph (b) have been furnished), and

b)   Supplementary valuations of rateable land having the same base date as those valuations and furnished to the Council under the Valuation of Land Act 1916 during that year, and

c)   Any estimates of increase in valuae of rateable land that are provided to the Council under Section 513 in respect of that previous year.

i.    Information respecting the rates and charges proposed to be made for that following year as the Minister may require and the Minister, by order published in the Gazette, approved of their being made,

ii.    The rates and charges conform with the Ministers approval, and

iii.   The council did not contravene section 509, 510, 511 or 511A in making the rates and charges.

3)   The Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, exempt a specified council from the operation of subsection (1) (b) for a specified year.

4)   Section 712 does not prevent a person’s liability for a rate or charge that is invalid because of subsection (1)(b) from being disputed at any time on the ground of that invalidity.

 

Briefly 2007/2008 income was assessed by:

 

a)   Total valuation held as at 1 July 2006

 

Growth                  b)   Add valuation of newly created lots (subdivision offspring)

c)    Less valuations of superseded lots (subdivision parent)

 

d)    Valuation as at 30 June 2004 (a + b – c = d)

 

 

Add/Subtract movement in Non rateable assessments

Add percentage increase

 

Forecast (a) refers to the notional general income as the 2007/2008 rate file exists as at 1 February 2008.

 

Forecast (b) refers to the 2007/2008 rate structure assessed on the new values.  The result is contrary to Section 509.  Provided to show impact only and does not require further comment.

 

Structure of Rate (497)

 

The land value is basis for calculating the general rate and environmental rate (special rate).  The domestic waste charge, water and sewerage access charges are annual charges (501).

 

In terms of Rating, Section 497 of The Act states:

“A rate, whether an ordinary rate or a special rate, may at Council’s discretion, consist of:

(a) an ad valorem amount (which may, in accordance with Section 548, be subject to a minimum amount of the rate), or

(b) a base amount to which an ad valorem amount is added.”

 

Council’s current rate structure utilizes both methods of rating. 

 

The ad valorem amount (498)

 

1)   The ad valorem amount of a rate is an amount in the dollar determined for a specified year by the council and expressed to apply:

a)   in the case of an ordinary rate – to the land value of all rateable land in council’s area within the category or sub-category of the ordinary rate, or

b)   in the case of a special rate – to the land value of all rateable land in the council’s area of such of that rateable land as is specified by the council in accordance with section 538.

2)   The ad valorem amount of a rate is to be levied on the land value of rateable land, except as provided by this or any other Act.

3)   An ad valorem amount specified for a parcel of land may not differ from an ad valorem amount specified for any other parcel of land within the same category or subcategory unless;

a)   The land values of the parcels were last determined by reference to different base dates, and

b)   The Minister approves the different ad valorem amounts.

 

 

The base amount (499)

 

1)   A council may, in a resolution making a rate, specify a base amount of the rate, or a base amount for a category or sub-category of an ordinary rate.

2)   The base amount so specified may be the same or different amounts.

3)   The appropriate base amount so specified is to form part of the rate levied on each separate parcel of rateable land subject to the rate.

4)   A base amount specified for a parcel of land may not differ from a base amount specified for any other parcel of land within the same category or sub-category unless:

a)   The land values of the parcels were last determined by reference to different base dates, and

b)   The Minister approves the different base amounts.

 

 

Limit on revenue that can be raised from base amounts (500)

 

The amount specified as the base amount of a rate (or the base amount of the rate for a category or sub-category of an ordinary rate) must not be such as to produce more than 50 per cent of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate (or of the rate for the category or sub-category concerned) on all rateable land subject to the rate ( or the rate for the category or sub-category).

 

Criteria relevant in determining the base amount (536)

 

1)   In determining a base amount of a rate, the council must have regard to (but is not limited to) the following:

·      Its general administration and overhead costs.

·      The extent to which projected ad valorem rates on individual properties do not reflect the cost of providing necessary services and facilities.

·      The level of grant or similar income available to provide necessary services and facilities.

·      The degree of congruity and homogeneity between the values of properties subject to the rate and their spread throughout the area.

·      Whether a rate that is wholly an ad valorem rate would result in an uneven distribution of the rate burden because a comparatively high proportion of assessments would bear a comparatively low share of the total rate burden.

·      In the case of a special rates – the cost of providing the works, services, facilities or activities to the parcels of land subject to the rate (ignoring the rateable value of those parcels).

 

2)   The council, in having regard to its general administration and overhead costs, must use net costs, with income being included in the calculation of standard costs for all community service functions, library services, recreational and cultural facilities and amenities and the like.

 

 

Categorisation of land for purpose of ordinary rates (514)

 

Before making an ordinary rate, the council must have declared each parcel of rateable land in its area to be within one or other of the following categories:

·      Farmland

·      Residential

·      Mining

·      Business

 

Note: Land falls within the “business” category if it cannot be categorized as farmland, residential or mining.  The main land uses that will fall within the “business” category are commercial and industrial.

 

Categorisation as farmland (515)

 

1)   Land is to be categorized as farmland if it is a parcel of rateable land valued as one assessment and its dominant use is for farming (that is, the business or industry of grazing, animal feed lots, dairying, pig-farming, poultry farming, viticulture, orcharding, bee-keeping, horticulture, vegetable growing, the growing of crops of any kind, forestry or aquaculture within the meaning of the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or any combination of those business activities) which:

a)   Has a significant and substantial commercial purpose or character, and

b)   Is engaged in for the purpose of profit on a continuous or repetitive basis (whether or not profit is actually made).

2)   Land is not to be categorized as farmland if it is rural residential land.

3)   The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which land is or is not to be categorized as farmland.

 

 

Minimum amounts (548)

 

1)   A council, in a resolution making a rate consisting of an ad valorem amount:

May specify a minimum amount of the rate which must be levied in respect of each separate parcel, or

2)   If a council makes an ordinary rate for different categories or sub-categories of land, it may specify a different minimum amount for each category or sub-category of land.

3)   The minimum amount of a rate is to be such amount as is determined by the council, not exceeding $259, as prescribed by the regulations or such greater amount as the Minister may determine by instrument in writing (approved minimum for Nambucca Shire Council for 2007/2008 is $403.65).

 

A council may not specify a minimum amount of a rate consisting of a base amount to which an ad valorem amount is added.

 

The Department of Local Government has also held the view, as a result of previous court cases, that income derived from the minimum rate should not exceed income derived from the ad valorem rate within the category or sub-category.  However, this opinion is not addressed in the Local Government Act 1993.

 

The minimum rate was prescribed at $259 when the Act was gazetted in 1993 with the prescribed amount set by regulation in line with annual rate pegging.  Thus, 2007/2008 has been regulated at $403.65.

 

Where a council has received a rate pegging variation under Section 508(2), the variation may also apply to the minimum, if requested.

 

If Council resolves to decrease the minimum in any category, the reduced figure will apply for future rate pegging regardless of the effects of future valuation shifts.  Further if an ad valorem rate with a base is used in any category for 2007/2008 and there is a shift of values in a future revaluation resulting in a need to return to ad valorem with a minimum, that minimum cannot exceed the regulated amount.

 

Categorisation as residential

 

1)   Land is to be categorized as residential if it is a parcel of rateable land valued as one assessment and:

a)   Its dominant use is for residential accommodation (otherwise than as a hotel, motel, guest house, backpacker hostel or nursing home or any other form of residential accommodation (not being a boarding house or a lodging house) prescribed by the regulations) or,

b)   In the case of vacant land, it is zoned or otherwise designated for use under an environmental planning instrument (with or without development consent) for residential purposes, or

c)   It is rural residential land.

2)   The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which land is or is not to be categorized as residential.

 

Categorisation as mining (517)

 

1)   Land is to be categorized as mining if it is a parcel of rateable land valued as one assessment and its dominant use is for a coal mine or metalliferous mine.

2)   The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which land is or is not to be categorized as mining.

 

Categorisation as Business (518)

 

Land is to be categorized as business if it cannot be categorized as farmland, residential or mining.

 

Categorisation of Vacant Land

 

If vacant land is unable to be categorized under section 515, 516 or 517 the land is to be categorized:

a)   If the land is zoned or otherwise designated for use under an environmental planning instrument – according to any purpose for which they land may be used after taking into account the nature of any improvements on the land and the nature of surrounding development, or

b)   If the land is not so zoned or designated – according to the predominant categorization of surrounding land.

 

Rate may be the same or different for different categories (528)

 

The ad valorem amount of the ordinary rate may be the same for all categories of land or it may be different for different categories.

 

Rate may be the same or different within a category (529)

 

1)   Before making an ordinary rate, a council may determine a sub-category.

2)   A sub-category may be determined:

a)   For the category of farmland – according to the intensity of land use or economic factors affecting the land, or

b)   For the category residential – according to whether the land is rural residential land or is within a centre of population, or

c)   For the category of mining – according to the kind of mining involved, or

d)   For the category business – according to a centre of activity.

 

Note: In relation to the category “business”, a centre of activity might comprise a business centre, an industrial estate or some other concentration of like activities.

 

3)   The ad valorem amount of the ordinary rate may be the same for all land within a category or it may be different for different sub-categories.

 

 

 

  


Works Inspection Committee

20 February 2008

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 8.1      SF802         200208         Presentation by Rural Fire Service Personnel

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Greg Meyers, Director Environment and Planning          

 

Summary:

 

Council at its meeting of 6 December 2007 resolved to invite the Rural Fire Service’s Manager for Development Control to attend a future meeting to address Council in regard to the process of referrals and processing of development applications under Section 101B of the Rural Fires Act.

 

Assistant Commissioner, Mr Rob Rogers and Mr Lew Short, the Manager for Development Control has accepted Council’s invitation and will be attend the Works Committee Meeting of 20 February 2008.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the presentation by Mr Lew Short, Manager Development Control, Rural Fire Service.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At previous meetings Council raised concern about lengthy turnaround times for applications referred to the Rural Fire Service of Section 101B of the Rural Fires Act.

 

Assistant Commissioner, Mr Rob Rogers and Mr Lew Short, Manager for Development Control, Rural Fire Service and several local RFS members will be attending Council’s Works Committee Meeting on 20 February 2008. 

 

The following specific matters will be addressed during the presentation.

 

·      introduction and background to planning for Bush Fire Protection (“PBP”)

·      why we have PBP

·      the changes from PBP 2001

·      Legislative requirements (including bush fire prone land mapping)

·      some basic content and issues for consideration

·      looking at council's role, in particular assessment of 79BA’s.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Rural Fire Service

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There is no environmental impact with this report.

 

Social

There is no social impact with this report.

 

Economic

There is no economic impact with this report.

 


Risk

 

There is no identified risk with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no financial implications with this report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

N/A

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

  


Works Inspection Committee

20 February 2008

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.1      SF265         200208         Asset Management

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services          

 

Summary:

 

Council has to put in place an asset management system that allows the sustainability of public assets. 

 

The process involves collecting and storing data, forward predictions, life cycle costs, risk and financial projections to ensure that assets are monitored, maintained and eventually replace in a controlled manner.

 

The first steps are to adopt a Council policy and form a staff working team.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That the Asset Management Policy be adopted.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

·     Adopt the policy.

·     Not adopt the policy noting that staff will still need to proceed with the process.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The integration of Asset Management into the organisation starts with the local members through the process whereby the elected members:-

 

·     Acknowledge responsibility – Adopt policy

·     Understand what the community can afford.

 

The aim of asset management is to achieve long term sustainability of aging assets.  This is done by developing an asset management plan that has 4 steps.

 

Step 1          Develop an inventory of assets and associated service levels.

 

Step 2          Predict future demands (growth and changes to population patterns).

 

Step 3          Develop life cycle management plans.

 

Step 4          Determine risk and financial projections.

 

The identified means for this Council to achieve this is through the NAMS.PLUS program.  This is a process not computer software where a staff member is trained and mentored as follows:-

 

·     Training and support workshops.

·     A suite of asset management planning templates and guidelines.

·     Templates and on-line modelling tools.

·     On-line Help Desk and forums.

 

NAMS.PLUS is accepted cross Australia with strong support from NSW Local Government Areas.

 

The training is being undertaken by the Manager Civil Works and consists of 4 training workshops.

 

Workshop No.

Workshop Topics

Block 1

Asset Register data, Condition assessment and remaining/useful life review template, Asset Management Plan (AMP) template.

Block 2

Levels of Service,

Infrastructure Risk Management Plan template.

Block 3

Financial Modelling,

New assets from growth, Renewal planning, Expenditure projections.

Block 4

Managing the funding gap,

Completing the AMP, Improvement plan, Links to Long Term Financial Plan.

 

The breakdown of each workshop is attached.

 

Between each clock certain steps need to be taken to progress the process.  The main step being to:-

 

·     Council to adopt an Asset Management Policy.

 

A standard template has been provide and modified to meet Councils format.

 

·     Develop an Asset Management Team.

 

Asset management is a commitment across all functions of Council and the team composition needs to have a mixed representation of staff.

 

The General Manager will be charged with the duty of appointing the Asset Management Team.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Manager Civil Works

Other Councils

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

No issues.

 

Social

The integrity of the public infrastructure will depend on the plan.

 

The values of the community will set the agenda for levels of service.


 

Economic

The process includes long term financial planning and community affordability.

 

Risk

Failure to implement Asset Management will result in Council not conforming with Government requirements affecting Councils sustainability.

 

Risk management of the assets is an integral part of the system.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

·     Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Asset management is a long term process and will require on-going funding for data collection, input and analysis each year.

 

Existing staff resources will be used to develop the system on a staged basis until all asset groups are covered by an appropriate Asset Management Plan.  This will necessarily reduce staff time for other areas.

 

·     Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Funds are available for training and data input.  The major expense will be the purchase of the asset management software which will be the data register etc.  Funds are provided for this but as the evaluation of software has just begun the actual cost is unknown.

 

Attachments:

1View

Draft Policy - Asset Management

 

 

 


Works Inspection Committee - 20 February 2008

Asset Management

Attachment 1

Draft Policy - Asset Management

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 POLICY

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

 

Function:  ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

 

Adopted:

Last reviewed:

 

 

1.0 Policy Objective

To set guidelines for implementing consistent asset management processes throughout Nambucca Shire with the following objective:

 

 

 

To ensure adequate provision is made for the long-term replacement of major assets by:

·      Ensuring that Council’s services and infrastructure are provided in a sustainable manner, with the appropriate levels of service to residents, visitors and the environment.

·      Safeguarding Council assets including physical assets and employees by implementing appropriate asset management strategies and appropriate financial resources for those assets.

·      Creating an environment where all Council employees take an integral part in overall management of Council assets by creating and sustaining an asset management awareness throughout the Council.

·      Meeting legislative requirements for asset management.

·      Ensuring resources and operational capabilities are identified and responsibility for asset management is allocated.

·      Demonstrating transparent and responsible asset management processes that align with demonstrated best practice.

 

2.0 Related Legislation

Local Government Act 1993.

Regulations under the Act.

 

3.0 Definitions

This policy applies to all Council activities and associated assets

 

4.0 Policy     Statement

4.1     Background

 

4.1.1  Council is committed to implementing a systematic asset management methodology in order to apply appropriate asset management best practices across all areas of Council.  This includes ensuring that assets are planned, created, operated, maintained, renewed and disposed of in accordance with Council’s priorities for service delivery.

4.1.2  Council owns and uses approximately $367,974,000 (2007) of non-current assets to support its core business of delivery of service to the community.

4.1.3  Asset management practices impact directly on the core business of Council and appropriate asset management is required to achieve our strategic service delivery objectives.

 


 

 

4.1.4  Asset management relates directly to the Strategic Plan.

 

Vision

A Viable and Sustainable Future.

 

 

4.1.5  A strategic approach to asset management will ensure that the Council delivers the highest appropriate level of service through its assets.  This will provide positive impact on;

·     Members of the public and staff;

·     Council’s financial position;

·     The ability of Council to deliver the expected level of service and infrastructure;

·     The political environment in which Council operates; and

·     The legal liabilities of Council.

 

 

4.2 Principles

 

4.2.1  A consistent Asset Management Strategy must exist for implementing systematic asset management and appropriate asset management best-practice throughout all Departments of Council.

4.2.2  All relevant legislative requirements together with political, social and economic environments are to be taken into account in asset management.

4.2.3  Asset management principles will be integrated within existing planning and operational processes.

4.2.4  An inspection regime will be used as part of asset management to ensure agreed service levels are maintained and to identify asset renewal priorities.

4.2.5  Asset renewals required to meet agreed service levels and identified in infrastructure and asset management plans and long term financial plans will be fully funded in the annual budget estimates.

4.2.6  Service levels agreed through the budget process and defined in Infrastructure and Asset Management Plans will be fully funded in the annual budget estimates.

4.2.7  Asset renewal plans will be prioritised and implemented progressively based on agreed service levels and the effectiveness of the current assets to provide that level of service.

4.2.8  Systematic and cyclic reviews will be applied to all asset classes and are to ensure that the assets are managed, valued and depreciated in accordance with appropriate best practice and applicable Australian Standards.

4.2.9  Future life cycle costs will be reported and considered in all decisions relating to new services and assets and upgrading of existing services and assets.

4.2.10 Future service levels will be determined in consultation with the community.

 

 

 

 

 

Asset Management Planning for NSW Local Government.  (Department of Local Government)

 

Asset Management Strategy and associated Infrastructure and Asset Management Plans.

 

5.0  History

Local Government in NSW is responsible for assets worth approximately $50 billion.  Infrastructure assets include roads, water and sewerage assets, drains, bridges, footpaths and public buildings.  A strong and sustainable local government system requires a robust planning process to ensure that those assets are maintained and renewed in the most appropriate way on behalf of local communities.  As custodian, local government is responsible to effectively account for and manage these assets and to have regard to the long=term and cumulative effects of its decision.  This is a core function of councils and is reflected in the Charter, in section 8 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).

 

Given the value and importance of infrastructure assets, it is essential that they are well managed to ensure their future sustainability.  Failure to adequately manage infrastructure assets is a key risk that could prevent local councils from achieving their strategic goals.  An existing and urgent concern is that many councils have not established asset management systems and practices that will allow them to identify and respond to this challenge.

 

 


Works Inspection Committee

20 February 2008

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.2      RF90           200208         DA1981/246 - Glen Sheather Drive

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services          

 

Summary:

 

Mr D Banks developer and owner of the subdivision on the eastern end of Glen Sheather Drive has requested a review of the condition requiring a footpath link into Palmer Street.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council retain the footpath condition as determined when the consent was issued and subsequent reviews.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

·     Refer request.

·     Mr Banks to submit modification application

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Mr Dave Banks through his building company developed the subdivision at the eastern end of Glen Sheather Drive, Nambucca Heads.

 

The subdivision was originally approved in 1981 and included a condition to footpath link from the new street (Glen Sheather Drive) back to Palmer Street.

 

Mr Banks has requested consideration to removing this requirement.  At this stage the Works Committee will meet on-site to discuss the matter.  To proceed further would require the lodgement of a modification.

 

Council in 2003 through the Works Committee met Mr Banks on site to discuss the same issue and resolve to retain the condition.  There has been objections from the Palmer Street neighbours because of the perceived problems from people walking past their property.

 

The path provides access for pedestrians “mid block” in or out of the subdivision to Palmer Street.  Future development of Glen Sheather Drive will then allow access to Mann Street and West Street.  The provision of pedestrian links separate to roads is a very important initiative that should be retained.

 

The attached plan shows the layout.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The issue has been discussed with Mr Banks over a number of years by staff and Council (2003)

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

No change.

 

Social

Pedestrian access at this point is a great benefit to those using the footpath network.

 

Economic

The requirement creates a cost to the developer to meet the consent conditions and the site is difficult.

 

Risk

The opportunity to create a pedestrian link will be lost if the condition is not enforced.  The effectiveness of future pedestrian links will be reduced.

 

The lack of a footpath into Palmer Street is likely to lead to pedestrians walking through private property.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

·     Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

No Council cost to construct.  Future maintenance becomes a Council responsibility.

 

·     Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Developer to fund the construction.

 

Attachments:

1View

Plan

 

 

 


Works Inspection Committee - 20 February 2008

DA1981/246 - Glen Sheather Drive

Attachment 1

Plan

 

 

 


 


Works Inspection Committee

20 February 2008

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.3      RF440         200208         20-22 Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services          

 

Summary:

 

Mr Keller, owner of 20-22 Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads wishes to discuss on-site the removal of his driveway access and the possibility of having it reinstated.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That no changes to the driveway entry be made as it reduces pedestrian safety and increases the risk of local flooding.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

·     Do not re-instate driveway access through the kerb.

·     Re-instate driveway access through the kerb.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Mr and Mrs Kellar are the owners of 20-22 Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads.  Their property was originally the Casbah Motel but is now retail shops on the ground floor and rental accommodation upstairs.

 

During the replacement of the pavers with concrete the driveway entry through the kerb was removed.  This was done for two reasons.

 

1        Stormwater flow in the gutter has in the past crossed the footpath and entered the nearby shop causing carpet damage.

 

2        The driveway beside the building is no longer useable as a fire escape stairs have been retrofitted at some time.

 

Mr Kellar became concerned that he had been denied legal access to his property.  A legal opinion on this was sought from the Shires Association (copy attached) which does not support this view.  Mr Kellar did not accept this information and a meeting was held with him, Mrs Kellar, the General Manager and myself.

 

It was stated that any future redevelopment of the site would be subject to assessment by the conditions applying at the time and whether access from the main street is appropriate particularly as this land has rear access.

 

It was also pointed out the old driveway was a flooding point and due to the presence of the stairs could not be considered as a viable driveway.  Mr Kellar disagrees and believes that the driveway is useable.  The physical dimensions of the driveway are a clear width of 2000 mm.  Compare this to the mirror to mirror width of the Commodore sedan of 2040mm and mudguard to mudguard of 1800mm.

 

I do not believe that the reinstatement of the driveway is in the public interest (pedestrian safety, flooding) nor do I believe that it impedes any future development of the site.

 

Mr Kellar requested that he have the opportunity to meet Councillors on site to discuss this issue.

 

 


CONSULTATION:

 

Matter discussed with Mr and Mrs Kellar in person.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

No change.

 

Social

The modified footpath is much safer for pedestrians.

 

Economic

Property owner is concerned that the lack of a front driveway impacts on his opportunities for future development.

 

Risk

The replacement of the layback will increase the flooding risk to the adjacent business property.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

·     Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The Bowra Street upgrade projects will require a change in priorities leading to a deferral of works to 2008/2009 to achieve $2,000 for the modifications.  The masterplan sees this access  being converted to a pedestrian link to Fletcher Street and rear parking.

 

·     Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The re-instatement of the driveway could be funded from existing project funds for Bowra Street by deferring some of the works.

 

Attachments:

1View

Council's letter to Mr and Mrs Keller

 

2View

Shires Association Letter

 

 

 


Works Inspection Committee - 20 February 2008

20-22 Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads

Attachment 1

Council's letter to Mr and Mrs Keller

 

Enquiries:     Mr Redman

Phone No:     6568  0230

Our Ref:        RF440

 

 

 

18 December 2007

 

 

 

Mr R and Mrs M Keller

PO Box 204

DORRIGO  NSW  2453

 

 

Dear Mr and Mrs Keller

 

20-22 BOWRA STREET, NAMBUCCA HEADS

 

I refer to your concerns that Council has removed your right of access to 20-22 Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads.

 

I have attached for your information an opinion from the Legal Office of the Shires Association of NSW.  You will note that the letter is dated 21 June 2007 but Council did not receive the reply until December 2007 after an enquiry.

 

The conclusion is that Council has not denied access as the property has access at the road and property boundary.  The letter also states that any future Development Application will be subject to the considerations applying at the time.

 

I trust that this response allays your fears on future use of your land.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

B R REDMAN

DIRECTOR

ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

BRR:ct


 


Works Inspection Committee - 20 February 2008

20-22 Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads

Attachment 2

Shires Association Letter

 



 


Works Inspection Committee

20 February 2008

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.4      SF265         200208         Policy Review--Beaches--General--Bonfires and Damage

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services          

 

Summary:

 

The policy regarding Bonfire and Damage has been reviewed but retains the prohibition of bonfires on beaches.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council adopt the revised policy on Beaches—General—Bonfires and Damage.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Retain existing policy

2        Update policy as recommended

3        Delete or modify policy

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This policy came into effect in 1997 after an incident at Scotts Head. 

 

The policy aims to put in place the acceptance of responsibility by Council and the procedure for a response.

 

This has been redrafted to better reflect a policy rather than a standard procedure.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

No change.

 

Social

No Change

 

Economic

No change.

 

Risk

No change.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

No change.

 

Attachments:

1View

Beaches - General - Bonfires on Beaches, Drinking - POLICY -

1 Page

 

 


Works Inspection Committee - 20 February 2008

Policy Review--Beaches--General--Bonfires and Damage

Attachment 1

Beaches - General - Bonfires on Beaches, Drinking - POLICY -

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

POLICY

BEACHES – GENERAL

BONFIRES and DAMAGE

 

 

 

Function:  ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

 

Adopted: 16 January 1997     

Last reviewed: 16 September 2004 

 

 

 

1.0     Policy objective

 

To ensure that beaches are safer to use by prohibiting bonfires therefore limiting the associated issues of timber debris and broken glass.

 

2.0     Related legislation

 

3.0       Definitions

 

4.0     Policy statement

 

Council prohibits the creation and lighting of bonfires on beaches as they represent a risk to public safety.

 

Council will enforce this policy through signage, involvement of Rangers, staff and the Police.

 

5.0        History

 

In 1997 Council introduced this policy after an incident at Scotts Head.

 

Sign posting was erected at the time and has been maintained since.

 

Bonfires to occur on beaches and reserves often in association with vandalism relating to gaining firewood from trees and structures such as seats and tables.

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

OLD POLICY

BEACHES – GENERAL

BONFIRES and DAMAGE

 

 

 

Function:  ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

 

Adopted: 16 January 1997     

Last reviewed: 16 September 2004 

 

 

 

 

In relation to bonfires on beaches and associated drinking sessions and glass breaking sessions, the following be adopted:

 

1          Signage - that appropriate signage be installed at the various access points to beaches in the Shire, ie Forster Beach, Scotts Head;  Little Beach, Scotts Head;  Main Beach, Nambucca Heads;  Shelly Beach, Nambucca Heads, Swimming Creek Nambucca Heads and Valla Beach north and south;  stating that the lighting of fires is prohibited on the beach areas.

 

2          Following such instances, the Director Operations and Technical Services be required to arrange for the cleaning up of the bonfire sites and broken glass in the main beach areas when reported.

 

3          That persons reporting the bonfires, broken glass and drinking session be directed to the after hours of Council's Ordinance and Impounding Officer as the initial point of contact.

 

4          That the Police be involved on all occasions and whenever possible in regard to such incidences.

 

HISTORY

 

16.01.97

 

Cr Moran has brought to my attention the fact that a bonfire was lit on the Scotts Head beach in proximity to the timber ramp constructed by Council over the end of the main town drain and in general proximity to the boat ramp.

 

As a result of the bonfire and smashed bottles following a drinking session, there is quite a mess remaining including posing a threat to beach users because of broken glass in sand and probably hot coals initially.

 

Under the circumstances Council should address a policy given Council's responsibility for beach areas in the Shire, Council's area extends to a straight line drawn between any two headlands adjoining, and the policy should address signage, cleaning up after such incidents, involving the Police, and after hours contact number and even perhaps involving the Ordinance and Impounding Officer as an emergency contact with a view to following up with the Police in relation to requests to desist.

 

 

 


Works Inspection Committee

20 February 2008

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.5      SF265         200208         Policy Review--Beaches--General--Horses on Beaches

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services          

 

Summary:

 

The existing policy defines the locations to be used.  It does not address time restrictions or safe operation only protection of the dunes.

 

No change is recommended.

 

A copy of the policy is attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council adopt the revised policy Beaches—General—Horses on Beaches.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Retain existing policy

2        Alter policy by adding further restrictions.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Horse riding on beaches is an intermittent activity that can generate a public response.

 

The acceptable areas need definition as per the current policy.

 

Consideration has been given to defining times, behaviour and supervision of children but without a Ranger to enforce the regulations there is little point.  A brochure could be developed with guidelines as per the example attached.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

No Change

 

Social

No Change

 

Economic

No Change

 

Risk

No Change


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

No implications.

 

Attachments:

1View

Beaches - General - Horses on Beaches - POLICY -

 

2View

Brochure regarding Horses on Beaches

 

 

 


Works Inspection Committee - 20 February 2008

Policy Review--Beaches--General--Horses on Beaches

Attachment 1

Beaches - General - Horses on Beaches - POLICY -

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

POLICY

BEACHES – GENERAL

HORSES ON BEACHES

 

 

 

Function:  ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

 

Adopted: 16 April 2001     

Last reviewed: 16 September 2004 

 

 

 

1.0     Policy objective

 

2.0     Related legislation

 

3.0       Definitions

 

4.0     Policy statement

 

The riding of horses is permitted from:

 

¨          Swimming Creek north to the footbridge at Valla Beach Foot Bridge

¨          Scotts Head north from the four wheel drive access

¨          Valla Beach north from the four wheel drive access,

 

with such activity being confined to non-vegetated areas excluding dunal areas.

 

4.1     History

 

For many years Council has permitted horse riding form Swimming Creek to the Valla Beach foot bridge including race horses.

 

A section of beach for Scotts Head and Valla Beach was allocated in 2001.

 

 


Works Inspection Committee - 20 February 2008

Policy Review--Beaches--General--Horses on Beaches

Attachment 2

Brochure regarding Horses on Beaches