NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

26 July 2012

 

Council has adopted the following Vision and Mission Statements to describe its philosophy and to provide a focus for the principal activities detailed in its Management Plan.

 

Our Vision

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best.

 

Our? Mission Statement

 

?The Nambucca Valley will value and protect its natural environment, maintain its assets and infrastructure and develop opportunities for its people.?

 

Our Values in Delivery

?                Effective leadership

?                Strategic direction

?                Sustainability of infrastructure and assets

?                Community involvement and enhancement through partnerships with Council

?                Enhancement and protection of the environment

?                Maximising business and employment opportunities through promotion of economic development

?                Addressing social and cultural needs of the community through partnerships and provision of facilities and services

?                Actively pursuing resource sharing opportunities

 

Council Meetings:? Overview and Proceedings

 

Council meetings are held on the first and third Thursday of each month commencing at 5.30 pm.? Council meetings are held in the Council Chamber at Council's Administration Centre?44 Princess Street, Macksville.

 

How can a Member of the Public Speak at a Council Meeting?

 

1??????? Addressing Council with regard to an item on the meeting agenda:

 

Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings and address the Council.? Registration to speak may be made by telephone or in person before 2.00 pm on a meeting day.? The relevant agenda item will be brought forward at 5.30 pm in agenda order, and dealt with following preliminary business items on the agenda.? Public addresses are limited to five (5) minutes per person with a limit of two people speaking for and two speaking against an item.?

 

2??????? Public forum address regarding matters not on the meeting agenda:

 

Council allows not more than two (2) members of the public per meeting to address it on matters not listed in the agenda provided the request is received before publication of the agenda and the subject of the address is disclosed and recorded on the agenda.

 

Speakers should address issues and refrain from making personal attacks or derogatory remarks.? You must treat others with respect at all times.

 

Meeting Agenda

 

These are available from the Council's Administration Building, the Regional Libraries in Macksville and Nambucca Heads as well as Council?s website: www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au


 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

 

Acknowledgement of Country????????? ? (Mayor)

 

I would like to acknowledge the Gumbaynggirr people who are the Traditional Custodians of this Land.? I would also like to pay respect to the elders both past and present and extend that respect to any Aboriginal People present.

 

AGENDA?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 11 July 2012

5??????? NOTICES OF MOTION ?

6??????? PUBLIC FORUM?Ms Rita Spencer - PUBLIC FORUM - U3A on behalf of U3A

DELEGATIONS?

9.2???? Nambucca Heads High School - Proposed Information Sign................................................ 12

????????? i)??????? Mr Kerry Daley - Nambucca Heads High School P&C Representative

????????? ii)?????? Mr Neil Gerrard ? Nambucca Heads High School Representative

 

7??????? ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE ??

8??????? QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9??????? General Manager Report

9.1???? Outstanding Actions and Reports....................................................................................... 6

9.2???? Nambucca Heads High School - Proposed Information Sign?DELEGATION ....................... 12

9.3???? NSW Independent Local Government Review Panel - "Strengthening Your Community" - Initial Consultation Paper............................................................................................................................. 20

9.4???? September 2012 Local Government Elections - Caretaker Provisions................................... 24

9.5???? Donations Policy............................................................................................................. 28

9.6???? Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy.................................................. 35

9.7???? Use of Boulton's Crossing Reserve as a Camping Ground................................................... 60

9.8???? Proposed Lease of a Section of Road Reserve to NBN Co for a Fixed Wireless Transmission Tower - 95 Little Tamban Road, Eungai Creek.................................................................................... 67

9.9???? Goods and Services Tax Certificate 1 July 2011 - 30 June 2012........................................... 76

9.10?? Grant Application Status Report ...................................................................................... 78

9.11?? Bowraville Off River Water Storage - Stage 3 Funding Approval under the Country Towns Water and Sewerage Program.......................................................................................................... 81

10????? Director Environment and Planning Report

10.1?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 13 July 2012........................................................................................................................ 90

10.2?? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority from 13 July 2012........ 93

10.3?? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report June 2012.................................................................. 95

10.4?? Report on Exploration Licence Application (4581) - 100 Units 51KM NNW Kempsey by PMR3 Pty Ltd..................................................................................................................................... 97

10.5?? Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville........................ 107

10.6?? Extension of Increased Output period for APS - Macksville Precast Concrete Operations..... 113


11????? Director Engineering Services Report

11.1?? SES ? Strategic Disaster Readiness Package................................................................. 120

11.2?? Roads and Maritme Services Block Grant Assistance for Roads - 2012/2013...................... 122

11.3?? Emergency Services Funding - NSW State Government Discussion Paper ........................ 124

11.4?? Policy Review ? Urban and Rural Road Naming................................................................ 128

11.5?? Acquisition of Forests NSW Land for Off River Storage...................................................... 133 ????

 

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

????????? (name)

 

 

 

 

Pecuniary ? must leave chamber, take no part in discussion and voting.

 

 

 

Non Pecuniary ? Significant Conflict ? Recommended that Councillor/Member leaves chamber, takes no part in discussion or voting.

 

 

Non-Pecuniary ? Less Significant Conflict ? Councillor/Member may choose to remain in Chamber and participate in discussion and voting.

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Council?s Email Address ? council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

(Instructions and definitions are provided on the next page).

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

Pecuniary ? An interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

A Councillor or other member of a Council Committee who is present at a meeting and has a pecuniary interest in any matter which is being considered must disclose the nature of that interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

 

The Council or other member must not take part in the consideration or discussion on the matter and must not vote on any question relating to that matter. (Section 451).

 

 

Non-pecuniary ? A private or personal interest the council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act (for example; a friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

 

If you have declared a non-pecuniary conflict of interest you have a broad range of options for managing the conflict.? The option you choose will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of your interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.? You must deal with a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in at least one of these ways.

 

?        It may be appropriate that no action is taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.? However, council officials should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

?        Limit involvement if practical (for example, participate in discussion but not in decision making or visa-versa).? Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

?        Remove the source of the conflict (for example, relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict or reallocating the conflicting duties to another officer).

?        Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in section 451(2) of the Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest).

 

??????? ?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.1????? SF959????????????? 260712???????? Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

 

The following table is a report on all outstanding resolutions and questions from Councillors (except development consents, development control plans & local environmental plans). Matters which are simply noted or received, together with resolutions adopting rates, fees and charges are not listed as outstanding actions. Where matters have been actioned they are indicated with strikethrough and then removed from the report to the following meeting. Please note that the status comments have been made one week before the Council meeting.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the list of outstanding actions and reports be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

No

FILE

NO

COUNCIL

MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION

BY

STATUS

JULY 2009

1

SF1272

16/07/09

Council consider as a first priority the provision of a data link and adequate server for backup in the quarterly review. That Council consider suitable remote office space to house disaster recovery equipment at the quarterly review.

 

RO/IT

Hardware has been installed being:

1. ESXi host server in the library. This server runs VMware ESX which is then capable of hosting our servers in a virtual environment if required.

2. Platespin Protect. Installed on the ESX host is a virtual server dedicated to handling replications from our physical servers. Each physical server has a Platespin agent installed to facilitate this replication.

3. Fibre link between admin office and library DR site.

Initial testing has been done of virtual server in library. Power points and wireless connection being provided in Senior Citizens Centre for a full test of disaster recovery.

Full testing to occur at Senior Citizens Centre on Sunday 11 March. Issues with testing on 11 March 2012. Further testing to be scheduled.

 

Further testing undertaken early June.? All servers were brought up successfully.? Most applications ran.? There remains an issue with email which should be easily resolved.? However the major issue is that there is still a dependency on the servers in the Administration building to prepare the back up server.? A quote has been obtained from contractors CSA who supplied the back up server to rectify the problem.


 

JULY 2010

2

SF218

15/07/10

Council review investigations to extend sewer to the Lower Nambucca and investigate effluent disposal issues in Eungai.

 

GM/

DEP

Letter sent to owners in Lower Nambucca. Briefing and discussion with property owners to be arranged.

DEP to investigate Eungai.

De Groot Benson contacted concerning a meeting date in February 2011.

Information sent through to consultant. Meeting now not likely to late March 2011.

Consultant advised that meeting will need to be deferred to May 2011 due to unavailability.

Staff workloads have not permitted to proceed in May. June now targeted.

Now deferred to August.

Costing being prepared on a pressurised system so facts and figures will be discussed.

 

Further deferred.

 

MARCH 2011

3

DA2010/234

17/3/11

Council develop a policy as to the cumulative impacts of locating fill on the floodplain at Macksville and also review the matrix in the Floodplain Risk Management Plan

 

DEP

Brief to be prepared and new floodplain study to be undertaken during 2011.

RTA has now engaged Consultants to prepare a new full and comprehensive flood study which will be provided to Council upon completion. At this time Council will be able to proceed to complete a new Flood Plain Risk Management Plan incorporates a revised matrix.

DEP advised meeting arranged with RTA.

 

Draft flood study likely to be presented to Council May/June 2012.

 

Re the delay, Council?s Strategic Planner has followed up the RMS.

 

MAY 2011

4

SF1031

19/5/2011

That a new policy covering donations to charities be prepared to cover all existing policies and to better ration the limited donations budget.

 

GM

In progress ? report to October Council meeting. Agenda for Oct GPC too large.

Deferred to November.

Deferred to December 2011.

Deferred to January 2012.

Further deferral due to workload.

Draft completed and awaiting comments from Councillors before being reported back to Council.

Draft policy completed.? Awaiting comments from Councillors by 14 July 2012.

Report in business paper.

 

JUNE 2011

5

SF841

2/06/2011

Council write to the RTA requesting they design the new Nambucca River bridge at Macksville to provide 62m between the main channel piers and ensure the bridge is tall enough to allow yachts to pass under at maximum high tide.

 

DEP

Letter sent 8 June 2011.

No response as at 6 December 2011.

Further letter sent 10 January 2012.

 

No formal response, however RMS have verbally advised that a formal response will be with Council prior to the end of May 2012

DEP to follow up with RMS.

JULY 2011

6

SF1031

21/7/2011

That the policy for Climate Change Adaption be deferred to allow amendments to be made to the draft policy

 

DEP

Policy under revision and to be reported to future General Purpose Committee Meeting.

OCTOBER 2011

7

SF1595

20/10/2011

Council review its Tree Maintenance and Removal Application Policy asap, to provide greater clarity with regard to application assessments

 

DES

January GPC

Draft policy to be provided to Councillors at the end of January for comment and report to March GPC.

 

Further work being undertaken on the policy emanating from the resolutions of Council?s meeting 2/2/12. Draft policy will now be provided to Councillors for comment at end of February.

Due to natural disasters deferred to May 2012.

Deferred until   October following the election of the new Council and to be included in Tree Register? Item No 19 below.

 

8

SF688

20/10/2011

Council consider and prioritise the unfunded items in the Environmental Levy in a future report to Council.

 

DEP

Report to follow IPR Exhibition.

Decision made to defer pending determination by IPART re special variation.

Report to August Meeting.

 

9

SF938

3/11/2011

Council receive from the Property Officer a draft policy on future licensing for water reservoir space

 

GM

Report in December 2011. Deferred due to resignation of Property Officer.

 

10

SF1460

17/11/2011

Structure of the Farmland (rate) Category be changed to incorporate the statutory minimum with ad valorem maintaining yield. Council undertake a review of the farmland criteria to better reflect high intensity pursuits.

 

GM

Farmland criteria to be revised prior to the issuing of the 2012/13 rates.

 

Change in Rates staff meant that there has not been the opportunity to review the criteria.? To be reported in 2012/2013.

 

 

DECEMBER 2011

11

SF84

1/12/2011

Council write to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services requesting a detailed itemised budget for the line item ?other support? and the line item ?insurances?. Also that an explanation be provided as to why the RFS budgets are not provided to Council by no later than 28 February each year in accordance with the Service Level Agreement

.

DES

Letters Sent 6 December 2011

 

Response received from the Premier (provided to Councilors week ending 13 Jan 2012) advising the Premier has referred the matter to the Minister  

 

No response as at 20 June 2012.

 

JANUARY 2012

12

SF1714

19/01/2012

That an on-site inspection at the Nambucca Beach Holiday Park be conducted by Councillors at a GPC to resolve DA2011/142 and the proposal be pegged out for that site inspection.

 

DEP

Will be scheduled once application is ready for determination.

13

SF85

19/01/2012

Council write to the Minister for Police & Emergency Services and Deputy Premier seeking clarification on the GRN component of the RFS budget.

 

DES

Letter sent 25 January to the Minister for Police & Emergency Services and Deputy Premier

 

Acknowledgement letters have been received advising that matter is being investigated.

14

SF84

19/01/2012

Council write to the Premier requesting a complete audit of the RFS focussing on financial accountability and efficiency of service delivery.

 

DES

Letter sent 25 January to the Premier seeking an audit of the RFS

 

Response received from the Dept Local Government regarding Council?s December resolution (provided to Councillors 20 Jan 2012)

 

Acknowledgement letters have been received, advising that matter is being investigated.

 

15

SF742

19/01/2012

Council prepare a draft brochure to demonstrate land slip risk and tips for minimising risk.

 

GM

Aim to have completed by June 2012.

Existing information brochures have been sourced.

Small item in rates newsletter.? Grants Officer to prepare brochure.

 

FEBRUARY 2012

16

GB2/12

02/02/2012

Appropriate sized nesting boxes be place in trees in close proximity to the Cabbage Gum site (Link Road)

DES

20 nesting boxes organised and will be installed once they have been received; two advanced trees ordered and will be planted.?

 

17

SF741

16/02/2012

That a further report be prepared (on the Paveline) for the year July 2011 to June 2012 for comparison with the same period in the previous year.

 

DES

August 2012

MARCH 2012

18

SF959

1/03/2012

Council write to the Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson requesting clarification as to the Native Title Tribunal claim involving the Gumma (Boultons Crossing) Reserve.

 

GM

Letter sent 6 March 2012.

 

Letter of support being sought from Gaagal Wangan that the Boultons Crossing become a nature reserve managed by NPWS.

Refer to report in business paper

 

19

SF1743

15/03/2012

The tree register be referred back to the DES so that he may prepare a further report and recommendation to Council on a proposal which addresses historic, senescent or publicly significant trees on public land in urban areas.

 

DES

Report will be presented to Council in August 2012,

 

To incorporate outstanding action No 9 above.

 

Deferred until  October following Council elections and to be incorporate in outstanding action No 7 above.

 

20

SF1653

4/04/2012

Senior management establish and lead a continuous improvement program across the organisation to achieve productivity savings, efficiency gains and revenue enhancement.

 

GM

Report in May 2012 on proposed program.

 

Deferred to June 2012.

 

Training organised for senior management July/August.

21

SF1714

11/04/2012

Council receive a report setting out the number of rural blocks which front sealed roads but do not have a building entitlement.

 

DEP

Deferred to June 2012.

Investigations to commence when Strategic Planner returns from leave in August.

22

SF1714

11/04/2012

Council review the availability of industrial (employment) land at Nambucca Heads and Macksville and if necessary take steps to rezone further land.

 

DEP

Deferred to June 2012.

Investigations to commence when Strategic Planner returns from leave in August.

23

DA2012/004

11/04/2012

Council review its Car Parking Code

 

DEP

Deferred to June 2012.

Investigations to commence when Strategic Planner returns from leave in August.

24

SF544

11/04/2012

Clarification be sought on the mining and/or extractive industries contribution plan and information also be provided on coal seam gas extraction exploration and its implications for contribution planning.

 

GM

Report in May 2012

 

Deferred to June 2012.

 

Deferred to July 2012 due to workload.? Further deferred to August.

25

SF452

11/04/2012

Council receive a quarterly waste management report including infringements issued, progress with the Biomass, community education, landfill construction etc

DES

Report in July 2012

Deferred until August - waiting on end of year financial information from Handybin to complete the report.

MAY 2012

26

SF430

31/05/2012

That the Flying Fox Plan of Management for Grassy Park, Bowraville be deferred for 3 months to provide affected residents with the opportunity to establish a Committee and put forward an alternative Plan of Management for Council?s consideration.

DEP

Letter sent to Ms Glennon regarding resolution.

2nd letter sent to Ms Glennon following Council?s determination of the Notice of Motion

 

In business paper

JUNE 2012

27

SF732

13/06/2012

River Ecohealth Project be deferred until consideration has been given to reviewing the environmental levy works program and after consideration has been given to reviewing hot spots like Newee Creek which may require further sampling.

 

GM

Review of Environmental Levy Works underway by DEP.? Deferred to 15 August 2012 meeting.

28

SF757

28/06/2012

Council receive a report on the application (for the exploratory mining lease) including whether Council should make representations to the Department.? Further the report should cover the problem with antimony mining at Kempsey Shire and whether Council can legally advise affected property owners.

 

DEP

Environmental Compliance Officer currently investigating this matter for a report to be presented in August.

 

In business paper

29

SF1620

29/06/2012

That the options identified in the Operational Plan/Delivery Program to improve Council?s asset renewal rates be the subject of ongoing consultation with the community.

 

GM

To be included in the newsletter to go out with the rates notice.? Information included in draft newsletter to go to the printer w/e 20 July 2012.

30

SF394

29/06/2012

Councillors consider the draft Investment of Surplus Funds Policy and Strategy and provide any comments to the GM by 14 July 2012.

GM

Awaiting comments from Councillors by 14 July 2012.? Report in this business paper.

31

SF251

29/06/2012

The trial meeting arrangements continue on a permanent basis subject to a review by the newly elected Council post the 8 September 2012 local government elections.

 

GM

Report October 2012.

32

SF1747

29/06/2012

Council receive a report on the opportunities for employing and/or training its own traffic controllers and also enquiring about purchasing and utilising automatic traffic signals.

 

AGM

Report to the August Council Meeting.

JULY 2012

33

SF959

11/07/2012

Council receive a report on the ongoing use of the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve as a camping ground; the risks to council and any options for the management of that risk.

 

GM

Report in business paper.

34

SF1759

11/07/2012

That when Council meets in September 2012 to review its S355 Committees that it consider establishing a Library Committee.

 

AGM

Report in September/October 2012.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.2????? SF96??????????????? 260712???????? Nambucca Heads High School - Proposed Information Sign

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The Nambucca Heads High School P&C and Relieving Principal wish to erect a large changeable information sign in Mann Street in the vicinity of the Newville roundabout. Such signs are normally placed within school grounds but the P&C and Relieving Principal wish to locate it in a highly visible location so as to provide information to the widest possible audience. The proposed sign is not supported for reasons of road safety; the lack of an overall policy to manage similar requests; and the fact that Council will become financially responsible for the removal of the sign if it is not properly maintained.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council not support the erection of a noticeboard for the Nambucca Heads High School in the Mann Street/Old Coast Road/Link Road road reserve for reasons of road safety; the lack of an overall policy to manage similar requests; and the fact that Council will become financially responsible for the removal of the sign if it is not properly maintained.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can approve the erection of the noticeboard in the road reserve. A location would need to be selected which had good visibility but at the same time was as safe as possible for people changing the information on the sign and also for drivers who will be momentarily distracted when they read it.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In early 2012 Council staff received a request from the Nambucca Heads High School P&C to install a changeable noticeboard within the road reserve, adjacent to Mann Street, Nambucca Heads. The proposed location was in the vicinity of the Newville roundabout.

 

Council?s Manager Technical Services responded on 4 January 2012 indicating that the Engineering Services Department did not support the request for reasons of road safety and the fact that Council as owner of the land would be accepting responsibility for its removal if it wasn?t maintained. The letter is attached.

 

The Nambucca Heads High School P&C and Relieving Principal have now made further representations that the elected Council consider allowing the proposed sign in a prominent location along the northern gateway entrance road into Nambucca Heads. The letters from the P&C and from the Relieving Principal are attached.

 

The advice provided by Council?s Manager Technical Services is supported. The other policy issue is that such requests have to be dealt with consistently. For example in Centenary Parade there are two other schools. Council also receives requests from businesses to erect directional or advertising signage on road reservations. Whilst a single additional sign in the road reservation may not have any significant implications, multiple large signs can be unduly distracting for drivers as well as being unsightly.

 

Whilst it is not mentioned in the School?s correspondence another concern is the potential for vandalism. Whereas such information signs are commonly located in school grounds and often behind security fencing, depending upon the selected location there will be less scope to secure a sign located in the road reservation.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The Relieving Principal and P&C have been advised of this report with a suggestion that they address Council.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no significant implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The School maintains that the sign will improve communication with the community. They note that not all members of the community are electronically connected and that some parents don?t have any telephone communication.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

Approving any private structures in road reservations does incur risk. There may be a risk of injury from a vehicle colliding with a person updating the message on the sign. There is also the general risk of drivers between distracted by the information on the sign.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

As the sign would be located on Council land, if it is not properly maintained and has to be removed, ultimately the Council would be financially responsible for its removal. If the sign is properly maintained there would be no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

164/2012 - Response concerning noticeboard for Nambucca Heads High School

0 Pages

2View

15489/2012 - P&C request for sign to be brought to Council for consideration

0 Pages

3View

15495/2012 - Submission from Relieving Principal

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Nambucca Heads High School - Proposed Information Sign

 

Enquiries to:???? Keith Williams

Phone No:??????? 02 6568 0237

Our Ref:????????? RF143

Your Ref:????????

 

 

 

4 January 2012

 

 

 

Mr K Daley

1009 Valla Road

VALLA? NSW? 2448

 

 

Dear Mr Daley

 

NAMBUCCA HEADS HIGH SCHOOL NOTIFICATION BOARD

 

I refer to your request to install a noticeboard within the road reserve, adjacent to Mann Street, Nambucca Heads.

 

I wish to advise that the Engineering Services Department does not support your request for the following reasons:

 

Road Safety:?

There is a potential for rear end collisions and other traffic related accidents if drivers are attempting to read information whilst in motion.

 

Maintenance:

Historically, notice boards and signs that have previously been allowed in the road reserve have become unsightly due to the lack of maintenance and/or ageing of the infrastructure.

 

As suggested in our telephone conversation, I carried out a site visit to Mann Street to investigate alternative locations for the noticeboard.? Initially a location near the shops adjacent to the roundabout was thought to be ideal, however the shops appear to have taken all available space.

 

Another location that could be explored is near the water towers at the top of Mann Street.? There are existing signs located within private property, advertising caravan parks.? If need be, there is opportunity for vehicles to pull over to the road verge for notices to be read.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

 

Keith Williams

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

KW:hl

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Nambucca Heads High School - Proposed Information Sign

 





Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Nambucca Heads High School - Proposed Information Sign

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3????? SF894????????????? 260712???????? NSW Independent Local Government Review Panel - "Strengthening Your Community" - Initial Consultation Paper

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The NSW Government has appointed an Independent Local Government Review Panel to develop options to improve the strength and effectiveness of local government in NSW.? The Panel is chaired by Professor Graham Sansom, Director of the Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government, Ms Jude Munro AO, a former CEO of four metropolitan councils across three states, including the City of Brisbane; and Mr Glenn Inglis, who has extensive experience as a council general manager in rural and regional NSW.

 

The Panel has issued a Consultation Paper to elicit responses on three key questions.

 

1.?????? What are the best aspects of NSW local government in its current form?

 

2.?????? What challenges will your community have to meet over the next 25 years?

 

3.?????? What ?top 5? changes should be made to local government to help meet your community?s future challenges?

 

Responses are required by 14 September 2012.

 

The Panel then propose to issue a second Paper on a ?case for change? in October 2012; a third Paper on ?future directions? in February 2013 and the final report in June/July 2013.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council make a submission in response to the ?Strengthening Your Community? Discussion Paper incorporating the discussion in this report and in particular the proposed responses to the three (3) listed questions.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the choice of whether or not to make a submission and also the content of the submission.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The NSW Independent Local Government Review Panel has released its initial discussion paper for comment by 14 September 2012.? A copy of this discussion paper has been circulated to Councillors.

 

The discussion paper poses three key questions for a response being:

 

1.?????? What are the best aspects of NSW local government in its current form?

 

2.?????? What challenges will your community have to meet over the next 25 years?

 

3.?????? What ?top 5? changes should be made to local government to help meet your community?s future challenges?

 

The discussion paper contains introductory remarks of an aspirational nature .? For example on page 2:

 

?Why this review matters to you

 

Capable and effective local government is vital to provide essential community services and maintain our quality of life.? But across NSW many councils are struggling with financial problems, growing infrastructure backlogs, and difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled staff and councillors.

 

Communities deserve high capacity councils that can:

 

?????? deliver services and infrastructure you need at a price you can afford

?????? prepare soundly-based plans for the future

?????? help support local jobs and economic growth

?????? represent the diverse needs of different groups

?????? influence state and federal government decisions to achieve local objectives, for example in transport and housing

?????? maximise the local benefits from spending the rates and charges you pay.

 

This review?s goal is to ensure that every community in NSW has local government that reaches the highest possible standard.?

 

Given the history of local government in NSW there should be some caution in the use of such aspirational language.? As noted by the Allan Inquiry, the new Local Government legislation in 1993 freed up councils to embrace a ?maximalist? (people servicing) role, yet by restricting taxes to property rates and retaining rate pegging and regulated fees and charges, in reality, Local Government?s capacity has remained constrained to a minimalist (property servicing) role.? There should be caution in increasing expectations when there is no possibility of adequate funding ever being available, regardless of the structural arrangements which may be adopted.

 

There are also some very broad and subjective statements in the introductory remarks, such as the example in the following paragraph.? They suggest, without any empirical underpinning, that many councils are not adapting to change quickly enough and are not meeting the expectations of their communities.? There is no benchmark for comparison, for example with other levels of government.

 

?? a considerable number of councils are struggling with the impacts of change and to meet the legitimate needs and expectations of their communities, as well as playing their part in the wider system of government.? In some cases this is due to declining populations and limited funding.? Difficulty attracting and retaining skilled staff and councillors is also an issue.? In other cases, councils? resources are being stretched to the limits due to rapid growth?.

 

Also the following comment on page 4 the discussion paper seems to accept what Allan would describe as the ?maximalist? model being that Councils are the governments of their areas and as such should foster the welfare of the whole community even if this means duplicating the work of other tiers of government.

 

??ncreasingly communities and other spheres of government are looking to councils to have a vision for the local area and to work across public, private and community sectors to make that vision a reality.? Communities expect their councils to provide strong and stable leadership that rises above narrow interests and effectively represents their needs and aspirations.? They expect local leaders to work with other levels of government to create more liveable places.?

 

Page 4 which deals with ?What makes a good council? tackles the question about the preferred model for local government in the future.

 

?Looking to the future, do you see councils continuing to expand their range of activities they have done over recent decades?? Or is it time to focus more on ?core business??? If so, what exactly is ?core business? for local government in the 21st century?

 

In the UK, the ?Lyons? inquiry into local government that reported a few years ago argued strongly that councils should be ?place shapers?, linking their various service delivery, planning and regulatory roles so as to make a real difference to the quality of the places and communities they govern.? That concept is also at the heart of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework in NSW: councils working with their communities to plan strategically across environmental, social and economic issues to create a better future for their areas.

 

Are these broader concepts of the role of local government sufficiently understood and accepted by citizens and ratepayers, and are they affordable?

 

It is agreed that this is the nub of the issue.

 

The notion of a ?place shaper? requires that local government have a high level of authority and financial capacity.? This has not been the traditional model in NSW.? According to the Allan Report, the official view in State Government is that local councils are legally no more than state statutory corporations and as such they are not an autonomous tier of government even though elected by citizens.? State legislation such as the council?s charter in the Local Government Act does not define Local Government?s role vis-?-vis other governments.? Nor is there an intergovernmental agreement to clarify this.? In terms of financial capacity, councils in NSW have been hampered by decades of rate pegging and a declining share of taxation revenue.

 

Indeed if councils had the requisite authority and financial capacity to be a ?place shaper?, they would have the flexibility to determine their own preferred model rather than work within a particular model imposed by the State.? The language within the Discussion Paper suggests the Panel will continue the search for ?the model? rather than accepting that the differences between NSW Councils are such that no one model will be optimal for all councils.

 

The three possibilities discussed in the Allan Report were:

 

?????? Minimalist:? Councils are the body corporate for the local community and as such should look after the common property and regulate the usage of private properties.? This role would ensure that councils live within their meagre resources largely dictated by a single tax base (land rates) subject to a state imposed ceiling (rate pegging).

?????? Maximalist:? Councils are the governments of their areas and as such foster the welfare of the whole community even if this means duplicating the work of other tiers of government.? They should undertake such services that local communities want and are prepared to pay for.

?????? Optimalist:? Councils are champions of their areas and as such should take a leadership role in harnessing public, NGO and private resources to promote particular outcomes rather than attempt to fund and operate local initiatives on their own.? Because of funding constraints an ?optimalist? approach may allow a ?minimalist? resourced council to exercise maximum leverage.

 

The remainder of the Discussion Paper considers five (5) big issues set out in the Inquiry?s terms of reference.? These are:

 

1.? Councils? ability to support the current and future needs of local communities

2.? Councils? ability to deliver services and infrastructure efficiently, effectively and in a timely manner

3.? The financial sustainability of each local government area

4.? The ability of councils to provide local representation and decision making

5.? Barriers and incentives to voluntary boundary changes

 

Of interest is that the Discussion Paper makes no special reference to the last Inquiry into the structure of water utilities.? It is not even mentioned in the list of previous reviews to be referenced.

 

In response to the posed questions it is suggested that Council respond as follows:

 

1.? What are the best aspects of NSW local government in its current form?

?????? Councillors and staff are accessible to residents

?????? Residents have a real capacity to influence the decisions of their council

?????? Decision making is more transparent than other levels of government

 

2.? What challenges will your community have to meet over the next 25 years?

?????? Maintaining local infrastructure in a low-socio economic area

?????? Balancing the need for economic development with environmental and social needs.

?????? Meeting the social service needs of an ageing population which is growing at a faster rate than the State average.

 

3.? What ?top 5? changes should be made to local government to help meet your community?s future challenges?

?????? Remove rate pegging

?????? Remove the per capita floor on the Financial Assistance Grants to provide funding to councils entirely on a needs basis

?????? Increase untied grant programs relative to tied grant programs

?????? Remove at least 50% of the provisions of the Local Government Act and Regulations (what does it say about NSW local government that we have to be governed by 749 sections in the Local Government Act and a further 418 clauses in the Regulations?)

?????? Return town planning powers to councils (you can?t be a place shaper without them)

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been discussion in Manex.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

At this stage there are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

At this stage there are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

At this stage there are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no particular risks.? It is likely that Council?s submission to the Inquiry will be published.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 July 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF42??????????????? 050712???????? September 2012 Local Government Elections - Caretaker Provisions

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The State Government has regulated a caretaker period in the run up to the September 2012 local government elections.? The period commences on Friday 10 August 2012 and concludes on the election day being Saturday 8 September 2012.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information concerning the caretaker period commencing on Friday 10 August and ending on Saturday 8 September 2012 be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options.? The report is for information.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Division of Local Government has issued a Circular on the caretaker provisions for the 8 September 2012 election.? The Circular is attached.

 

Amendments to the Local Government (General) Regulation (Clause 393B) require that the Council, General Manager or any other delegate not exercise the following functions during the four weeks preceding the election:

 

?????? Entering into any contract or undertaking involving an expenditure or receipt by the council of an amount equal to or greater than $150,000 or 1% of the council?s revenue from rates in the preceding financial year (whichever is the larger).

?????? Determining a controversial development application, except where a failure to make such a determination would give rise to a deemed refusal, or such a deemed refusal arose before the commencement of the caretaker period.? The term ?controversial development application? is defined as one for which at least 25 persons have made submissions by way of objection.

?????? Appointing or renewing the appointment of the General Manager or terminating their employment.? (This does not include the appointment of an acting or temporary General Manager).

 

The nature of the NSW planning system is such that it is likely that applicants for many undetermined controversial development applications will have the opportunity to appeal to the Land and Environment Court against a deemed refusal.? In such instances the caretaker provision won?t apply.

 

It is understood that the caretaker arrangements at the State and Federal level are a convention.? Whilst Council has to accept the regulations, a preferred arrangement would have been to allow Councils to make their own arrangements consistent with the convention, just like the other two levels of government.? Councils would then be accountable for their actions as opposed to not being respected as a responsible tier of government.

 

The caretaker period for the election will commence on Friday 10 August and ends on Saturday 8 September 2012.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing this report.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risk implications.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

15517/2012 - DLG Circular to Councils 12/19 - Caretaker Provisions

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

September 2012 Local Government Elections - Caretaker Provisions

 



Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.5????? SF1031??????????? 260712???????? Donations Policy

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

As reported to Council at its meeting on 28 June 2012, it is proposed that all of Council?s policies and practices in relation to donations be incorporated in a single policy and as far as possible ?ad hoc? discretionary allocations be avoided in favour of programmed financial support which is listed in the policy and where there is an obligation on beneficiaries to account for its expenditure.?

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Draft Donations Policy be placed on public exhibition for 21 days subject to the suggested changes:

 

?????????????????? Delete:???????? 3.3???? Public notice is not required if:?..

???? 7.0???? Photocopying: Council provides ?...? This copying will be in black and ???? white ????????? only.? No colour copying to be provided.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can determine a new donations policy as it sees fit.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report and draft policy was referred to Council?s meeting on 28 June 2012.? It was resolved that Councillors, after having considered the draft donations policy and having provided any comments to the General Manager by 14 July 2012, agree that the policy be placed on public exhibition for comment before being finalised.

 

A comment on the draft policy has been received from Cr Smyth:

4.12? Second line ? delete the words ?or the like?, or provide an explanation as to the meaning of the phrase.

Response ? the words ?or the like? have been deleted.

 

7.0? Photocopying ? perhaps indicate how often this service will be provided, as well as the number of double-sided A4 pages.

Response ? it is suggested that the service be provided twice per annum and this has been added to the provision.

 

A comment on the draft policy has been received from Cr Court:

3.3???? Provide examples

Response ? Delete the whole clause as there may be too many examples.

7.0???? Photocopying ? Do we need to keep a register of photocopying provision?

Response ? The staff will keep an unofficial register.

 

The following is the report considered by Council at its meeting on 28 June 2012.

 

At Council?s meeting on 19 May 2011 it was resolved that a new policy covering donations to charities be prepared to cover all existing policies and to better ration the limited donations budget.

 

It will be recalled that in 2011 Council received two requests from Nambucca Valley Care for the reimbursement of DA fees.? These were firstly for a sunroom addition to Autumn Lodge ($2,078) and secondly for 16 new villas at Riverside Gardens ($6,824).

 

Nambucca Valley Care sought the waiving and refund of the DA fees as a charitable entity.

 

Notwithstanding a policy to provide for discounts on development application, construction certificate and similar fees, Nambucca Valley Care was advised that Council had no funds remaining in its donations budget to provide the requested refund.

 

A check of Council?s files indicates that similar issues have been encountered in the past.? These include requests from a community playgroup, the Salvation Army, the Anglican Church as well as from service clubs like Lions and Rotary.

 

The Council has also had a practice of making annual donations to the:

 

?????? Nambucca Valley Rescue Squad ($3,000 but haven?t been paid since 2008/2009)

?????? Nambucca River Marine Rescue ($3,000 but overpaid in 2008/2009 and 2009/2010)

?????? Nambucca Heads Surf Life Saving Club ($3,600 plus Section 94 contributions)

?????? Macksville-Scotts Head Surf Life Saving Club ($3,600 plus Section 94 contributions)

?????? Nambucca District Band ($4,000 in 2011/2012 but no allocation in 2012/2013)

?????? North Coast Academy of Sport ($2,300 requested)

?????? Local schools ($50 prizes for annual presentation nights)

?????? Rural Counselling Service ($3,800)

?????? Life Education Van ($3,000 being the cost of moving the van between schools)

?????? Arts Mid North Coast ($5,481.62)

?????? Acquisitive Arts Prize ($500)

 

There have been problems with the practice of ?annual? donations through;

 

1.?? Claims for the funds not always being submitted

2.?? Claims not always being supported by any written program for the expenditure of the funds

3.?? Information not always being provided regarding the acquittal of the expenditure

4.?? Confusion between the marine and road rescue squads

5.?? Lack of a ?process? to deal with all of the donations resulting in numerous ?ad hoc? enquiries and greater staff time than would otherwise be necessary

 

Besides discounted application fees and annual donations, Council has a number of other policies relevant to donations.? These are:

 

Policy ? Charitable Photocopying

 

This policy was adopted in 1996 and last reviewed in 2004.? It provides that photocopying will be carried out for such non profit and community based service organisations within the Shire on the basis of a cost per ream of paper or part thereof.? The policy also provides that, ?photocopying is to be confined to reasonable quantities, that copying will be back to back and requests are to be approved by the General Manager (as per Council meeting 190804).?

 

In recent years the demand for this service has increased significantly.? There is no definition as to what a ?reasonable? quantity is and some community groups are publishing regular newsletters which can run to thousands of copies.? The maintenance agreement for Council?s large canon printer sets a printing cost (excluding paper) at 1.01 cents per page or 2.02 cents per page of double sided printing.? Therefore a newsletter of say 2 x double side A4 sheets x 1,000 copies costs Council $40.40 with the paper supplied.? It is proposed that this service be capped at 1,000 double side A4 sheets.

 

Policy ? Charitable Donations & Locally Based Charities

 

This policy was adopted in 1997 and last reviewed in 2004.? The policy provides as follows:

 

?Subject to annual budget provisions the following standard donations shall apply:

 

1.?? Three festivals, one in each town????????????????????????? $200 each

2.?? Senior Citizens Week????????????????????????????????????????? $500

3.?? Up to three Senior Citizens Xmas parties????????????? $100 each

 

Balance of allocation being available for occasional donations as the need arises by delegation to the Mayor and the General Manager.

 

Donations the equivalent of development application fees shall be made in respect of applications for projects on Council owned land.?

 

The standard donations listed have not been indexed and the nominated festivals have not always been conducted nor funded.

 

Again, donations of development application fees can be a significant cost to Council.

 

Policy ? Charitable Waste Bins

 

This policy was adopted in 1996 and last reviewed in 2004.? The policy states that Council will provide two 92) bulk waste bins for major community events held on public reserves or public land in the Shire.

 

It is now more likely that Council would provide mobile garbage bins for a major community event, including recycling bins rather than bulk (skip) bins which have to be centrally located and which do not provide for any recycling.

 

Policy ? Request from Sportspersons

 

This policy provides that Council support local athletes by making an annual donation to the North Coast Academy of Sport, with particular emphasis on local athletes representing NSW or Australia.? The policy was adopted in 1996 and last reviewed in 2004.

 

Council does make a donation to the North Coast Academy of Sport but the level of financial support has been reduced in recent years.? Council has no control over how the donated funds are applied, the extent to which they support ?local? athletes or the extent to which they support ?local? athletes representing NSW or Australia.

 

Proposed Policy

 

It is proposed that all of Council?s policies and practices in relation to donations be incorporated in a single policy and as far as possible ?ad hoc? discretionary allocations be avoided in favour of programmed financial support which is listed in the policy and where there is an obligation on beneficiaries to account for its expenditure.? The advantages of such an approach are that it makes Council?s donations arrangements more transparent with reduced administrative costs.? The disadvantage is that it will remove flexibility to respond to meritorious ad hoc requests.

 

A copy of the proposed policy is attached.? The proposed policy would replace all existing policies relating to donations and other forms of assistance to community based ?not for profit? groups and charities.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with finance staff.? There has been consultation with Council?s Grants Officer.

Once the draft policy has been adopted by Council it is proposed that it be placed on public exhibition for three weeks.? This is because the policy will potentially affect a number of ?not for profit? community organisations who are used to the existing practice.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

Some community groups may be disappointed with the reduction of photocopying support.

 

Economic

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

Because the funding involved with donations is relatively modest, the risk profile is fairly low.? However the existing policies and procedures are fairly ad hoc and if funding was to increase Council?s risks would also increase.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The proposed policy will have no impact on Council?s current or future budgets.? It is proposed that the same funding and support be provided but that it be less discretionary with enhanced accountability for the expenditure of funds.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

6416/2011 - DRAFT POLICY - Donations

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Donations Policy

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

?POLICY

DONATIONS

(CHARITABLE AND OTHER)

 

 

Our Vision

 

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best

 

Our Mission Statement

 

?The Nambucca Valley will value and protect its natural environment, maintain its assets and infrastructure and develop opportunities for its people.?

 

 

 

1.0?????? Policy objective

 

1.1???? To provide clear guidelines for the management of financial donations made by Council.

 

1.2???? To allocate financial assistance funds in an equitable and appropriate manner

 

1.3???? To provide in-kind assistance to local not for profit organisations and events.

 

 

2.0?????? Related legislation

 

????????? Section 356 Local Government Act 1993

????????? Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008

 

3.0?????? Definitions

 

3.1?????? Council may, in accordance with a resolution of Council, contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons or organisations for the purpose of exercising its functions.

 

3.2?????? A proposed recipient who acts for private gain is not ineligible to be granted financial assistance but must not receive any benefit under this Section until at least 28 days? public notice of Council?s proposal to pass the necessary resolution has been given.

 

4.0?????? Strategies

 

4.1?????? During the management planning process each year Council allocates funds for Section 356 Financial assistance.? To optimise the benefit of these funds in the community, funds are allocated in accordance with the strategies, eligibility and selection criteria outlined in this Policy.

 

4,2?????? Each year Council will allocate an amount in its annual budget for Section 356 Financial Assistance.

 


4.3?????? In August/September each year Council will advertise and call for applications from individuals/groups/organisations for financial assistance from Council in accordance with the requirements of Section 356 of the Local Government Act.? The advertisement will advise the deadline for applications, which will be no less than 28 days from the first date of publication.

 

4.4?????? All applicants will be made aware that there are limited funds available in Council?s Operational Plan.

 

4.5?????? All applicants will be required to complete an application in the approved form, which will include a brief description of the organisation, the organisation?s viability, the purpose of the funding request and the need to be accountable for any funds provided.

 

4.6?????? The above process will occur only once in each financial year and allocation of funds is at Council?s discretion.? The funds allocated as part of this process will be 80% of the total allocation for the respective year.

 

4.7?????? Councillors will receive copies of each application prior to the Meeting at which the annual allocation of Section 356 Financial Assistance is considered.

 

4.8?????? Each Councillor is to rank applications which they consider deserve funding in order of merit, and indicate the amount of financial assistance they consider should be allocated to each application.? Councillors may indicate that particular applicants should receive an amount of funding from 100% of the amount requested, to nil, based on their assessment of the application, in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the selection criteria outlined in this Policy.

 

4.9?????? Staff will then collate the results, average the rankings and recommended allocations, and prepare a report to Council advising of the collective recommendations.? Applications will be funded in accordance with the collective recommendations of Councillors, and the funds allocated from the top of the order of merit/ranking downwards, until the budget allocation is fully committed.

 

4.10???? Section 356 Financial Assistance allocations are to be approved by resolution of Council.

 

4.11???? Funds are to be made available to groups at the commencement of the new financial year (July).

 

4.12???? Financial assistance is available to non-profit organisations which provide a community service or the like within the Nambucca Valley; that service should assist Council exercising its functions.

 

4.13???? Financial assistance will only be provided to applicants who act for private gain, in exceptional circumstances, and then only strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Act, including 28 days public notice.

 

 

4.14???? Assistance with funding for events is subject to another process; accordingly, funding relating to the conduct of events will only be funded under Section 356 contributions if they are one off community based events that provide a social benefit to the community.

 

4.15???? Groups who receive funding will be required to show proof of expenditure for the purpose nominated within twelve (12) months by completion the Evaluation of Grant and Financial Report form.? Groups who fail to comply will not be considered for further funding.

 

 


5.0?????? Selection Criteria

 

In ranking applications and making recommendations of the amount of financial assistance that should be allocated to applications, Council should:

 

i? Consider how each project will assist Council exercise its functions.

 

ii? Consider the impact each project will have on the community or on disadvantaged groups within the community.

 

iii Consider the number of potential beneficiaries from the proposed project or service.

 

iv Where the project has a smaller number of potential beneficiaries from the proposed project or service, consider the relative disadvantage of that group of people (eg low income, youth, Aboriginality, rural or social isolation, disability, etc).

 

v Consider the availability of other funding sources.

 

vi Consider resources/projects availability to the general community.

 

vii????????? Consider the equity of support to groups across the area.

 

viii???????? Consider whether or not the applicant has received Section 356 Financial Assistance in previous years.

 

ix Include consideration of whether requirements for previous funding have been met.

 

 

6.0?????? Process for the Balance of Funding (20%)

 

The allocation of the remaining balance of the Section 356 allocation each year will be determined by the Mayor and General Manager in response to requests and applying the criteria set down in this policy.

 

 

7.0?????? Photocopying

 

Council provides a photocopying service for not for profit and community based service organisations with the Nambucca local government area.? Council will undertake copying of up to 1,000 double sided A4 pages twice per annum at no cost provided the organisation gives Council the necessary photocopy paper at a specification which meets the requirements of Council?s copier.? This copying will be in black and white only.? No colour copying to be provided.

 

 

 

Department:

 

Last Reviewed

Resolution Number

Author:

Monika Schuhmacher

 

 

Document No.

6416/2011

 

 

First Adopted:

 

 

 

Resolution No:

 

 

 

Review Due:

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.6????? SF394????????????? 260712???????? Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Faye Hawthorne, Accountant ????????

 

Summary:

 

A review of Council?s Investment Surplus Funds Policy and Strategy has been undertaken to ensure that Council's surplus funds are invested in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, in a secure and prudent manner to generate the optimum return on investments.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council adopt the Investment of Surplus Funds Policy and Strategy.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could adopt the recommendations as provided, or, with changes, or reject the recommendations.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report was referred to Council?s meeting on 28 June 2012 with Councillors having the opportunity to comment on the draft policy up until 14 July 2012.? No comments have been received.? It is now proposed that the policy and strategy be adopted.

 

The remainder of this report is the information referred to Council?s meeting on 28 June.

 

Council?s existing Surplus Funds Policy and Strategy is about five years old and needs to be updated to the current investment market. The new Policy and Strategy is based on Council?s financial advisor?s (CPG) updated policy and strategy which they have been revising for other Councils.

 

Council has a substantial amount of surplus funds to invest and the interest earned represents a significant proportion of the yearly budget.? To ensure the secure and prudent management of the investment portfolio, it is essential that Council review its strategy in its investment of surplus funds. An investment strategy has been reviewed to compliment Council?s policy.

 

The Local Government Act is explicit as to the types of institutions with which Council can invest, however the institutions have developed a variety of products to invest in and new types of investments are being promoted regularly. Council?s investment strategy seeks to utilise the competitiveness of these investment instruments in maximising returns for Council.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Finance Manager and CPG Research & Advisory Pty Ltd

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 


Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no particular risks, other than those associated with managing an investment portfolio of about $31m.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary impacts

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

14892/2012 - DRAFT POLICY - Investment Policy - July 2012

 

2View

14895/2012 - Draft Investment Strategy - July 2012

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

 

 

Draft Investment Policy

Adopted: 19 April 2001 (006)

Last Reviewed by Council: 18 January 2007

July

2012

 


 

Contents

Contents 2

General 3

Purpose of Document 3

Related Documents? 3

Effective Date? 3

Definitions? 4

Investment Policy? 6

Investment Objectives? 6

Legislative and Regulatory References? 6

Delegation of Authority? 7

Prudent Person Standard? 7

Ethics and Conflicts of Interest 7

Authorised Investments? 7

Prohibited Investments? 8

Risk Management Guidelines? 8

Investment Advisor 9

Accounting? 9

Safe Custody Arrangements? 9

Credit Quality Target & Limits? 10

Counterparty Limits? 10

Term to Maturity Limits? 11

Performance Benchmarks? 12

Reporting? 13

Review of Policy? 13

Appendix? 14

 


 

General

Purpose of Document

The purpose of this document is to establish the framework within which investment principles are to apply to the investment of Council funds.? It details:

?? Council Funds covered by this Investment Policy Statement;

?? Council?s objectives for its investment portfolio/s;

?? how investments are to be undertaken;

?? the applicable risks to be managed;

?? any constraints and other prudential requirements to apply to the investments of Funds having regard to the applicable legislation and regulations governing Council investment;

?? the manner in which compliance with the Policy & Strategy will be monitored and reported;

?? appropriate benchmarks for each category of investments.

Related Documents

This policy statement has been prepared to recognise the legislative requirements and obligations for the investment of Council?s funds.? The legislative requirements are detailed within this Investment Policy.

Council?s will comply with investment regulations and directions of the Division of Local Government ? which will prevail in the event of inconsistencies with published Policy and Strategy.

Effective Date

This document replaces any previous Investment Policy document approved by Council.

The effective date of this Investment Policy Statement is 1 July 2012 and will be reviewed at regular twelve monthly intervals, or when either changes in regulation or market conditions necessitate a review.

 

 


 

Definitions

Act???????????????????????? Local Government Act, 1993.

ADI??????????????????? Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADIs) are corporations that are authorised under the Banking Act 1959 (C?wlth) to take deposits from customers.

Bill of

Exchange???????????? A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.

BBSW??????????????????? The Bank Bill Swap reference rate (BBSW) is the average of mid-rate bank-bill quote from brokers on the BBSW Panel. The BBSW is calculated daily. Floating rate securities are most commonly reset quarterly to the 90-day BBSW.

Council Funds?????? Surplus monies that are invested by Council in accordance with section 625 of the Act

Debenture????????? A debenture is a document evidencing an acknowledgement of a debt, which a company has created for the purposes of raising capital.? Debentures are issued by companies in return for medium and long-term investment of funds by lenders.

DLG????????????????? NSW Division of Local Government, Department of Premier & Cabinet.

FRN?????????????????????? A Floating Rate Note (FRN) is a medium to long term fixed interest investment where the coupon is a fixed margin (?coupon margin?) over a benchmark, also described as a ?floating rate?. The benchmark is usually the BBSW and is reset at regular intervals ? most commonly quarterly.

Grandfathered??? Investments held by Council that were previously allowed under the Minister?s Order but were Grandfathered (i.e. eligible to retain but not add to or restructure existing investments) when the NSW State Government changed the list of Approved Investments as a result of the Cole enquiry reflected in the Ministerial Order dated 31/7/2008.

LGGR???????????????? Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW).

NCD???????????????????? Is a short term investment in an underlying security being a negotiable certificate of deposit (NCD) where the term of the security is usually for a period of 185 days or less (sometimes up to 2 years). NCDs are generally discount securities, meaning they are issued and on-sold to investors at a discount to their face value.

RAO?????????????????? Responsible Accounting Officer of a council means a member of the staff of the council designated by the General Manager, or if no such member has been designated, the General Manager. (LGGR, clause 196)

T-Corp??????????????? New South Wales Treasury Corporation.

UBSA BBI???????????? UBS Australia calculates a daily Bank Bill Index representing the performance of a notional rolling parcel of bills averaging 45 days.

????????????


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

Investment Policy

Investment Objectives

The purpose of this Policy is to provide a framework for the optimum investment of Nambucca Shire Council?s Funds at the most favourable rate of interest available to it at the time to maximise returns, whilst having due consideration of risk, liquidity and security for its investments.

While exercising the power to invest, consideration is to be given to the preservation of capital, liquidity and the return of investment. Council therefore has several primary objectives for its investment portfolio:

?? Compliance with legislation, regulations, the prudent person tests of the Trustee Act and best practice guidelines;

?? The preservation of the amount invested;

?? To ensure there is sufficient liquid funds to meet all reasonably anticipated cash flow requirements; and

?? To generate income from the investment that exceeds the performance benchmarks mentioned later in this document.

Council?s Investment Strategy will run in conjunction with its Investment Policy and will outline:

?? Councils current cash flow expectations and the implications for deviations from a long-term liquidity profile;

?? Diversification: Target allocation of investment type, credit quality, counterparty exposure and term to maturity profile;

?? Market conditions and the appropriate responses ? particularly relative positioning within the limits outlined in this policy;

?? Relative return outlook, risk-reward considerations, assessment of the market cycle and hence constraints on risk; and

?? Appropriateness of overall investment types for Council?s portfolio.

Legislative and Regulatory References

All investments are to comply with the following:

?? Local Government Act (1993);

?? Local Government (General) Regulation (2005);

?? Ministerial Investment Order;

?? The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act (1997) ? Section 14;

?? Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting;

?? Australian Accounting Standards;

?? Division of Local Government Investment Policy Guidelines; and

?? Division of Local Government Circulars

Delegation of Authority

Authority for implementation of the Investment Policy is delegated by Council to the General Manager in accordance with the Local Government Act (1993).

The General Manager has in turn delegated the day-to-day management of Councils investments to the Manager of Financial Services (RAO) and his/her delegates who must ensure adequate skill, support and oversight is exercised in the investment of Council funds.

Officers? delegated authority to manage Council?s investments shall be recorded and they are required to acknowledge they have received a copy of this policy and understand their obligations in this role.

Prudent Person Standard

The investments will be managed with the care, diligence and skill that a prudent person would exercise.? As trustees of public monies, officers are to manage Council?s investment portfolios to safeguard the portfolio in accordance with the spirit of this Investment Policy and not for speculative purposes.

Ethics and Conflicts of Interest

Officers shall refrain from personal activities that would conflict with the proper execution and management of Council?s investment portfolio.? This policy requires officers to disclose any conflict of interest to the General Manager.

Independent advisors are also to declare that they have no actual or perceived conflicts of interest and receive no inducements in relation to Council?s investments.

Authorised Investments

All investments must be denominated in Australian Dollars.? Authorised Investments are limited to those allowed by the Ministerial Investment Order and include:

?? Commonwealth / State / Territory Government securities e.g. bonds;

?? Interest bearing deposits / senior securities issued by an eligible ADI;

?? Bills of Exchange (< 200 days duration) guaranteed by an ADI;

?? Debentures issued by a NSW Council under Local Government Act (1993);

?? Deposits with T-Corp &/or Investments in T-Corp Hour-Glass Facility; and

?? Existing investments grandfathered under the Ministerial Investment Order.

Prohibited Investments

This investment policy prohibits the following types of investment[1]:

?? Derivative based instruments;

?? Principal only investments or securities that provide potentially nil or negative cash flow; and

?? Stand alone securities issued that have underlying futures, options, forwards contracts and swaps of any kind.

This policy also prohibits the use of leveraging (borrowing to invest) of an investment. However, nothing in the policy shall prohibit the short-term investment of loan proceeds where the loan is raised for non-investment purposes and there is a delay prior to the expenditure of loan funds.

Risk Management Guidelines

Investments obtained are to be considered in light of the following key criteria:

?? Preservation of Capital ? the requirement for preventing losses in an investment portfolio?s total value.

?? Credit Risk ? The risk that a party or guarantor to a transaction will fail to fulfil its obligations.? In the context of this document it relates to the risk of loss due to the failure of an institution/entity with which an investment is held to pay the interest and/or repay the principal of an investment;

?? Diversification ? the requirement to place investments in a broad range of products so as not to be over exposed to a particular sector of the investment market;

?? Liquidity Risk ? the risk an institution runs out of cash, is unable to redeem investments at a fair price within a timely period, and thereby Council incurs additional costs (or in the worst case is unable to execute its spending plans);

?? Market Risk ? the risk that fair value or future cash flows will fluctuate due to changes in market prices, or benchmark returns will unexpectedly overtake the investment?s return;

?? Maturity Risk ? the risk relating to the length of term to maturity of the investment.? The longer the term, the greater the length of exposure and risk to market volatilities; and

?? Rollover Risk ? the risk that income will not meet expectations or budgeted requirement because interest rates are lower than expected in future.

Investment Advisor

The Council?s investment advisor is appointed by the General Manager and must be licensed by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. The advisor must be independent and must confirm in writing that they have no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to investment products being recommended and is free to choose the most appropriate product within the terms and conditions of investment policy. This includes receiving no commissions or other benefits in relation to the investments being recommended or reviewed.

Accounting

Council will comply with appropriate accounting standards in valuing its investments and quantifying its investment returns.

In addition to recording investment income according to accounting standards, published reports may show a break-down of its duly calculated investment returns into realised and unrealised capital gains and losses, and interest.

Other relevant issues will be considered in line with relevant Australian Accounting Standards, such as discount or premium, designation as held-to-maturity or on a fair value basis and impairment.

Safe Custody Arrangements

Where necessary, investments may be held in safe custody on Council?s behalf, as long as the following criteria are met:

?? Council must retain beneficial ownership of all investments;

?? Adequate documentation is provided, verifying the existence of the investments at inception, in regular statements and for audit;

?? The Custodian conducts regular reconciliation of records with relevant registries and/or clearing systems; and

?? The Institution or Custodian recording and holding the assets will be:

8?? The Custodian nominated by TCorp for Hour-Glass facilities;

8?? Austraclear;

8?? An institution with an investment grade Standard and Poor?s, Moody?s or Fitch rating; or

8?? An institution with adequate insurance, including professional indemnity insurance and other insurances considered prudent and appropriate to cover its liabilities under any agreement.


 

Credit Quality Target & Limits

The portfolio credit guidelines to be adopted will reference the Standard & Poor?s (S&P) ratings system criteria and format - however, references to the Minister?s Order also recognises Moody?s and Fitch Ratings and any of the three ratings may be used where available.?

However, the primary control of credit quality is the prudential supervision and government support and explicit guarantees of the ADI sector, not ratings.

The maximum holding limit in each rating category and the target credit quality weighting for Council?s portfolio shall be:

Long Term Rating Range
(or Moody?s equivalent)

Maximum Holding

AAA Category

100%

AA Category or Tier 1 bank

80%

A Category

60%

BBB Category & unrated ADIs

40%

Counterparty Limits

Exposure to individual counterparties/financial institutions will be restricted by their rating so that single entity exposure is limited, as detailed in the table below. It excludes any government guaranteed investments.

Individual Institution or Counterparty Limits

Long Term Rating Range
(or Moody?s equivalent)

 

Limit

AAA Category[2]

 

40%

AA Category or Tier 1 bank

 

30%

A Category

 

15%

BBB Category

 

10%

Unrated Category[3]

 

5%

Term to Maturity Limits

Council?s investment portfolio shall be structured around the time horizon of investment to ensure that liquidity and income requirements are met.

Once the primary aim of liquidity is met, Council will ordinarily diversify its maturity profile as this will ordinarily be a low-risk method of obtaining additional return as well as reducing the risks to Council?s income. However, Council always retains the flexibility to invest as short as required by internal requirements or the economic outlook.

The factors and/or information used by Council to determine minimum allocations to the shorter durations include:

8?? Council?s liquidity requirements to cover both regular payments as well as sufficient buffer to cover reasonably foreseeable contingencies;

8?? Medium term financial plans and major capex forecasts;

8?? Known grants, asset sales or similar one-off inflows;

8?? Seasonal patterns to Council?s investment balances.

Investment Horizon Description

Investment Horizon - Maturity Date

Minimum Allocation

Maximum Allocation

Working capital funds

0-3 months

10.0%

100.0%

Short term funds

3-12 months

20.0%

100.0%

Short-Medium term funds

1-2 years

0%

70.0%

Medium term funds

2-5 years

0%

50.0%

Long term funds

5-10 years

0%

25.0%

Within these broad ranges, Council relies upon assumptions of expected investment returns and market conditions that have been examined with its investment advisor.

Performance Benchmarks

The performance of each investment will be assessed against the benchmarks listed in the table below.?

It is Council?s expectation that the performance of each investment will be greater than or equal to the applicable benchmark by sufficient margin to justify the investment taking into account its risks, liquidity and other benefits of the investment.

It is also expected that Council will take due steps to ensure that any investment is executed at the best pricing reasonably possible.

Investment

Performance Benchmark

Time Horizon

11 am Account, short dated bills, deposits issued by financial institutions of appropriate term.

UBSA Bank Bill Index (BBI)

3 months or less

Term Deposits of appropriate remaining term, FRN?s nearing maturity.

UBSA Bank Bill Index (BBI)

3 months to 12 months

Term Deposits with a maturity date between 1 and 2 Years, FRN?s.

UBSA Bank Bill Index (BBI)

1 to 2 years

FRN?s, Bonds, Term deposits with a maturity date between 2 and 5 Years. Grandfathered Income Funds.

UBSA Bank Bill Index (BBI)

2 to 5 Years

T-Corp Hour Glass Managed Funds

Fund?s Internal Benchmark

3 Years (M/T Growth)
5+ Years (L/T Growth)

 

Grandfathered investments (i.e. managed funds and securities) are allocated to the appropriate horizon based on expected or average maturity date and should be taken into account when allocating the rest of the portfolio.

The decision on when to exit such investments are based on a range of criteria specific to the investments ? including but not limited to factors such as:

? Returns expected over the remaining term

? Fair values

? Competing investment opportunities

? Costs of holding

? Liquidity and transaction costs

? Outlook for future investment values

In general, it is expected that professional advice will be sought before transacting in ?grandfathered? investments.

Reporting

Documentary evidence must be held for each investment and details thereof maintained in an investment register.? The documentary evidence must provide Council legal title to the investment.

For audit purposes, certificates must be obtained from the banks/fund managers/custodian confirming the amounts of investment held on Council?s behalf at 30th June each year.

All investments are to be appropriately recorded in Council?s financial records and reconciled at least on a monthly basis.

A monthly report will be provided to Council.? The report will detail the investment portfolio in terms of holdings and impact of changes in market value since the previous report.? The monthly report will also detail the investment performance against the applicable benchmark, investment income earned versus budget year to date and confirm compliance of Council?s investments within legislative and policy limits. Council may nominate additional content for reporting.

Review of Policy

The Investment Policy will be reviewed every 12 months and as required in the event of legislative change or as a result of significantly changed economic/market conditions.?

Any proposed amendment to the Investment Policy must be approved by the General Manager and Manager of Financial Services.


 

Appendix

For the purpose of this Policy, ?Tier 1 banks? are currently defined as:

The ADI deposits or senior guaranteed principal and interest ADI securities issued by the major Australian banking groups:

? Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

? Commonwealth Bank of Australia

? National Australia Bank Limited

? Westpac Banking Corporation

including ADI subsidiaries (such as Bank of Western Australia Ltd) whether or not explicitly guaranteed, and brands (such as St George).

Council may ratify an alternative definition from time to time.


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

 

Draft Investment Strategy

Adopted: 19 April 2001 (006)

Last Reviewed by Council: 18 January 2007

 

July

2012


 

Contents

Contents 2

General 3

Purpose of Document 3

Related Documents? 3

Effective Date? 3

Investment Strategy? 4

Investment Strategy? 4

Existing Portfolio Status? 5

Proposed Actions? 6

Risk Management Guidelines? 7

Performance Benchmarks? 8

Delegations/Responsibilities? 9

Review of Strategy? 9

 


 

General

Purpose of Document

Having outlined the framework for investment in the Investment Policy, this document sets out:

? current market conditions;

? how Council is responding to structure its investment portfolio;

? realistic objectives for the investment portfolio;

? risk management

Related Documents

This Strategy relates to implementation of the portfolio within the constraints set out in the Policy Statement. It has been prepared to recognise the legislative requirements and obligations for the investment of Council?s funds.? The legislative requirements are listed in the Investment Policy.?

Council will comply with investment regulations and directions of the Division of Local Government, which will prevail in the event of any inconsistencies with published Policy and Strategy.

Effective Date

This document replaces any previous Strategy or combined Policy/ Strategy document approved by Council.

The effective date of this Strategy is 1 July 2012 and will be reviewed on a six monthly basis or when either changes in regulation or market conditions necessitate a review.

?????????


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

Investment Strategy

Investment Strategy

Council?s Investment Strategy is set in relation to the following parameters:

Cash flow expectations

Council anticipates the following major capital expenditure events in 2012 - 2013:

? Plant Purchases - $535,000

? Water storage construction - $10m

? Sewerage capital works - $956,000

? Rural Roads construction and reconstruction $1.6m

? Urban Roads construction and reconstruction $740,000

? Bridge Construction $935,000

? Cycleways/Footpaths construction $390,000

? Recreational facilities $177,000

?(This strategy will be revisited if necessary when the 2012-13 capex budget is completed should there be material implications on long-term investments.)

These projects are being funded from either loan funds, grants or restricted assets, and will have minimal impact on the overall cash available for investment.

Council currently holds Term Deposits totalling $12.3M, over and above the at-call investments. Sufficient liquid cash is available to meet short term cash flow requirements during these projects should this be required.

Diversification

Council?s investments are diversified only within the fixed interest sector: Cash, term deposits, FRNs and Fund Managers. It is not Council?s current intention to diversify further across other asset classes.

Return Outlook

The previous strategy review was undertaken in an environment where the RBA was guiding higher interest rates well above market forecasts.

Following the severe deterioration of European economic conditions and fears of a broad-based global slowdown, the RBA in fact cut rates and the market is pricing another ?-1% in rate cuts (and extended low interest rates for many years):

 

While economic conditions remain strained, the outlook for credit investments is much stronger after one of their worst ever years in 2011.

Credit margins have almost doubled from 2011 lows. Major bank FRNs have been issued as wide as cash+1.85% p.a., and even secured (covered) bond near these levels.

Issuance conditions have been very difficult; while existing credit investments have performed well in 2012 there is not a lot of new money available.

The European Central Bank?s Long Term Refinancing Operation has set the scene for a potential recovery in the sector.

Existing Portfolio Status

Council?s previous strategy proposed:

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proposed Strategy

???? Working Capital funds????????????????????????????? ? 0%

???? Short Term funds?????????????????????????????? 13%

???? Short-Medium term funds??????????????????? 21%

???? Medium term funds??????????????????????????? 31%

???? Long Term funds????????????????????????????????????? 36%

The aim was to minimise income risks, with the higher yields available from long-dated deposits an added benefit. Through the year, deposit yields averaged around 6% (an outstanding result) despite two rate increases.

 

Investment Portfolio Breakup ? 31 March 2012

Proposed Actions

A return of 6% is no longer achievable in complying products (other than potentially from the high-risk Long-Term Growth Facility at TCorp). Therefore, inevitably, Council?s income will fall over the balance of 2012 Financial Year and into 2013 Financial Year.

To maximise performance, the intention is to pursue the following actions during this strategy period (subject to conditions broadly outlined in this document):

New Investments

? To the extent longer-term bank deposits remain around between 5% and 6%, Council will continue to invest in this sector.

? FRNs are likely to be the most favourable medium-term investments in the near future.

? New issues are the preferred source of FRNs, due to cost and availability criteria, with Council likely to restrict purchases to the higher-rated banks unless secured (covered).

? Other funds will continue to be held within the Short-Medium section to manage near-term cash requirements.

? There is some scope to expand the medium term fund investments on an opportunistic basis to take advantage of exceptional margin FRN or Fixed Deposit investments. The level of medium term holdings now exceeds 63% of total portfolio, and to maintain sufficient cash in the short term, investment in the medium term will be limited to exceptional offerings.

Given limited availability and the cost of brokerage, secondary market purchases of FRNs are likely to be less attractive. Conversely, 2012?s FRN issues have tended to price as much as 0.1% p.a. wider than the first day close, implying an initial profit of ?% to initial investors.

The downside of this extra reward is that issues tend to open and close very quickly ? in as little as half a day. The ability to respond rapidly is paramount.

To support this, Council intends to utilise existing at-call reserves (to be replenished from subsequent deposit maturities), or sell shorter-dated securities.

There is no intention at this time to investment in the long term (greater than 5 years) investments.

Disposals

? Council will utilise funds in the ANZ On Call account when required for working funds.

? Council will monitor NSW TCorp, Averon II and Macquarie Income Global Funds and if they can be disposed of at a profit, and additional return gained from an alternate investment, otherwise they will be held to maturity and then reinvested at that time.

Risk Management Guidelines

The strategy addresses risk management? as outlined below:

Preservation of Capital

Council has already enacted major strategies to manage capital risk, by redeeming from the Blackrock and Longreach Funds.? Council will consider selling FRNs prior to maturity where this would be consistent with investment objectives.

Credit Risk

Credit rating profile is currently extremely strong, with 69% of all investments being at least A rated or better. New investments can still be directed to high-grade institutions while the interest rates of these institutions remain at historically high levels.

Diversification

Investments are currently diversified within the fixed interest sector ? fixed and floating, at-call, funds and FRNs; liquid, and non-tradeable. There is no current intention to diversify outside the fixed interest sector.

Liquidity Risk

Council?s portfolio is highly liquid, from at-call accounts, near-term maturities and tradeable FRNs. Approximately 60% matures in the short - medium term or earlier.

Council has been in a position to extend the duration of some investments in recent months.

Market Risk

Council has only three Fund Manager investments, having redeemed Blackrock and Longreach Funds, which should see Council inevitably reduce its exposure risk.

The purchase of FRNs will incur a small amount of market risk, but this is now very well rewarded and can be minimised by restricting FRN investments to AA or AAA category bank-guaranteed securities.

Maturity Risk

Council?s long-term investments are primarily in a mix of term deposits and floating rate investments, minimising the effect of maturity risk as there is a regular maturity pattern.

Rollover Risk

Council has effectively mitigated this risk through a varied portfolio duration, having one to two investments due each month, some at 1 year, considerably longer than the 45 day benchmark (and includes deposits maturing as long as 2017). This is considered a strong level of protection against rollover risk, and is continuing to anchor 2012 Financial Year income budgets despite a reduction in interest rate expectations.?

While economic weakness can see official cash rates fall for a longer period, the current duration provides Council with time to adjust budgets to plan for income shortfalls.

Council is well within its required limits for working capital and short-term funds, which together account for 65% of the portfolio at time of writing.

Longer term holdings are conservative relative to portfolio limits, and there is some capacity for further investments if economic conditions provide the opportunity to do so.

Performance Benchmarks

Council?s portfolio is currently yielding approximately 2% above the benchmark return.

This is considered exceptionally strong given the very high credit ratings targeted. It is almost certain to fall over time, as official interest rates reduce.

Delegations/Responsibilities

Within the constraints of the Policy, strategic or execution decisions are delegated to the Assistant General Manager ?Corporate & Community Services and the Manager Financial Services.

Review of Strategy

The Strategy will be reviewed at least six monthly, or as required in the event of legislative change or as a result of significantly changed economic/market conditions.?

Council is in regular contact with its advisors and is able to adjust strategy as market conditions dictate.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7????? PRF54????????????? 260712???????? Use of Boulton's Crossing Reserve as a Camping Ground

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

At Council?s meeting on 11 July 2012 it was resolved that Council receive a report on the ongoing use of the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve as a camping ground; the risks to Council and any options for the management of that risk.

 

There has been no change in the governance and financial risks previously identified.? Indeed the situation has deteriorated with complaints about the operation of the septic system in wet weather.? Council?s Area Health and Building Surveyor has inspected the system during a period of wet weather and has expressed a concern that in storm events it would appear that waste water from the tank would spill out onto the ground surface.

 

The resolution of these matters cannot be left indefinitely as Council awaits the possibility of grant funding and the determination of the Aboriginal Land Claim.? If no progress is made in relation to the provision of a grant from the latest round of the Public Reserves Management Fund, it is recommended that the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve be closed to camping.? In the interim Council should formally terminate the Section 355 Committee of Management; review camping fees as well as arrangements for their collection.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council formally terminate the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) Section 355 Committee of Management and the General Manager report to Council on operating arrangements for the Reserve including reviewing the camping fees; arrangements for the collection of camping fees; and signage in the reserve.

 

2??????? That in the event Council cannot obtain sufficient funding to replace the amenities and upgrade the septic system from the current funding round of the Public Reserves Management Fund, the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) reserve be closed to camping.

 

3??????? That the Department of Lands, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Member for Oxley, the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP be advised of Council?s intention.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council?s options are limited.? The existing septic system is not operating satisfactorily in periods of wet weather and either needs to be replaced with an upgraded system or Council commit to regular and expensive pump outs.? The amenities are also dilapidated and need to be replaced.? Even if Council had the funds to upgrade the septic system and replace the amenities (which it doesn?t), the site no longer complies with the legislative requirements for primitive camping grounds and there is no evidence of any approval for the existing camping.

 

The resolution of these matters cannot be left indefinitely as Council awaits the possibility of grant funding and the determination of the Aboriginal Land Claim.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Current

 

At Council?s meeting on 11 July 2012 it was resolved that Council receive a report on the ongoing use of the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve as a camping ground; the risks to Council and any options for the management of that risk.

 

The resignation of the President, Secretary/Treasurer and Committee Member of the Committee of Management was reported to Council?s meeting on 11 April 2012.? It was resolved that:

 

1??????? The two remaining Committee representatives (Cr Ainsworth and Mr Kerry Morgan) be advised that if the Committee of Management is to continue, that an Annual General Meeting would need to be held within the next month to fill the vacant executive positions.? Further, they be advised that if there is insufficient interest to conduct an AGM or fill the executive positions, then the operations of the Reserve would be taken over by Council using contractors and staff to undertake the work.

 

2??????? That arrangements be made for the General Manager and Accountant to be cheque signatories of the Committee?s funds to enable the payment of current invoices.

 

3??????? That the resigning President, Secretary/Treasurer and Committee representative be thanked for the time and energy they have devoted to the management of the Gumma Reserve (Boulton?s Crossing) over many years.

 

Council has now taken control of the Committee?s accounts and is paying invoices and arranging work.

 

In the recent wet weather the septic system on the site failed and required regular pump outs.? Council?s Area Health and Building Surveyor provided the General Manager with the following inspection report.

 

?Dear Peter (Baynes) & Michael (Coulter)

 

Following a complaint about the state of the waste water system located on Boulton?s Crossing Reserve I attended the property on the 17th April 2012 and observed the following:

 

1.?? The toilet waste water was not flushing away quickly, most likely due to septic tank not operating properly.

2.?? Waste levels in the septic tank were well above the level of the outlet on the septic tank and no squares could be identified within the septic tank.  According to a Macksville camper on the site the tank was only pumped out 3 days prior to my inspection. 

3.?? The septic tank is subject to stormwater inundation around the perimeter of the tank.  In storm events it would appear that waste water from the tank would spill out onto the ground surface.

4.?? The disposal trenches did appear to be operating ok at the time of the inspection.

5.?? Also observed a possible water bore in close proximity to the disposal trenches, hence not suitable for drinking.

 

A hard copy of this issue will also be forwarded shortly.  Please also find attached photographs of the septic tank.?

 

It would seem that the failure of the septic tank is due to a number of factors including the lid being below the surrounding ground level and thereby attracting stormwater inflow and the high watertable causing effluent to back up in the tank.

 

The performance of the septic system is a major issue given its proximity to both Warrell Creek and a water bore.

 

The contractor who collects camping fees has also advised that there needs to be a sign in the Reserve displaying the camping fees and rules.? Apparently the previous sign has been removed.

 

Council?s Grants Officer is preparing a grant application to replace both the amenities building and the septic system under the Public Reserves Management Fund (PRMF) which is established under the Public Reserves Management Fund Act 1987 to provide funding for the management of public reserves on Crown land.? Applications for funding close in late July 2012.

 

The PRMF provides loans and limited grants to reserve trusts for improvement works to Crown reserves, providing assistance for capital development and maintenance projects.? As the PRMF is self funded, a significantly greater proportion of funds are allocated to loans than grants, to ensure the PRMF remains able to meet the demands on it into the future.

 

Council?s chances of funding under the PRMF for the amenities and the septic system will be substantially improved with contributory funding.? As at 9 July 2012, the bank account maintained by the Committee of Management had a balance of $21,871.? It is proposed that this balance be offered as contributory funding in the grant application.? There is no other funding available in Council?s budget to contribute to the project.

 

If Council is successful in attracting sufficient funding under the PRMF a plan of management should be prepared for the Reserve.

 

History

 

There have been a number of reports to Council in relation to the future management of the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve, including to Council?s meetings on 16 June 2011 and 19 August 2010.?

 

There was a report to Council?s meeting on 19 August 2010 recommending that Council write to the National Parks and Wildlife Service seeking their expression of interest in managing the Reserve in lieu of the Reserve Trust and requesting details of the plan of management they would propose for the continued operation of the Reserve as a primitive camping ground and picnic area.? At the time Council resolved that the matter be deferred and that the Committee of Management be notified of Council?s intention and the Committee?s views be sought.

 

The Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) Reserve Committee of Management resolved at their meeting on 15 September 2010 to seek to continue the management of the Reserve as a Trust.

 

Following the response from the Committee of Management there was a report to Council?s meeting on 18 November 2010 recommending that Council write to the National Parks and Wildlife Service seeking their expression of interest to co-manage or manage the Reserve as a primitive camping ground and picnic area with the response to be reported to Council.

 

Immediately prior to the meeting a representative of the Land and Property Management Authority (now the Dept. of Lands) telephoned the General Manager and advised that Council, as trustee of the land, should not deal with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) as they (the LPMA) operated a number of primitive camping grounds and would not approve a transfer of the land or its trusteeship to the National Parks and Wildlife Service.? They regarded themselves as competitors to the NPWS in operating primitive camping grounds in high amenity locations.

 

Consequently at Council?s meeting on 18 November it was resolved to approach the Land and Property Management Authority as a matter of urgency in regard to the future management of the Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve.

 

Representatives of the Committee of Management and Council then met with a representative of the LPMA on 27 January 2011.? The notes of the meeting taken by the General Manager were as follows:

 

?????? ?Committee of Management has $20,000 to spend on the amenities.

?????? Director Environment & Planning expressed concern about the lack of an approval to operate the camping ground ? regulations only allow 1 camp site per hectare.

?????? LPMA rep suggested that other Crown Land be added to the camping ground to provide enough area for the existing sites.? He offered to provide a plan to the Manager Business Development.

?????? The LPMA have contractors operating primitive camping grounds in the Grafton area.

?????? Federal tourism TCOL grants available

?????? Funding available under the Public Reserve Management Fund

?????? Local Aboriginal Land Councils expressed interest in managing camping grounds at Grafton

?????? Discussed and compared charges for camping at Boulton?s Crossing and other National Parks and LPMA camping grounds.? The charge at Boulton?s Crossing of $12 per night per campsite compares with the standard charge at National Parks of $10 per person per night and Farquar Park in the Manning which charges $15 per night per campsite and $25 per night per campsite at peak periods.? LPMA also limit the number of people who can stay on a site.

?????? LPMA use a NPWS contractor to collect camping fees at Goolawa.? Also the Diggers Camp at Minnie Water uses a NPWS contractor to collect camping fees..? % of fees collected used as an incentive.

?????? LPMA rep to instigate a letter regarding the process to bring additional land into the Reserve.

?????? LPMA rep to advise what funding assistance might be available.

?????? Trevor Stride (from the Committee of Management) requested that a plan of management be developed for the Reserve.?

 

Following the meeting, myself and Council?s Property Officer followed up the LPMA representative on many occasions.? One follow up letter was sent on 16 May.? The following response was received on 14 June 2011.

 

?Attention: Michael Coulter

 

Dear Michael,

 

I refer to your letter dated 16 May 2010 regarding the future of Boulton?s Crossing Reserve. 

 

I apologise for the delay in responding to this matter.  The 2 areas that were identified as having potential to be added to this reserve so that it can maintain its current site numbers are both subject to Aboriginal Land Claims (ALC).

 

The Agency is currently following up the possibility of still proceeding with the addition of at least one of these areas as an interim arrangement until the ALC have been processed and dealt with.

 

As discussed, funding to assist in the re-development of Boulton?s Crossing Reserves and other Crown Reserves is available through the Public Reserves Management Fund administered by this Agency.

 

I trust this information is of assistance.?

 

To recap Council is the Reserve Trust manager of Boultons Crossing (R638000) Reserve.

 

The Reserve Trust, through the committee of management, has managed the Reserve as a Primitive Camping Ground comprising up to 22 camp sites on the basis of the total area of the Reserve (11.33ha).

 

As previously reported part of the Reserve was gazetted as National Park thereby reducing the size of the reserve to 1.21ha. The excise of part of the reserve effectively limits the number of permissible camping sites to just two.

 

The Department of Local Government have advised that an exemption from the minimum land size requirements may only be considered on application of a section 82 LGA 1993 objection to standards for current operating approval (or an application for operating approval).? A review of records pertaining to the Reserve however indicates that approval to operate a primitive camping ground has never been issued.

 

To continue operating the Reserve, the Trust or the Committee of Management must now lodge an application for approval to operate a primitive camping ground on the site.

 

The relevant part of the current legislation (Local Government (Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 1995) is as follows:

132 Primitive camping grounds

(1)??????? If an approval to operate a primitive camping ground designates one or more camp sites within that ground, then the maximum number of designated camp sites is not to exceed a mean average of 2 for each hectare of the camping ground (where that figure is the average calculated over the total area of the primitive camping ground).

(2)??????? The following conditions apply to a primitive camping ground:

 

(a)??????? if the approval to operate the primitive camping ground designates one or more camp sites within that ground?camping is not permitted within the primitive camping ground other than on those designated camp sites,

 

(b)??????? if the approval to operate the primitive camping ground does not designate one or more camp sites within that ground?the maximum number of caravans, campervans and tents permitted to use the camping ground at any one time is not to exceed a mean average of 2 for each hectare of the camping ground (where that figure is the average calculated over the total area of the primitive camping ground),

 

(c)??????? a caravan, annexe or campervan must not be allowed to be installed closer than 6 metres to any other caravan, annexe, campervan or tent,

 

(d)??????? a tent must not be allowed to be installed closer than 6 metres to any caravan, annexe or campervan or closer than 3 metres to any other tent,

 

(e)??????? the camping ground must be provided with a water supply, toilet and refuse disposal facilities as specified in the approval for the camping ground,

 

(f)???????? unoccupied caravans, campervans and tents are not to be allowed to remain in the camping ground for more than 24 hours,

 

(g)??????? if a fee is charged for camping, a register must be kept that contains entries concerning the same matters as are specified in clause 122 and, in addition, that specifies the size of the group (if any) with whom the person listed in the register camped,

 

(h)??????? such fire fighting facilities as may be specified in the approval are to be provided at the primitive camping ground.

 

Nambucca Shire Council as the consent authority would have no option but to reject the application for a primitive camping ground as the number of campsites sought (22), far exceeds the land size land size requirements of 1 campsite per hectare of land without the specific approval under S82 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Council would need to accompany their application for an Approval to Operate with an application pursuant to Section 82 of the Local Government Act 1993, seeking the Director General's approval to operate Boultons Crossing Primitive Camping Ground for any additional sites in excess of 2.

 

Council as the consent authority must also have regard to the provision of a water supply, toilet and refuse disposal and fire fighting facilities under s132(2) Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005. ?Whilst a detailed review of the requirements has not been completed it is appears that the current amenities alone would preclude Council from issuing an operating approval.

 

The current amenities are dilapidated and in need of replacement. Neither the Trust, nor council, has sufficient reserves to afford the cost of replacement which is estimated at between $150,000 - $200,000 (depending on a design that would meet peak user demand or simply replacing the existing facility -? in either case an upgrade to the septic installation would be required.)

 

Conclusion

 

As it stands Council is operating a camping ground without approval and is incapable of securing an approval because the camping ground lacks the required area and the requisite amenities are not of a satisfactory standard.? This is a concern for insurance as any public liability claim is likely to be denied.? It is also a concern for the conflict it creates with Council?s regulatory role where Council enforces compliance with the caravan park and camping regulations for privately operated caravan parks and camping grounds but where a Council operated camping ground is neither approved nor compliant.

 

From the discussions with the LPMA it is apparent that the camping fees at the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) camping ground are considerably less than those charged at camping grounds operated by the NPWS or the LPMA.

 

Notwithstanding the advice of the Land and Property Management Authority and the Committee of Management, the logical authority to operate the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) camping ground is the National Parks and Wildlife Service with the land incorporated into the Gaagal Wanggaan (South Beach) National Park.? This would allow the camping ground to continue without the need for any approval under the Local Government Act and Regulations and would enable utilisation of the increased staff and resources which have been made available to the NPWS to maintain the new National Park.

 

The only disadvantage of NPWS management would seem to be the increased camping charges which would apply to local residents and tourists alike.? However the financial future of the camping reserve would be secured and it would provide the NPWS with control of an important public access point from which they can promote the National Park and conduct tours.? The potential financial benefits to Council and the economic benefit to the Nambucca Valley from an enhanced tourist product would seem to outweigh increased camping charges.

 

Proposal

 

It is unfair that a volunteer Committee of Management should be burdened with the legal, financial and environmental issues identified in this report.? Accordingly it is proposed that Council formally terminate the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) Section 355 Committee of Management.

 

Whilst the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve is a very popular camping site and its attraction of tourists is favourable to the local economy, the identified issues need to be resolved.? Unfortunately, despite considerable lobbying over the past 2 years, no progress has been made.? Accordingly it is proposed that in the event Council cannot obtain sufficient funding to replace the amenities and upgrade the septic system from the current funding round of the Public Reserves Management Fund, the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) reserve be closed to camping.

 

The Department of Lands, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Member for Oxley, the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP should be advised of Council?s intention.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Over the years there has been consultation with the Committee of Management, the Department of Lands, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service.? There has been consultation with Council?s Area Health and Building Surveyor in relation to the performance of the septic system.? There has been consultation with Council?s Grants Officer in relation to seeking a grant under the Public Reserves Management Fund.? There has been consultation with the volunteer/contractor who collects the camping fees.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

A failing septic tank in close proximity to Warrell Creek poses considerable risks to the environment and human health.

 

Social

 

The Boulton?s Crossing Reserve is a popular camping site for local residents and there is likely to be some community resentment to its closure.

 

Economic

 

The Boulton?s Crossing Reserve attracts many tourists to the area.? There will be an economic loss to the local economy if it is closed to camping.

 

Risk

 

The report discusses the legal, financial, public health and environmental risks.? The risk profile is such that a decision on the future of camping in the reserve cannot be left unresolved for an indeterminate period of time.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there is no impact on Council?s budget.? Council has no allocated funds in its Operational Plan or Delivery Program for the upgrading of the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve.? Nor is there any prospect of funds being allocated.

 

Council recently listed 11 options to redirect operational expenditure to unfunded depreciation and also to reduce depreciating assets.? Some of the options have attracted negative comment, however the situation with the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve demonstrates that the community needs to make some major decisions about the assets it wishes to retain.? If no decisions are made then there will be asset failures whether it be a bridge, a pool, a building, a road, or in this case a camping reserve, where the Council simply does not have sufficient funds to maintain and operate the asset to the standard expected by the community.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8????? SF1673??????????? 260712???????? Proposed Lease of a Section of Road Reserve to NBN Co for a Fixed Wireless Transmission Tower - 95 Little Tamban Road, Eungai Creek

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

<Type summary in box>

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council enter into a lease with NBN Co. for the use of approximately 100m2 of road reserve at 95 Little Tamban Road, Eungai Creek for a fixed wireless transmission tower subject to NBN Co. undertaking community consultation in relation to the placement of the tower.? The terms of the lease to be in accordance with the proposal from NBNCo.

 

2??????? That Council?s seal be attached to any lease documentation as may be required.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Under the State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007, Council has no planning role in assessing the proposed monopole.? Council?s role is limited to deciding on the terms of the proposed lease.

 

The property consultant acting on behalf of the NBN Co. has advised that the rental offer made to this Council is consistent with the other offers which will be made Councils whose areas are part of the fixed wireless rollout.

 

A significant improvement in the standard of wireless broadband in our rural areas is in the public interest.? For this reason it is not proposed that Council contest the rental offer from NBN Co.?

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received a briefing on the roll-out of the fixed wireless component of the National Broadband Network across the Nambucca Valley.

 

The NBN Co has announced plans for the roll-out of fixed wireless broadband on the Mid North Coast.? The National Broadband Network (NBN) is designed to provide high speed broadband access to 100% of premises ? approximately 93% of premises by fibre optic cable, and the remaining 7% via fixed wireless or satellite.

 

In the Nambucca Valley it is understood that fibre optic network will be provided to the towns of Valla Beach, Nambucca Heads, Macksville, Scotts Head and Bowraville.? Most of the rural hinterland to these towns will receive a fixed wireless service whilst more remote properties will need to have access to the satellite service.? Residents will only be able to access the network service designated for their area.

 

According to NBN Co the fixed wireless network will deliver high speed broadband to homes and businesses at wholesale speeds up to 150 times faster than dial-up and up to eight times faster than ADSL.

 

On the Mid North Coast, the NBN Co advises that the fixed wireless network will cover around 15,000 premises and it is expected areas will start to be switched on in stages from around mid 2013.

 

Consultants acting on behalf of the NBN have requested that Council enter into a lease of 100m2 of road reserve at 95 Tamban Road, Eungai Creek for the placement of a 40m high fixed wireless transmission monopole.? The request is attached.

 

The plans for the monopole showing its location and height are also attached.

 

Under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, the placement of the monopole does not require development consent from Council.? NBN Co have to undertake community consultation and have suggested that Council resolve to enter into a licence with NBN subject to satisfactory community consultation being undertaken.

 

This suggestion is accepted, although it is a matter for NBN Co. not Council as to what constitutes satisfactory community consultation.

 

NBN Co. propose a rent of $5,000 p.a. which would increase according to the CPI.? The term would be 20 years (made of 4 x 5 year consecutive leases).

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Councillors have received a briefing from representatives of NBN Co. on the proposed roll out of the fixed wireless service in the Nambucca Valley.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

 

 

Social

 

 

 

Economic

 

 

 

Risk

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

 

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

17520/2012 - NBN lease proposal

0 Pages

2View

17527/2012 - Concept plans for Eungai monopole

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Proposed Lease of a Section of Road Reserve to NBN Co for a Fixed Wireless Transmission Tower - 95 Little Tamban Road, Eungai Creek

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Proposed Lease of a Section of Road Reserve to NBN Co for a Fixed Wireless Transmission Tower - 95 Little Tamban Road, Eungai Creek

 






Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9????? SF63??????????????? 260712???????? Goods and Services Tax Certificate 1 July 2011 - 30 June 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Helen Searle, Finance Officer - Revenue; Faye Hawthorne, Accountant ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council is required to provide the Department of Local Government with a signed certificate on GST compliance.? This certificate is required annually beginning in the financial year 2005/2006.? Prior to this the certificate was completed by Council?s Auditor.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and Responsible Accounting Officer be authorised to sign the Goods and Services Tax Certificate 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 required by the Department of Local Government.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option to engage Council?s auditor to complete an audit to support the sign off of the certificate of compliance.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council?s are to supply a certificate of confirmation for GST compliance to the Department of Local Government.

 

This certificate replaces the previous requirement of having a GST Audit Review Report prepared by an auditor and lodged with the department and will therefore reduce the cost of the audit.

 

The GST certificate must be signed by the Mayor, at least one other Councillor, the Responsible Accounting Officer and the General Manager.

 

The statement declares:

 

To assist compliance with Section 114 of the Commonwealth Constitution,

 

?????? Voluntary GST has been paid by Nambucca Shire Council for the period 1 May 2010 to 30 April 2011.

 

?????? Adequate management arrangements and internal controls were in place to enable the Council to adequately account for its GST liabilities and recoup all GST input tax credits eligible to be claimed.

 

?????? No GST non-compliance event was identified by Council or raised by the Australian Taxation Office.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation.

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Not applicable.

 

Social

 

Not Applicable.

 

Economic

 

See Financial Implications.

 

Risk

 

Not applicable.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Not applicable.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.10??? SF1120??????????? 260712???????? Grant Application Status Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Colleen Henry, Grants Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

At Council?s meeting on 7 December 2006 it was resolved that there be a quarterly return submitted to Council on grant programs.

 

 

RecommendationS:

 

1??????? That the list of grant applications and their status to 13 July 2012 be received.

 

2??????? That Council approve $10,000 from the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve Account being made available as a contribution to grant funding under the Public Reserves Management Fund if the application is successful.

 

 

Successful grant applications (not yet acquitted):

Grant and date of approval

Funding Amount

Amount Council

Description

Federal Government election commitment?

$120,000

None required

Relocation of 2NVR radio station to Tewinga Hall

 

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water etc

 

$1 million

None required

Detailed design for off river water storage

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority

November 2011

$37,000

None required

Weed control from Swimming Creak to Deep Creek. Installation of geo-textile for dune stabilisation, working with Nambucca Dunecare Group.

Transport for NSW

Better Boating Program

Closed 29 July 2011

$47,734

$47,734

(S.94 funds)

Scotts Head Boat Ramp ? all-season facility

Department of Health and Ageing

Closed 19 August 2011

$566,430

None required

Healthy Communities Initiative Phase 3

?Live Healthy Nambucca?

Department of Sport and Recreation Facilities Grant

Closed 15 April 2011

1. $480

(received half requested funds)

2. $4761

(received only partial funding)

 

None required

1. Table Tennis Tables for Nambucca Heads Table Tennis Club (NHTTC), under the auspice of Nambucca Shire Council

2. Bowraville Cricket Club Nets and Pitch

Community Arts Support Program

Closed 10 February 2012

$1,000

NA

Unkya CoM to contribute some funds

Creation of mosaic artwork ?The Harmony Tree? for Unkya Reserve

Office of Communities

Community Building Partnership Program

Closed 31 October 2011

$19,745

Matching funding (s.94 funds)

Creation of a sand lagoon and other playground equipment, and installation of a composting toilet at Unkya Reserve.

Clean Energy Future ? Biodiversity Fund

 

Closed January 2012

$455,000 over six years

$30,000 over six years

?Council? contribution?

from existing budget)

Invasive species control on Cliffs and High Conservation areas on the Coastal Fringe of the Nambucca Valley ? Funds will be used to manage invasive species including Bitou Bush and Lantana within the Coastal Reserve System, along 8.2km of coastline. The project will enhance the biodiversity of a large tract of connected coastal habitat and build capacity of the local community to protect and enhance the natural environment.

Your Community Heritage Grant

Telling the Tale of Talarm ? 150 years of settlement

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Closed November 2011

$9,000

NA

In-kind contribution from Talarm CoM

Collection of oral histories encompassing the descendants of pioneers and newcomers. Future grant application will be made to publish a book written from the information and photos and other documents collected.

Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal ? Flood Fund

Closed 24 February 2012

$5,000

NA

Valla Beach Comm Assc

Storage shed for storing VBCA equipment.

Museums and Galleries Leg Ups Grant

 

$380

$380

(BDU funds)

Two-session workshop presented by Yamba Museum Coordinator to provide information to our four museums on how to attract volunteers and manage collections.

Indigenous Coordination Centre

NAIDOC Week Celebrations

Closed April 2012

$2,000

NA

Contribution toward three-day event to celebrate NAIDOC Week. Grant will pay for a touch footy competition comprised of teams organised and coached by Mr Ritchie Donovan.

 

SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS IN THIS PERIOD:

 

Grant and Date of Notice

Amount

Amount - Council

Description

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

No closing date

 

$10 million

TBC

Off-river water storage (subject to a number of conditions including detailed plans, relevant approvals, Council funding, confirmation of final project costs.

Indigenous Sport and Active Recreation Program Prime Minister and Cabinet

Closed 9 March 2012

$338,478 requested but only

$226,059 received

NA

Three-year program employing Ritchie Donovan to continue to deliver Sport and Well-Being/Sports Facilitation program at Buz Brazel Oval. The full amount was not received, however it is sufficient to employ Mr Donovan over three years

 

Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal

Closed 30 March 2012

$2,000

 

 

NA

Burrapine Hall ? water tank and 2 toilet cisterns

 

Total year to date

$12,496,589

 

 


Applications made but not yet determined:

 

Funding Body

Amount

Amount - Council

Project Name

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW

Closed 28 February 2012

$80,000

$40,000*

 

Nambucca Shire Beaches Access way Improvement Program (unsuccessful in previous round, resubmitted)

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW

Closed 28 February 2012

$80,000

$40,000**

Gumma Reserve Water Management Regime

Wetlandcare to contribute $40,000

NSW Govt ? Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS)

Closed 26 March 2012

 

4% interest rate subsidy

Loan repayment

Council has made application for an interest rate subsidy of 4% under LIRS for the construction of three bridges (Touts, Lavertys & Eungai Creek) which have combined value of $1.314 million.

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority

NRM Implementation projects

Closed 15 June 2012

$64,860

NA

Some in-kind

Construction of pedestrian infrastructure to stop degradation of Shelley Beach fore dune at Wellington Headland, including planting and weed control.

Royal Australian Historical Society

Closes 20 July 2012

$10,000

NA

Publication of Telling the Tale of Talarm, drawing on oral histories, photographs and other historical data currently being collected.

Families, Housing, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs

Closes 25 July

Various

NA

Unkya bush regeneration kit

Shelly Beach Dunecare equipment and trailer

EJ Biffin ? kitchen/cleaning/shades

Coronation Park ? as above

Touch Football - TBC

Crown Lands ? Public Reserves Management Fund

Closes 31 July

$180,000

$21,871***

Consultancy to identify best waste management system

Implementation of report recommendation

 

*??????? The Draft Environmental Levy Fund, which Council considered in October 2011, identifies $40,000 for the implementation of actions from the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan.

**?????? From the Environmental Levy Fund.

***????? From the Committee of Management?s account, income derived from camping fees.

 

 

Unsuccessful applications in this period:

 

Funding Body

Amount

Amount - Council

Project Name

Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal

$4,000

$2,000

NA

Valla Hall verandah curtains

Eungai Hall water tank

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.11??? SF1001??????????? 260712???????? Bowraville Off River Water Storage - Stage 3 Funding Approval under the Country Towns Water and Sewerage Program

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has now received its Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program stage 3 funding offer for the Bowraville Off River Water Storage being $14,806,405.

 

Council has to resolve to accept the offer.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.?????? That Council accept the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program Stage 3 funding offer for the Bowraville Off River Water Storage.

 

2.?????? That Council?s seal be attached to funding agreements as required.

 

2.?????? That the Minister be thanked for the offer and the prompt response to Council?s application.

 

3.?????? That Mr Paul Sekfy be again thanked for his work in securing the $10m grant from the Federal Government.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council has previously resolved to proceed with the project subject to the receipt of this funding offer.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has now received the stage 3 funding offer for the Bowraville Off River Water Storage from the Hon Katrina Hodgkinson MP, Minister for Primary Industries.

 

The funding offer is for $14,806,405 being 39.8% of the assessed eligible cost of $37,202,021 (excluding GST).

 

It is disappointing that Council?s request for the subsidy to be determined from the total eligible cost instead of the total eligible cost minus the Federal Government grant of $10m was rejected.

 

Nonetheless the fact that the Council has managed to secure grant funding for about 70% of the $36m construction cost is a major achievement.? The State Government will be providing $14.8m and the Federal Government will be providing $10m towards the construction costs of $36m.

 

The funding offer from the State Government notes that the grant funding will not be available before July 2013.? It would be more reassuring if the offer including an undertaking that the funds would be forthcoming in the 2013/14 financial year instead of the not before advice.? Rather the offer notes that grant payments are based on current Treasury forward estimates and that Council would be advised should there be an alteration to available funds.? Besides hoping that the NSW economy will enjoy increased prosperity over the next year, there is nothing further Council can do to manage this risk.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Council?s Manager Water & Sewerage has checked the figures in the funding offer and confirms that it accords with previous calculations of Council?s entitlement following the offer of 39.8% of assessed eligible cost.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The implications for the environment have been previously reported.

 

Social

 

The social implications have been previously reported.

 

Economic

 

The economic implications have been previously reported.

 

Risk

 

The risk involved in the grant funding being provided in 2013/2014 is discussed in the report.? There is nothing Council can do to reduce or manage this risk.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The budgetary implications of the Bowraville Off River Storage have been previously reported.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.? The project is proceeding as per budget.

 

Attachments:

1View

18087/2012 - Details of Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program funding

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Bowraville Off River Water Storage - Stage 3 Funding Approval under the Country Towns Water and Sewerage Program

 







?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.1??? SF1709??????????? 260712???????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 13 July 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Barbara Parkins, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

In accordance with Council resolution from 15 May 2008 meeting, the development applications listed below are in excess of 12 months old (Table 1) (one application is in excess of 12 months old).

 

Table 2 is development applications which have been received but not yet determined due to submissions received. In accordance with Minute 848/08 from Council meeting of 18 December 2008, should any Councillor wish to ?call in? an application a Notice of Motion is required specifying the reasons why it is to be ?called in?.

 

If an application is not called in and staff consider the matters raised by the submissions have been adequately addressed then the application will be processed under delegated authority. Where refusal is recommended the application may be reported to Council for determination.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That the list of outstanding development applications (in excess of 12 months old) be noted and received for information by Council

 

2????????? That the applications where submissions have been received be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

TABLE 1: ????? UNRESOLVED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN EXCESS OF 12 MONTHS OLD

 

There are no DA?s in excess of 12 months old.

 


TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WHERE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND ARE NOT YET DETERMINED

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2011/142

25/08/2011

Consolidation of 3 existing short term sites to create 1 long term site within the existing Nambucca Beach Holiday Park

Lot 162 DP 755560, 26 Swimming Creek Road, Nambucca Heads

? DA was not publicly advertised

? The proposed site adjoins a public reserve for public recreation and setback variances are greater than 80%

? Nine (9) trees will need to be removed to facilitate the DA, including 3 melaleuca trees that provide homes for nesting tawny frogmouth owls;

? Why is Nambucca Shire Council also providing greater variances than 10% to accommodate the park owner's structures

? Dwelling and associated structures will not fit on proposed site;

? Service issues & non-compliance with Regulations;

? Fire risk and issues as to placement of hose reels;

? Submitted plan is not accurate;

? Proposed building 3 times larger than buildings already in the park.

Currently being assessed

Rec'd letter from RFS on 3/01/2012 requesting further information is required to enable them to assess the application

Information received and forwarded to RFS - awaiting reply

Matter to be presented to GPC meeting for final determination once assessment completed

 

 


 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2011/182

2011/183

2011/184

14/11/11

Alterations & Additions to unit

Lots 2, 3, 4 SP 36372, 2/3/4 40 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

? Potential overshadowing in the winter months;

? Design is poor, and will undervalue the potential of this prime site;

? Height of proposed buildings 8.5m;

? The proposed pitched roof line with hinder views and be detrimental to the amenity of Scotts Head;

? Overlooking? and noise from the proposed balconies;

? Plans appear to be more in line of a new construction and do not resemble alterations;

? Does not fit with the future character of the locality;

? Development will reduce amount of sea breeze hence affecting cross-ventilation;

? Encroachment on privacy;

Referred to engineers and H&B. Applicant has been advised of additional information required. Clock stopped.

Substantial additional information required

Works impact on community common space (Body Corporate).

Assessing application - Application on hold because of dispute with Body Corporate and resolution to permit the application to be lodged

Strata Management Meeting 2/4/2012

Application will be presented to Council for determination at a later meeting

Strata considering recision motion to withdraw owners consent for DA

7 Day letter issued 17/04/2012 to applicant requesting that applications be withdraw or the matter will be presented to Council for determination based on the information in front of Council - this letter was extended to 14 days and is being followed up

Legal advice has been sought due to threat of legal action from both parties

A report will be presented to Council following assessment of the applications and receipt of the legal advice

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.2??? SF1709??????????? 260712???????? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority from 13 July 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Barbara Parkins, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

For Council?s information, below are listed Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received by Council and applications determined under Delegated Authority.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the Development Applications/Complying Development Applications received and determined under delegated authority.

 

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FROM 2-13 JULY 2012

 

DA Number

Application Date

Applicant/Owner

Development

Address

Estimated Value

2012/077

04/07/2012

Keiley Hunter Urban Planner/Nambucca Valley Phoenix

Change of Use from Dwelling to Community Facility

Lot 3 DP 537549, 25 Bent Street, Nambucca Heads

0

2012/078

04/07/2012

Kim Kinnear/Fabcot Pty Ltd

Beauty Salon

Lot 1 DP 1161108, 13 Boundary Street, Macksville

40,000

2012/079

05/07/2012

Picton Bros/G & F Whan

Patio Cover

Lot 1 DP 654092, 300 Newee Creek, Macksville

18,950

2012/080

09/07/2012

Allan Mills

Additions - Rural

Lot 1310 DP 848930, 64 Irvines Road, Newee Creek

48,000

2012/081

09/07/2012

Warren Pattinson

Shed

Lot 6 DP 848475, 24 Boulton Close, Gumma

50,000

2012/082

11/07/2012

Perry Homes/PKM Nominees Pty Ltd & L Hyde

Dwelling-House

Lot 1 DP 1123947 2 Preston Drive, Macksville

163,000

2012/083

11/07/2012

Nambucca Shire Council

Replaced Tiered Seating at Saleyards - Macksville Showgrounds

Lot 1 DP 434625, 111 Rodeo Drive, Macksville

20,000

2012/084

11/07/2012

Coral Homes/B & C Ward

Single Storey Dwelling

Lot 2 DP 1045654, Congarinni Road North, Congarinni

264,452

2012/085

13/07/2012

S Manwaring

Large Lot Residential Dwelling-House

Lot 21 DP 1040339, Newee Creek Road, Newee Creek

120,000

 

 

COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FROM 2-13 JULY 2012

Including those issued by Private Certifiers

 

None were received for this period

 


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FROM 2-13 JULY 2012

 

CONSENT/ DA

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED

EST VALUE

$

2012/067

Lot 51 DP 258422, 42 Priory Parade, Valla

Residential Additions

16,700

2012/050

Lot 1 DP 31587, 10 Egan Lane, Macksville

Carport

3,500

2012/063

Lot 104 DP 1039015, 8 Lorikeet Place, Nambucca Heads

Dwelling

211,500

2012/066

Lot 6 DP 1059266, 17 Sandpiper Drive, Scotts Head

Dwelling

297,671

2012/071

Lot 12 DP 1170352, 6 Nancye Roberts Drive, Macksville

Dwelling

234,737

2012/072

Lot 2 DP 17699, 21 Egan Street, Macksville

Garage

35,500

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.3??? SF1148??????????? 260712???????? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report June 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Barbara Parkins, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

The following is the Contract Regulatory Officer?s Report for June 2012.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the report from the Contract Regulatory Officer for June 2012 be received and noted by Council.

 

 

 

 

Cats

Dogs

ANIMALS IN AND ARRIVING AT COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Animals In Council's Facility (Start of Month)

0

1

Council?s Seizure Activity

 

 

Seized (doesn?t include those animals dumped or surrendered)

1

2

Returned to Owner

0

2

Abandoned or Stray

1

5

Surrendered

 

2

Transferred to Council's Facility from Seizure Activities

1

0

Total Incoming Animals

3

7

ANIMALS LEAVING COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Released to Owners

0

2

Sold

 

 

Released to Organisations for Rehoming

 

 

Died at Council's Facility(other than euthanased)

 

 

Stolen from Council's Facility

 

 

Escaped from Council's Facility

 

 

Other

 

 

Euthanased

 

 

Restricted Dogs

 

 

Dangerous Dogs

 

 

Owner?s Request

 

 

Due to Illness, Disease or Injury

 

 

Feral/infant animal

1

0

Unsuitable for rehoming

 

4

Unable to be rehomed

0

2

Total Euthanased

1

6


 

Total Outgoing Animals

0

12

TOTAL IN COUNCIL'S FACILITY (END OF MONTH)

1

1

 

 

CSR?s (Customer Service Requests) Actioned ? Not including Merit

41

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.4??? SF757????????????? 260712???????? Report on Exploration Licence Application (4581) - 100 Units 51KM NNW Kempsey by PMR3 Pty Ltd

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Jacqui Ashby, Environmental Compliance Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

An advertisement about an exploration licence application for the general area between Taylors Arm and Argents Hill in the Coffs Coast Advocate alerted concerned community members to approach Council to make representations to the Department of Trade & Investment ? Resources and Energy Division as to the detail of the application.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the report.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

This is a report for information only.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Exploration Licence Application 4581

 

On 15 May 2012 PMR3 Pty Ltd submitted an exploration licence application - online (no 4581) for Group 1 Metals over 100 Units 51km NNW of Kempsey, NSW. This was then advertised in the Coffs Harbour Advocate. This application area runs up the boundary of the New England National Park surrounds the catchment of Thumb Creek and Burrapine, runs adjacent to the boarders of Gumbaynggirr National Park, Gumbaynggirr State Forest, Gumbaynggirr State Conservation Area and Dunggir National Park, and includes the catchment of Girralong, Buckra Bendinni, Mistake to just west of Ingalaba State Forest (30*45'0"S ? 30*33'0"S and 152*30'0"E ? 152*45'0"E) ? see attached map at end of Report.

 

Group 1 metallic minerals as stated in the Mining Regulation 2010 Schedule 2 Groups of Minerals are as follows:

 

antimony

indium

rubidium

arsenic

iron minerals

scandium and its ores

bismuth

lead

selenium

cadmium

lithium

silver

caesium

manganese

sulphur

chromite

mercury

tantalum

cobalt

molybdenite

thorium

columbium

nickel

tin

copper

niobium

tungsten and its ores

galena

platinum group minerals

vanadium

germanium

platinum

zinc

gold

rare earth minerals

zirconia

 

The Instructions for Lodging an Exploration Licence Application Online have been included in this report to show the process that a company goes through to apply for a licence.

 

PMR3 Pty Ltd is a subsidiary company of Hudson Investment Group Limited in Macquarie Street, Sydney. PMR3 Pty Ltd is Precious Metal Resources Limited (PMR) who are involved in Base Metal exploration. They are an exploration company.

 

Base Metal is defined as 'Metals that oxidize, tarnish or corrode relatively easily when exposed to air or moisture. Base Metals are widely used in commercial and industrial applications. They are more abundant in nature and therefore far cheaper than precious (noble) metals such as gold, silver or platinum. Base Metals are Aluminium (Al), Copper (Cu), Nickel (Ni), Lead (Pb), Tin (Sn) and Zinc (Zn)'. These base metals are usually found in volcanic outcrops which volcanic ash, lava flows and sediments host the metals.

 

PMR have an extraction operation 80km SE of Armidale called Halls Peak, which is rich in Copper, Lead, Zinc and Silver. This operation has not had any environmental pollution issues that have been reported through the EPA.

 

The exploration licence, if granted, will allow PMR P/L to investigate the area for commercial deposits of base metals. The initial exploration is done by VTEM Survey to identify any possible drilling targets. The VTEM (Versatile Time-Domain Electromagnetic) Survey is one of the leading airborne geophysical systems in use and is particularly suited to identifying deeply buried, conductive ore bodies. The electromagnetic survey measures the conductivity of the rocks beneath the earth's surface by emitting a magnetic field from the aerial beneath the helicopter.

 

Airborne VTEM surveys use a helicopter, which suspends a high resolution caesium magnetometer from its cargo hook. This looks like a 26m diameter transmission coil or loop, which is suspended beneath the chopper in a tent shaped array. The survey will be flown with flight lines initially at 100 metre spacing. If interesting targets are located, additional lines, resulting in prospective areas with a closer 50m line spacing.

 

If targets are found the company will make contact with individual land owners and arrange core sampling, this will be a written contract between the company and the landholder. This process from fly over to core drilling will take between 2 and 4 years, but this will only happen if it is of a commercial sized significance.

 

More information about the Company and how they explore for base metals can be found on their website www.pmrl.com.au

 

Please note PMR3 P/L only deals in base metals and not antimony.

 

Straits Resources Ltd old Hillgrove Gold, Antimony and Tungsten Mine - Armidale

 

The Hillgrove Mineral Field lies 20km east of Armidale and covers an area of 9 by 6 km and is dissected by a deep gorge system of up to 500m depth. The field has been mined since the 1870's and produced over 25 tonnes of gold and historical antimony production is estimated at in excess of 50000 tonnes and tungsten production is 200 tonnes. The Hillgrove mine went into receivership and stopped production in 2002.

 

Straits Resources Ltd purchased the deposit in 2004 and controls 100% of the mining leases. The mine was in production beginning of 2008 for antimony but there were issues about the grade of the mineral and the mine was again closed for production in 2009. Ancoa NL purchased the mine in 2011.

 

An independent technical report and validation report done by Coffee Mining Pty Ltd For Ancoa NL in March 2012 found that:

 

The project Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) requires the monitoring of a number of historical adits for discharge water quality and quantity that may contribute antimony and arsenic to Bakers Creek system. There is no evidence of acid rock drainage (ARD) at the site, with the waste rock characterisation work for Metz and Bakers Creek mining areas indicating all samples being classed as non-acid forming. There is, however, evidence of metalliferous drainage from the disturbance areas but these are within licensed discharge conditions. The Hillgrove site is located within a sensitive environment and Bullantco (Ancoa) plans to implement a comprehensive EMS in accordance with the conditions of the Mining Operation Plan.

 


Tailings Storage Facility 1 was constructed in 1982 as a head of valley storage using upstream construction methods and houses approx 1.3Mt of tailings and additional materials of unknown composition anecdotally sourced from sites operated by Armidale Dumaresq Council and drums of unknown farm chemicals sourced from surrounding properties. Seepage is monitored monthly and reported in the company's annual environmental management report.

 

Tailings Storage Facility 2 was commissioned in March 2008. This site is lined by a HDPE liner and protection mechanisms include leak detections and sumps. The facility can hold 470000t of tailings.

 

Management of contaminated water at Hillgrove Mine is based around a system of nine dams that are linked by pumps, channels and decants. All water storages in the system received incidental rainfall and are subject to evaporation. Several irrigation areas are also used to increase evaporation from the system.

 

Sediment and water quality in Bakers Creek appear to have been substantially affected by activities from historical mining activities. From historical records it appears that between 1877 and 1920, several million tonnes of tailings and waste rock were discharged into Bakers Creek. Subsequently, the sediment and water in Bakers Creek have high levels of antimony and arsenic. There was one surface water pollution incident as a result of the previous Straits Resources Ltd operations.

 

Due to the long history of mining at Hillgrove, the static watertable in the vicinity of the project area would be largely affected by seepage and percolation into and through the large number of old adits and shafts. Groundwater discharges from the adits generally contains elevated levels of antimony and arsenic, with natural seepage through mineralised fault systems also potentially elevating metal loads in solution. Up to 194 adits in the mine area may contribute antimony and arsenic into the Bakers Creek system.

 

Current monitoring identifies that the downstream environment is contaminated in comparison to the upstream environment and is largely attributed to the historic mining operations.

 

In April 2009 a protective bund at the Hillgrove premises had been lowered to allow access for an electrical contractor. When a screening device used in the mine became blocked and ?slimes? discharged and spilled into the bunded area, it then overflowed the bund and discharged into the local environment. The spill, of up to 3000 litres of 'slimes,' contained antimony, arsenic and lead and is toxic to some aquatic life. Straits Resources Limited was found guilty in July 2010 for polluting waters and were fined $50000 and ordered to pay costs of $24000.

 

In October 2011 after heavy rainfall and continued wet weather and a build up of water in the Straits stormwater storage and recycling system dam resulted in three overflows of contaminated water from the mine into Bakers Creek. The mine site is situated on a very steep hill side and the dam collects rainfall from the processing area, office buildings and car park. The EPA said 'It is estimated that a total volume of approximately 0.9 ML of contaminated water may have entered the creek from the overflows since August. However, monitoring data demonstrates that the overflows have been significantly diluted and the downstream water quality has not been impacted' The EPA required Straits to operate a series of evaporators to reduce the water in the stormwater system and can report that four floating evaporators are in operation. A spokesman for the EPA said ?Straits were also required to immediately take water samples and monitor discharges into the river after each flow,? ?To prevent further flows Straits have committed to installing a much larger evaporator, to be in operation before the end of October 2011."

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Department of Industry and Assessment

Precious Metal Resources Limited

Environmental Protection Agency

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This is an exploration licence application for exploration only. The methods used in locating targets are not intrusive. If any targets of significance are found then core samples are taken, again low impact. This is not an application for extraction.

 

Social

 

There will be minimal disruption whilst the helicopter flies overhead

 

Economic

 

Landowners at this stage of the exploration will not benefit financially, only if significant quantities are found then a landholder will benefit.

 

Risk

 

There is no environmental risk associated with this exploration licence application.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

 


Attachments:

1View

17327/2012 - Instructions for Lodging an Exploration Licence

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Report on Exploration Licence Application (4581) - 100 Units 51KM NNW Kempsey by PMR3 Pty Ltd

 






Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.5??? SF430????????????? 260712???????? Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Jacqui Ashby, Environmental Compliance Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

As part of the approved on-ground works program under the Our Living Coast Project, $40,000 was devoted to the Grassy Park Reserve Flying Fox camp for a Plan of Management and extensive rehabilitation works for both the camp area and the surrounding native vegetation including extensive bank stabilisation. GeoLink was the preferred consultant to undertake the study, as they had extensive experience in preparing plans of management for flying fox camps in NSW. The draft Flying Fox Plan of Management was placed on public exhibition between 22 March and 27 April 2012.

 

A report was presented to Council on 31 May 2012 and a Notice of Motion was heard on the 13 June 2012, the resolution from the Notice of Motion being:

 

1????????? That Council advise the affected residents that submissions of alternate suggestions for the proposed Flying Fox Plan of Management should be with Council by 16 July 2012.

 

2????????? Further that residents may continue to submit submissions to amend the Flying Fox Plan of Management after that date provided that all proposals are within the relevant legislative framework and that Council will agree to review the adopted Plan following their receipt.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That the Flying Fox Plan of Management for Grassy Park, Bowraville be endorsed.

 

2????????? That grant funding be used and sourced to implement the actions.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That the Flying Fox Plan of Management for Grassy Park, Bowraville not be endorsed

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Flying Fox Plan of Management ? Grassy Park, Bowraville was presented to Council on 15 March 2012 for endorsement for exhibition. The PoM was subsequently placed on public exhibition from 22 March through to 4.00 pm, 27 April 2012. There was one submissions received during this period and was tabled at the 31 May 2012, meeting.

 

The PoM is to help set down the fundamentals of the rehabilitation of the park, for the use of native species and humans. Having a PoM can attract funding both state and federal for the rehabilitation of the EEC's and the ongoing maintenance of the core camp. The main body of the PoM is the vegetation management plan.

 

Ongoing licences and permits from OEH are dependent on the endorsement of the PoM. To not endorse the PoM will mean Grassy Park will revert back to the normal roster of mowing of the grass. Weed management will reduce if not cease and vegetation will grow and the potential is high for the Flying Foxes to roost closer to residential properties and the problem will be inflamed.

 

For the PoM to work, funding is necessary for the continuation of rehabilitation works within the Park.

 

As a result of the motion of the 13 June 2012, two (2) submissions were received and are attached for Council?s information. As Council will note, the submissions raise several matters but effectively can be summed as that the signatories to the letters are strongly opposed to the adoption of a ?Plan of Management for flying foxes that focuses on bats and not humans?.

 

The difficulty for Council is two fold. Firstly, the funding provided for the PoM has been provided 100% through the Our Living Coast Urban Sustainability program for sustainable management practices and initiatives in urban areas. Secondly, very specific legislation is in place regarding the management of Flying Fox and habitat areas.

 

For Council not to adopt the PoM which accords to the funding criteria, Legislative controls and best practice guidelines will expose Council to the withdrawal of the funding necessitating Council to find the funds from General Fund.

 

If no PoM is in place, Council is very unlikely to secure any grant funds to undertake any further weed management requiring funds from Genertal Fund or it ceasing any further involvement in the camp area

 

The original contract with GeoLink did not contain any extra work after the final draft was produced, as community consultation and submissions on the draft had already been processed. Funds required for any further work are not able to come from the Our Living Coast Funding with any extra costs being borne through the Environmental Levy.

 

It is noted that since works have started in and around the Flying Fox camp the majority of the colony have not returned to roost at Bowraville, giving residents a respite period. If works are to cease the flying fox colony may return in greater numbers than what has been seen in the past three years.

 

Whilst some of the works that have been done over the last three years are seen as immediate, such as the buffer zone to the closest residents, the full impact of these works may not be seen for several years.

 

Interestingly, the Coffs Creek Colony, a large maternity camp in central Coffs Harbour, was in a difficult position and was affecting residents. Through their PoM and funding, Coffs Harbour City Council has been able to improve the amenity for the residents. Through the actions in the plan, pathways have been limited and the impact of the flying fox colony has been reduced.

 

As with all Plans of Management, they are a living Plan and will be amended as new information becomes available. The Flying Fox Plan of Management for Grassy Park, Bowraville can and will be changed and edited as more information comes to hand, especially if there are legislative changes.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Mayor and all Councillors

Director Environment and Planning

GeoLink

Nambucca Valley Landcare Inc

Coffs Harbour City Council

Bellingen Shire Council

Billy Roberts (Flying Fox specialist)

Office Environment and Heritage

The community of Bowraville

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Grassy Park houses a Flying Fox Camp, more than likely due to its proximity to the limited food supply in the surrounding areas. Managing the Camp within all relevant Legislation is difficult due to the many requirements and restrictions that apply.

 

Social

 

The intent of the works done and planned are to alleviate the difficulties of living near a large camp. The PoM helps set out the works to be done.

 

Economic

 

If the conflict between the residents and the camp is not alleviated, then there is potential for economic loss.

 

Risk

 

Council is faced with irreconcilable conflict between the requirements of the current Legislation and the view of the residents.

 

Council is also faced with a financial risk if it resolves not to endorse the PoM with the funding authority withdrawing its funding for the PoM, requiring Council to fund the Plan from its own resources.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Any variation for the PoM will be from the environmental levy

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Grant funding will be identified into the future for the life of the PoM.

 

Attachments:

1View

17760/2012 - Submission - R Turnell

0 Pages

2View

18333/2012 - Petition in relation to Flying Fox Plan of Management

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 



Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.6??? DA2008/139????? 260712???????? Extension of Increased Output period for APS - Macksville Precast Concrete Operations

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Greg Meyers, Director Environment and Planning ????????

 

Summary:

 

Abigroup sought an increase in output for a period of nine (9) months for its Precast Concrete Plant in Macksville which was approved on 20 October 2011 with the increased output commencing in November 2011 pursuant to condition 3ii of the consent.

 

This extension was to enable Abigroup to prepare, submit and gain approval for a permanent increase in output through a Designated Development Application.

 

A number of matters arose which delayed the finalisation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with the Designated application being lodged on 6 June 2012 for a maximum output of 200,000tpa. The Designated Development Application being placed on Public Exhibition from 22 June ? 23 July 2012.

 

It is unlikely that the application can be finalised prior to the commencement of the Local Government caretaker period on 10 August 2012 and will need to be held over until after the new Council is elected which will be after the 9 month increased output period which concludes 31 July 2012. As a consequence Abigorup propose to submit a modification permitting the increased output for another 3 months to enable the finalisation of the current Designated Development application currently before Council.

 

The purpose of this report however, is to seek Council determination, that pursuant to clause A3.4.2 of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010, that it will dispense with the need to advertise or notify the proposed modification for a 3 month extension to the current increased output as it is unlikely to increase any environmental impacts.

 

A3.4.2    Council discretion for applications with minimal environmental impact

 

Notwithstanding the above, where Council considers the proposed modification will not increase any environmental impacts, Council may use its discretion to not advertise or notify to the same extent as the original application lodged under Sections 96(1A) and 96(2) of the Act.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council pursuant to Clause A3.4.2 of Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 dispense with the need to advertise or notify the proposed Modification for DA 2008/139 for a further 3 month extension of the increased output from 25,000tonnes/pa to 60,000tonnes/pa as it is unlikely to increase any environmental impacts.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose not to dispense with the advertising or notification requirements provided under Clause A3.4.2 of Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In 2011, Abigroup sought an increase in output for a period of nine (9) months for its Precast Concrete Plant in Macksville due to a number of large contracts it was awarded and in particular the contract for the floodplain bridge associated with the Kempsey ? Pacific Highway bypass.

 

Council after advertising and notifying the proposal, conditionally approved the 9 month increase on 20 October 2011. Before the increased output could commence a range of matters had to be completed with the most prominent being the construction of the 2nd production shed and the implementation of a wide range of Noise mitigation measures to address the noise issues that Council had been dealing with.

 

In accordance with condition 3ii of the consent, the increased operation did not commence until 1 November 2011 which activated the 9 month period. Notwithstanding, the 12 month period used for the 60,000t output limit is August to July in accordance with the original consent.

 

The time limited increased output was to enable Abigroup to prepare, submit and gain approval for a permanent increase in output through a Designated Development Application. At the same time, to enable it to meet its production needs with the new contracts it had won.

 

A number of matters arose through compliance with the specifications provided by the Director General which delayed the finalisation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with the Designated application being lodged on 6 June 2012. The application was placed on Public Exhibition from 22 June ? 23 July 2012. Staff are currently assessing the application.

 

It is unlikely that the application will be finalised prior to the commencement of the Local Government caretaker period on 10 August 2012 and will need to be held over until after the new Council is elected which will be after the 9 month increased output period which concludes 31 July 2012. As a consequence, Abigroup propose to submit a modification for the increased output for another 3 months to enable the finalisation of the current Designated Development application currently before Council to be determined and if approved, compliance with any conditions that may need to be complied with.

 

Whilst Abigroup could revert back to the original approval of 25,000tpa, it could continue its operations at the current rate of approx. 6,000t per month but would need to cease all operations once 25,000t of product has been produced which would be around mid-December, hoping that the new Designated Development has been approved and all conditions being met.

 

This risk is one that Abigroup would like to avoid due to the contracts that they currently have and working to. As such Abigroup propose to submit a further modification for the increased output of 60,000t pa for a period of 3 months. However, as outlined above the timing for the modification to be dealt with if the normal advertising and notification was to apply would provide for some uncertainty for them with the current contracts they have.

 

Under clause A3.4.2 of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010, Council does have the discretion to dispense with the need to advertise or notify the proposed modification for a 3 month extension to the current increased output as it is unlikely to increase any environmental impacts. The clause is repeated below.

 

A3.4.2    Council discretion for applications with minimal environmental impact

 

Notwithstanding the above, where Council considers the proposed modification will not increase any environmental impacts, Council may use its discretion to not advertise or notify to the same extent as the original application lodged under Sections 96(1A) and 96(2) of the Act.

 

As outlined above, the three month extension will not increase any environmental impacts as Abigroup could continue at the current production rate of approx 6,000t per month for a further 4 months and be compliant with the original consent of 25,000tpa.

 

The 3 month extension would however, enable the finalisation of the new Designated Development, and if approved compliance with any conditions imposed before they can activate the new Designated Development consent.

 

 


CONSULTATION:

 

Abigroup

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The continued operation at the current output rate is unlikely to increase any environmental impacts

 

Social

 

There are no identified social impacts identified with the proposal that have not already been considered by Council

 

Economic

 

There is no economic impact identified if the proposal is supported and approved.

 

Risk

 

Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 provides the opportunity for Council to dispense with the need to advertise or notify the modification if it considers that the proposal is unlikely to increase any environmental impacts.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

No impact

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Attachments:

1View

18095/2012 - Extension of temporary increased production

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Extension of Increased Output period for APS - Macksville Precast Concrete Operations

 




?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1??? SF86??????????????? 260712???????? SES ? Strategic Disaster Readiness Package

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report has been prepared as interim advice to Council on the pending changes surrounding the support and funding arrangements to the State Emergency Service (SES).? The State Government has committed additional funding over the next five years to the NSW SES to implement the ?Strategic Disaster Readiness Plan? following the recommendations from the Commission of Inquiry into the Queensland floods.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive the interim report and note that a further report will be presented to Council following the discussions with the Clarence/Nambucca Regional Controller to determine any changes on the existing arrangements with Council.?

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Receive and note the report

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In accordance with the State Emergency Services Act 1989 Sect 17 (5) and (6) Local Government is required to provide suitable training facilities, storage and office accommodation which is to be a standard approved by the Commissioner.? Council presently pays a 11.7% contribution towards the Emergency Service Levy and makes an annual provision for SES operations within the budget as follows:

 

??????????? Emergency Service Levy for the SES operations $30,000.00

??????????? SES Vehicle expenses $7,000.00

??????????? Council maintain the NEOC $6,400.00 (which incorporates the SES electricity and building insurance costs)

??????????? There has been no provision within the 2012/13 budget for SES Capital improvements

 

The SES propose to draft and negotiate a ?service level agreement? with Council that identifies what costs each organisation will maintain and contribute. The Regional Controller will meet with Council representatives to discuss the implementation and changes to Council assistance.? The two key components within the ?SES Strategic Disaster Readiness Plan? that will affect the current arrangements with Council are;

 

FLEET MANAGEMENT ? there is a five year project to standardise and centralise the SES operational vehicle fleet, the majority of which is currently owned and managed by Local Government.

 

??????????? Local Government will not be responsible for the procurement, running costs (fuel) and maintenance of the SES operation fleet, and be invited to maintain the SES operational vehicles and paid for these services through State Fleet.

??????????? SES at a negotiated rate will buy back from Local Government the current operational vehicles which have been assessed as ?safe to use and fit for purpose? and those vehicles that are identified as not suitable ?fit for purpose? will be vested directly back to Council.

??????????? The fleet package will commence at the beginning of the 2012/13 financial year with the procurement and replacement of all current operational vehicles being implemented over a five year program. (The Nambucca Unit was proposing to replace one of its vehicles this financial year and will now be subject to these changes).

??????????? Each Council will be provided with an annual forward project estimate for vehicle procurement and or disposal to enable the programming within the fleet management.

 

LOCAL SUPPORT FUNDING ? there is a support funding package to the SES Units to assist them in their day to day operating costs.

??????????? Emergency service resourcing will be risk based and risk assessed on community needs rather than being dependant on the capacity of each Local Government area

??????????? If required by Local Government, the local SES units will have funding to assist in the payment of agreed building utility costs such as power, water and heating

??????????? Local Government will have the opportunity to redirect funding currently committed to vehicles and the running costs of the local SES unit to upgrading the current building facilities to ensure it meets the needs of the volunteers?

 

It is anticipated that the amendments may be in line to that of the current RFS funding arrangements resulting in an anticipated increase to the SES component of the Emergency Service Levy.? The SES will still rely on a partnership with Council to assist in maintaining the local capacity for the support to the community during emergencies and it is envisaged by the SES that Local Government will maintain their level of support.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no other consultation made in preparing this report

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no implications for the environment associated with this report.

 

Social

There are no social implications associated with this report.

 

Economic

The economic implications associated residents affected by storm and tempest.

 

Risk

There is the potential risk that the same funding issues to that of the RFS may occur with the SES and the potential risk with an increase of the Emergency Service Levee to fund the SES operations on a state level

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The 2012/13 budget incorporates funding contribution to the SES as follows:

??????????? Emergency Service Levee $30,000.00

??????????? SES Vehicle expenses $7,000.00

??????????? Council maintain the NEOC $6,400.00 (which incorporates the SES electricity and building insurance costs)

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no variation to working funds attributed to this report

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.2??? SF769????????????? 260712???????? Roads and Maritme Services Block Grant Assistance for Roads - 2012/2013

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works ????????

 

Summary:

 

The Roads and Maritime Services has provided advice that the Regional Road Block Grant allocation for 2012/2013 is $483,000.? These funds are for use on Regional Roads only and Council is required to accept the allocations in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Services funding requirements.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council accept the 2012/2013 Regional Roads Block Grant allocation for $483,000 and advise the Roads and Maritime Services accordingly.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1????????? Accept the allocations

2????????? Not accept the allocations

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has forwarded advice of the Regional road Block Grant allocation for 2012/2013 is $483,000.? These funds are for use on Regional Roads only and Council is required to accept the allocations in accordance with the Roads and Traffic Authority funding requirements.

 

The allocations for 2012/2013 are:

 

 

2012/2013

$

Previous Year 2011/2012

$

Block Grant

347,000

359,000

Supplementary Block Grant

99,000

99,000

Traffic Facility Block Grant

37,000

36,000

 

483,000

494,000

 

The reduction in the grant is due to the transitional arrangement for the reclassification of Bellingen Road from a Regional Road to a Local Road and no Special Repair Grant funding.? The transition for the reduction in funding will cease at the end of 30 June 2013.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no issues for the environment as a result of this report.

 


Social

 

There are no social issues as a result of this report.

 

Economic

 

There are no economical issues as a result of this report.

 

 

Risk

 

There are no risk issues as a result of this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Funds are identified in the 2012/2013 budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.3??? SF42??????????????? 260712???????? Emergency Services Funding - NSW State Government Discussion Paper

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report provides Councillors with the NSW State Government discussion paper ?Funding Our Emergency Services? (circularised) recently released by the Treasurer, the Hon Michael Baird MP and Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Hon Michael Gallacher BProf St MLC.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council receive the NSW State Government discussion paper - Funding our Emergency Services and provide comment to the Assistant General Manager - Engineering Services by Friday 31 August 2012 to prepare a further report to Council to formalise a response to the State Government.

 

2??????? That the discussion paper be placed on Councils web site encouraging the general public to provide their individual submission to the discussion paper via? http://haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/ESL??

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Receive and note the report

2??????? Provide additional comments and a formal resolution to the discussion questions

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Treasurer, Mike Baird MP and Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Michael Gallacher BProf St MLC have released a discussion paper on funding options for emergency services.? This review was promised in the lead-up to the 2011 election and was recently flagged in the 2012-13 Budget.  The public consultation period will run for three months through to 8 October 2012.

 

A copy of the Funding our Emergency Services discussion paper is attached.   Key points from the discussion paper include:

 

?????????????? Funding for emergency services currently comes from three sources, with the bulk of funding (73.7%) provided by a tax on insurance companies, while the remainder of the funds are provided by local governments (11.7%) and the State Government (14.6%).

 

?????????????? The current system has serious weaknesses and is economically inefficient.? Taxing insurance increases the price of insurance and can lead some people to under-insure and others not to insure at all.

 

?????????????? The system is also unfair because people who are either not insured or are under-insured do not contribute to the funding of our emergency services, but still receive the same coverage as those who do pay insurance.

 

?????????????? A better and fairer system would spread the costs across the whole community.

 

?????????????? Recent reviews of the state tax system, including the Henry Tax Review, have recommended NSW moves to a property based levy to fund the emergency services.

 

?????????????? All other mainland states either fund their emergency services using a property levy or are moving to do so.

 

?????????????? The experience in Western Australia and South Australia has been that the resultant reduction in the cost of insurance has been passed onto customers.

 

The discussion paper contains ten specific questions that the State Government requests feedback on comprising of:

 

1 ?????? Which of the following revenue sources associated with emergency services funding should be replaced by a property levy:

????????? a??????? The emergency services levy payments by insurers and the associated stamp duty;

????????? b??????? Local government contributions; or

????????? c??????? The portion of emergency services funding currently provided from general NSW government ?????????????????? revenue?

2 ?????? Should a property levy be raised as a fixed amount per property, as a proportion or percentage of property value, or some combination of the two?

3 ?????? Should different rates of tax be applied to different property types?

4 ?????? Should different tax rates be applied in different parts of the State? If revenue amounts are zoned geographically, where should the boundaries of those zones be?

5 ?????? Should some proportion of emergency services funding be raised as an annual charge on vehicle registration?

6 ?????? Should pensioners receive concessional rates for a new property levy that funds emergency services?

7 ?????? How should the revenue target be set each year to take account of changing costs of fire and emergency services?

8 ?????? Should revenue from a land based levy be collected by local governments or the Office of State Revenue?

9 ?????? Is a transitional period required for adjustment of the emergency services levy, and if so how should any funding gap arising from a transitional period be recovered?

10 ???? What arrangements are needed to ensure that any reductions in insurance taxes are passed on to consumers?

 

It is proposed to allow Councillors time to read the discussion paper and provide feedback to the Assistant General Manager - Engineering Services by Friday 31 August 2012 to prepare a further report to Council for a formal submission to the State Government on the discussion paper.? Councillors may also elect to place their own comments on the discussion paper by going to http://haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/ESL

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no other consultation made in preparing this report

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no implications for the environment associated with this report.

 

Social

There are no social implications associated with this report.

 

Economic

The economic implications associated residents affected by storm and tempest.

 


Risk

There is the potential risk that the same funding issues experienced with the RFS maybe occur and the potential risk of an increase of the Emergency Service Levee to fund the additional expenses on a state level.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The 2012/13 budget contains the contribution for the Emergency Service Levee for the amount of $341,700.00 to as follows:

 

??????????? Emergency Service Levee for the SES $30,000.00

??????????? Emergency Service Levee for the RFS $250,400.00

??????????? Emergency Service Levee for the NSW Fire and Rescue $61,300.00

??????????? Council maintain the NEOC $6,400.00 (which incorporates the SES electricity and building insurance costs) and provide additional funding towards SES Vehicle expenses $7,000.00.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no variation to working funds attributed to this report

 

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised Document (Trim 16882/2012)

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Emergency Services Funding - NSW State Government Discussion Paper

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

Circularised Document (Trim 16882/2012)

 

Emergency Services Funding - NSW State Government Discussion Paper

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.4??? SF1031??????????? 260712???????? Policy Review ? Urban and Rural Road Naming

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

The policy for Streets/Roads Naming, Road and Street Names Selection has been reviewed to ensure that the rural and urban road naming process and procedures comply with the NSW Geographical Names Board, relevant legislation under the Roads Act and Regulations and locality requirements within the Nambucca Local Government Area.? A set of operational procedures have been created which will now sit behind the policy for staff and the general public.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council endorse the proposed name change for the Policy from Policy for Streets/Roads Naming, Road and Street Names Selection to Policy for Urban and Rural Road Naming as amended in July 2012 (Document 13884/2012).

 

2??????? That Council endorse the Policy for Urban and Rural Road Naming as amended in July 2012 (Document 13884/2012).

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Endorse the amended policy.

2??????? Not endorse the amended policy.

3??????? Maintain the existing policy without change.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In accordance with Council?s direction to be provided with the current and proposed amended policy documents prior to consideration at a Council meeting, the current and amended ?Streets/Road Naming and Road and Street Names Selection? Policy were provided to Councillors for comment.

 

Comments in regard to the Draft Review of Streets Road Naming Policy from Cr Court:

 

Page Number

Proposed Changes/Comments Questions

Staff Response

1

Section 1.0 The objections of this policy is to: not ;

Amended

 

Remove ?To? from each dot point as it is provided in item.

Amended

 

Finish each dot point with a semi-colon except of the last where you would retain the full stop

Amended

2

Section 3.0 ? First dot point ? shouldn?t ?suffix?s? be ?suffixes? as it is the plural of suffix?

Amended

5

Second paragraph ? became a little confused. would it be clearer with a full stop after ?essential services?? The ?significant roads?.. would be a separate sentence.

Amended

6

Section 1.0 a ? Would ?The naming of a dedicated public road is to follow the ??? make it clearer?

Clarified/Amended

7

Sub para d ? Change to: ?names with an historical background are acceptable?

Amended

 

Comments in regard to the Draft Review of Streets Road Naming Policy from Cr South:

 

Page Number

Proposed Changes/Comments Questions

Staff Response

 

Found this to be okay

None Required

 

The Geographical Names Board (GNB) is the official body for naming and recording details of places and geographical names in NSW. Under the Geographical Names Act 1966, the GNB has the power to:

??????????? assign names to places

??????????? investigate and determine the form, spelling, meaning, pronunciation, origin and history of any geographical name

??????????? determine the application of each name with regard to position, extent or other reference.

 

There is limited scope in amending the Street Road Naming Policy as the naming process and procedures must comply with the NSW Geographical Names Board and relevant legislation under the Roads Act and Regulations.? Following research of other Council policies and the guidelines provided by the NSW Geographical Names Board an amended policy has been developed for Council consideration and includes a set of operational procedures that will sit behind the policy for staff and the general public.

 

Further wording has been included at Section 3.0 Definitions to further define the term ?great eminence? being ?a position of superiority, distinction, high rank, or fame.? It is considered appropriate that the names of eminent persons now deceased may be perpetuated, particularly those of early explorers, settlers, naturalists, Councillors/Politicians, widely known or recognised renowned celebrities, scholars or sportspersons or other persons which have held a standing in society deemed as prominent or important (the key word being ?deceased).?

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Technical Services

Executive Assistant

Geographical Names Board and other Local Government Councils

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment associated with this report.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications associated with this report.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications associated with this report.

 

Risk

 

There is no risk implications associated with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct or indirect impact on the current or future budgets as the application and processing fees are contained within the annual fees and charges

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no variation to working funds attributed to this report

 

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised document for Councillors showing tracked changes

0 Pages

2View

?- Circularised document - Draft Policy (Document No. 13884/2012)

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Policy Review ? Urban and Rural Road Naming

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

Circularised document for Councillors showing tracked changes

 

Policy Review ? Urban and Rural Road Naming

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Policy Review ? Urban and Rural Road Naming

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 2

 

 

Circularised document - Draft Policy (Document No. 13884/2012)

 

Policy Review ? Urban and Rural Road Naming

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26 July 2012

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.5??? SF1103??????????? 260712???????? Acquisition of Forests NSW Land for Off River Storage

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Richard Spain, Manager Water and Sewerage; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

Land acquisitions to facilitate the construction of the off river storage have been completed with the exception of land owned by Forests NSW in the Viewmont State Forest.? The acquisition of this land, being 196.3 hectares, was agreed with Forests NSW in 2004 subject to a number of conditions.

 

These conditions have now been satisfied and there is no further impediment to the acquisition of the land.? The agreed price for compensation which has not changed since 2004 is $398,000.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Lots 1 and 2 in DP 1169279; Lots 183, 186, 190, 308, 309 and 310 in DP 755549: Lot 183 in DP 755540 be acquired by Council by compulsory process for an off river storage pursuant to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and Section 186 of the Local Government Act.

 

2????????? That Council agree to the purchase price of $398,000 as proposed by Forests NSW.

 

3????????? That the proposed land to be acquired be designated as operational land, and it be noted the land is not being acquired for the purpose of resale but rather for the creation of an off stream water storage.

 

4????????? That approval for the acquisition be sought from the Minister for Local Government and the Governor.

 

5????????? That mineral rights are excluded from the proposed acquisition.

 

6????????? That depending upon the timing of the government gazette notice confirming the compulsory acquisition, that Council enter into an agreement with Forests NSW to permit construction work on the land to be acquired.

 

7??????? That Council?s seal be affixed to all relevant documents.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

No alternative options are considered as the acquisition of the land has been the subject of ongoing negotiation with Forests NSW and the land is required to facilitate the construction of the Off River Storage Project that has now been approved for construction by Council.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The inundation area of the proposed off river storage is located within parts of the Viewmont State Forest and is owned by Forests NSW.? An agreement was reached with Forests NSW in October 2004 for the acquisition of this land which is in various lots which in aggregate comprise 196.3 hectares.? The acquisition was subject to a number of conditions including payment of compensation in the amount of $398,000.? A copy of the letter detailing the terms of the agreement is attached for Council?s information.

 

There is no impediment to the acquisition of the land and now that Council has resolved to proceed with the construction of the project it is in Council?s interest to complete the acquisition as soon as possible.? Forests NSW have confirmed their agreement to the acquisition.

 

Council has prepared and lodged plans for the acquisition and must now seek Department of Local Government approval for the compulsory acquisition to be gazetted.? A copy of a plan showing the land to be acquired is shown below for Council?s information

 

Forests NSW have recently confirmed that the compensation of $398,000 that was originally proposed in 2004 will be accepted.? This is considered a reasonable outcome for Council.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the General Manager, Council?s Surveyor and Forests NSW.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no significant environmental implications outside those already detailed in the EIS.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The acquisition of the land will eliminate any risk to Council of proceeding with construction works on land that they do not own.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is provision in the 2012/13 budget for the off stream water storage for the acquisition of this land.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

 



 

Attachments:

1View

18123/2012 - Copy of Forests NSW letter

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 July 2012

Acquisition of Forests NSW Land for Off River Storage

 

? ?



[1] Prohibited investments are not limited to the list below and extend to any investment carried out for speculative purposes.

[2] 100% Commonwealth Government and Government-guaranteed deposits are included in this category, but without any upper limit applying to the government as counterparty.

[3] This category includes unrated ADI?s such as some Credit Unions and Building Societies where falling outside deposit guarantees for at least part of the investment term.