NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Special Meeting of  Council

AGENDA ITEMS

20 February 2014

 

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 last Thursday of each month AND on the Thursday two weeks before the Thursday meeting.  Both meetings commence at 5.30 pm.  Meetings are held in the Council Chamber at Council's Administration Centre—44 Princess Street, Macksville (unless otherwise advertised).

 

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 Council’s website: www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au


 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Special Meeting of  Council - 20 February 2014

 

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.

 

AMENDED AGENDA                                                                               Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        PRAYER

3        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES —

Ordinary Council Meeting - 13 February 2014................................................................................ 5

5        NOTICES OF MOTION  

6        DELEGATIONS

i)       Ms Karen Croghan – Objector

ii)      Mr Mick Green – Objector

iii)     Mr Barry Duffus OAM – Objector

 

7        ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE   

8        QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9        General Manager Report

9.1     Special Rate Variation..................................................................................................... 15    

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

10.1   Special Rate Variation Submissions - As at 5 February 2014

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (b) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains a discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer.

  

            a      Questions raised by Councillors at 8 above

 

       i         MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

       ii        PUBLIC VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

     TO CLOSE

       iii       CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

                   iv       DEAL WITH MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

11      MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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


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).

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Council Meeting HELD ON 13 February 2014

The following document is the minutes of the Council meeting held on 13 February 2014.  These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on 27 February 2014 and therefore subject to change.  Please refer to the minutes of 27 February 2014 for confirmation.

 

PRESENT

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

Cr John Ainsworth

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM

Cr Brian Finlayson

Cr Paula Flack

Cr Kim MacDonald

Cr Bob Morrison

Cr Anne Smyth

Cr Elaine South

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT

 

Michael Coulter (General Manager)

Scott Norman (AGM Corporate Services)

Paul Gallagher (AGM Engineering Services)

Monika Schuhmacher (Minute Secretary)

 

 

PRAYER

 

Father Michael from the Catholic Church offered a prayer on behalf of the Nambucca Minister's Association.

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Smyth declared a non-pecuniary significant conflict of interest in Item 9.2 Nambucca Valley Landcare - Occupation of Shop in Bowraville Theatre under the Local Government Act as Cr Smyth has a family member that is employed by Landcare.  Cr Smyth left the meeting for this item.

 

Councillor JA Ainsworth declared a pecuniary interest in Item 9.8 Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined from 20-31 January 2014 (the item dealing with kennels on Coronation Road) under the Local Government Act as Cr Ainsworth has family member who is an adjoining landowner.  Cr Ainsworth left the meeting for this item.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 30 January 2014

 

58/14 RESOLVED: (Flack/Smyth)

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 30 January 2014 be confirmed subject to the following amendment:

 

It was not recorded that Cr Hoban returned to the Chair to close the meeting.

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Hoban

 

ITEM 5.1      SF1933              130214      Notice of Motion - Submission to NSW Parliamentary Inquiry Into Social, Public And Affordable Housing (SF657)

59/14 RESOLVED: (Hoban/Flack)

 

That Council make a brief submission to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Social, Public and Affordable Housing, recommending that the NSW Grants Commission adopt the proportion of people living in residential parks as a disability factor when allocating funding to councils.

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Hoban

 

ITEM 5.2      SF1933              130214      Notice of Motion - Erection of Flood Height Indicators and Naming of Causeway, Sundowner Road (RF498)

60/14 RESOLVED: (Hoban/Flack)

 

1        That Council erect flood height indicators at the causeway located 100m before 71 Sundowner Road, Bakers Creek.

 

2        That Council receive a brief report on the merit or otherwise of naming the causeway.

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Hoban

 

ITEM 5.3      SF1933              130214      Notice of Motion - Budget Allocation to Recognise and Support Existing Businesses (SF661)

61/14 RESOLVED: (Hoban/South)

 

That Council consider a budget allocation in 2014/15 of $10,000 for the purpose of recognising and/or supporting existing businesses within the Nambucca Valley, the expenditure of which is to be determined by the General Manager in consultation with the Manager of Business Development.

 

 

 

DELEGATIONS

 

Resolved:          (Morrison/South)

 

That the following delegation be heard:

 

          5.4     Council Land for Men's Shed in Nambucca Heads

                   i)       Mr John Kent on behalf of Men's Shed Nambucca Heads

 

Mr Kent addressed Council making the following points:

·    Nambucca Heads Men’s Shed has community support particularly businesses, clubs, organisations, grants and in kind contributions

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Morrison

 

ITEM 5.4      SF1933              130214      Notice of Motion - Council Land for Men's Shed in Nambucca Heads (SF1479)

Motion:      (Morrison/Ainsworth)

 

That Council allot a piece of land of approximately 1,500m2 from one of its allotments from the Railway Road, Industrial Area Nambucca for the establishment of a Men's Shed.

 

Amendment:       (Ainsworth/Smyth)

 

That Council try to identify a suitable allotment of land in Nambucca Heads for the Nambucca Heads Men’s Shed.

 

The amendment was carried and it became the motion and it was:

 

62/14 Resolved: (Ainsworth/Smyth)

 

That Council try to identify a suitable allotment of land in Nambucca Heads for the Nambucca Heads Men’s Shed. 

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Morrison

 

ITEM 5.5      SF1933              130214      Notice of Motion - Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads - Kelli & Clint Leckie (SF734)

 

Cr Morrison has withdrew his Notice of Motion.

 

  

 

DELEGATIONS continued

 

Resolved:          (Morrison/South)

 

That the following delegations be heard:

 

11.2   Presentation from Essential Energy on the electricity upgrade to Hyland Park

          i)        Mr Kerry Riddell—Hyland Park concerned resident

                   ii)      Ms Rachel Hussell, Manager Community Relations North Coast and

                             Mr Don Dark Design Manager from Essential Engery

                   iii)     Mr Lachlan Ison, Zone Manager NSW Rural Fire Service Lower North Coast Zone

will be in attendance to take questions.

          iv)      Mr Robert Baker—Hyland Park concerned resident

 

 

Mr Riddell addressed Council making the following points: (his speaking notes are on trim file SF869)

·    Asked by Hyland Park conservation group to address Council

·    220 people signed petition to say “no” to overhead electricity to Hyland Park

·    Asked to be put safely underground

·    Thanks to Council for their support

·    Only one road into and out of the village

·    Only safe option is for the new electricity line to be placed underground or a different route chosen

·    Residents feel major concern is for fires

·    Referred to fires in Canberra and loss of homes, many roads to escape unlike Hyland Park which only has one road by which to escape

·    Email to Cr Morrison from Ms Hussell, that the infrastructure would go ahead without any public consultation

·    What is the reason for power to Hyland Park - primarily for future developments at Valla

·    Why was another route not chosen, was a cost/benefit analysis undertaken

·    What is the proposed route, how will the powerlines cross at Deep Creek

·    How does the extra cost to the public purse compare to underground powerlines in comparison to loss of homes

·    Was a risk assessment done

·    An environmental impact study showed this area is a high risk for bush fires

·    If catastrophic fire occurs from overhead powerlines does Essential Energy pay compensation

·    Other routes have been investigated but current one is most cost effective – will Essential Energy provide documentation to Council

·    Clearing undergrowth is contractual and to ensure there is no regrowth of trees

·    Cost/benefit analysis should be used to ascertain viability for underground opposed to overhead

·    Projects looked at on an individual basis

·    Normal that developers inform Essential Energy, however, now there is a contestable environment for power providers

 

Ms Hussell and Mr Dark addressed Council making the following points:

·    Apology for Brendon    regional manager

·    Essential Energy is a NSW government owned organisation

·    Australia’s largest electricity network supplier

·    Role to provide reliable safe and sustainable power to its customers

·    Would provide benefit to Hyland Park also, Valla, Valla Beach Raleigh and surrounding areas

·    Feedline comes from NH power station

·    Project plan will provide power to above during unplanned interruptions

·    Did not meet customer outage requirements – not providing a reliable supply in those areas

·    Significant local development would require Essential Energy to increase supply

·    Has been a decrease in faults and outages and performance has improved

·    Essential Energy has not received any formal written confirmation of development ie proposal has been placed on hold

·    Link needed to connect Nambucca Heads with Hyland Park

·    Vegetation clearing and future vegetation management carried out by State Forest -  10 m cleared on either side of powerline to minimise fire incidences etc

·    3.5 km of aluminium conductors, 23 new power poles

·    Overhead design, cost, environmental impact

·    Underground would triple cost – natural environment would be disturbed. Overhead cost is $320,000, underground cost is $850,000

·    Underground does not add to capacity

·    Would take longer to fix faults

·    All extra costs would need to be passed on to customers if underground.  Essential Energy cannot justify the cost increase

·    Maintenance of power lines is ongoing and paramount to safety issues

·    Bushfire impacts have been addressed

·    Project currently on hold until one or both of key drivers are met….could be years away

·    Are committed that community is informed of any changes and any progression.

 

Ms Rachel Hussell addressed Council making the following additional points:

·    Funded completely by customers

·    No written correspondence received regarding future developments

·    Improvement to reliability driver has been made so second driver is not necessary at this time

·    Does not go into private property

·    Essential Energy provided written information to residents – some with only short notice – Essential Energy apologises for short notice

·    Offered to come and meet with residents face to face as requested

·    Contractors will be removing undergrowth next week

·    Community may be asked contribute to costs if lines go underground

·    Some residents are in support of the overhead power lines

·    Clearing has made it safer to travel along road because of improved vision and wider fire break

·    Overhead lines follow comprehensive vegetation management and will include aerial surveillance as from March 2014

·    Essential Energy unable to answer question in relation to compensation resulting from an overhead power line fire

·    Work very closely with the Rural Fire Service and take advice from the Rural Fire Service in times of emergencies

·    Currently 870,000 customers (95% of NSW)

·    Voltage is 11,000 v in keeping with other high voltage distribution lines

 

Mr Ison addressed Council making the following points:

·    Question 8 from Mr Riddell – bushfire management is covered under risk management – Hyland Park has been identified as Extreme 1A risk (this is the highest level of risk)

·    Some properties may be identified as not- defendable – but this is not used for Hyland Park generally

·    Broad policies and guidelines agreed upon with Essential Energy – not aware that this project was discussed with Rural Fire Service

·    Rural Fire Service opinion that overhead power lines are an identified cause of fires and operationally, if lines are down may delay response time – do follow whole government approach

 

Mr Baker addressed Council making the following points:

 

 

ITEM 11.2    SF869                130214      Presentation from Essential Energy on the electricity upgrade to Hyland Park

63/14 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Morrison)

 

1        That Council receive the presentation from the representatives of Essential Energy on the upgrade of electricity supply to Hyland Park.

 

2        That Council thank the representatives from Essential Energy, the Rural Fire Service and residents from Hyland Park for addressing Council on the upgrade of electricity supply to Hyland Park.

 

 

 

ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

 

There were no Questions with Notice.

 

QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

 

There were no Questions for Closed Meeting where due notice has been received.

 

 

 

General Manager Report

 

ITEM 9.1      SF251                130214      Outstanding Actions and Reports

64/14 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

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

 

 

 

Cr Smyth left the meeting for this item at 7.16 pm and returned after the conclusion of the item at 7.27pm.

 

ITEM 9.2      SF380                130214      Nambucca Valley Landcare - Occupation of Shop in Bowraville Theatre

65/14 RESOLVED: (Flack/Ballangarry)

 

1        That Council offer temporary office accommodation for Nambucca Valley Landcare and Mid North Coast Farm Foresters in the vacant Bowraville Theatre shop rent free for the first six months and then at $50 per week rent plus GST for the following six months including outgoings.

 

2        There be a review of these leasing terms three (3) months before the 12 month anniversary of the lease so that Council may make a decision in relation to entering into a new lease with Landcare or alternatively testing the market before the expiration of the lease and the shop potentially becoming vacant.

 

3        That Council’s seal be attached to any lease documents as required.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.3      SF734                130214      Establishment of an Internally Restricted Reserve for Income from Crown Land

66/14 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

That Council establish an internally restricted reserve to receive all income from the use of Crown Land for which Council has care, control and management of.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.4      SF1950              130214      Special Rate Variation

67/14 RESOLVED: (Smyth/Ainsworth)

 

1        That Council issue a media release advising that in response to the recently issued general revaluation for all properties in the Shire; it is considering a revised Special Rate Variation proposal which would spread the proposed rate increase over three years instead of two years.

 

2        That the options to be considered by Council at its Special Meeting on 20 February 2014 include spreading the proposed rate increase over three years instead of two years.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.5      SF1755              130214      Progress Report on the implementation of the Business Services Unit

68/14 RESOLVED: (Flack/MacDonald)

 

That Council notes this progress report on the implementation of Business Services Unit.

 

69/14 Resolved: (Hoban/Ainsworth)

 

That Council receive a brief report from the Assistant General Manager Corporate Services indicating the progress in his section, strengths and weakness, and future direction.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.6      SF1947              130214      2014 January - Development Applications Received

70/14 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That the Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received in January 2014 be received for information.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.7      SF1947              130214      Construction and Complying Development Certificates Approved January 2014

71/14 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Ballangarry)

 

That the Construction and Complying Development Certificates approved for January 2014 be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.8      SF1947              130214      Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined from 20-31 January 2014

72/14 RESOLVED: (Flack/MacDonald)

 

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

 

Cr Ainsworth left the meeting at 7.50 pm in relation to resolution 2 below and returned at the conclusion of the item at 7.51 pm.

 

73/14 Resolved: (Finlayson/Smyth)

 

That the development application relating to DA 2013/177 – kennels at 180 Coronation Road be called in for determination by Council if a consent has not already been issued.

 

 

The meeting adjourned for a meal break at 7.52 pm.

The meeting resumed 8.25 pm.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.9      SF1148              130214      Council Ranger's Report January 2014

74/14 RESOLVED: (Flack/Ballangarry)

 

That the report from the Council Ranger for January 2014 be received and noted by Council.

 

 

 

General Manager Report – LATE

 

ITEM 9.10    SF1690              130214      Deed of Release for Coronation Park Skate Park

75/14 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/South)

 

That Council’s seal be attached to the Deed of Release in respect of the legal proceedings against Council in the Land & Environment Court of NSW, being proceedings no. 13/40434.

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

 

ITEM 10.1    SF1875              130214      Investment Report To 31 January 2014

76/14 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/Ballangarry)

 

That the Accountants’ Report on Investments placed to 31 January 2014 be noted.

 

 

 

ITEM 10.2    SF251                130214      Schedule of Council Public Meetings

77/14 RESOLVED: (Flack/South)

 

That the schedule of dates for public Council meetings be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

ITEM 10.3    SF345                130214      Welsh Park Committee of Management - Request to Relinquish Management of Park

78/14 RESOLVED: (Flack/MacDonald)

 

1        That Council relinquish the Lions Club of Macksville Inc from the management of Welsh Park.

 

2        That the Talarm Hall Committee of Management be formally requested to take on the management of Welsh Park.

 

3        That Council amends the Guide to Operations and Delegations of Authority to reflect the change of responsibility to the Committee of Management for Talarm Hall.

 

4        That Council thank the Lions Club of Macksville for their contribution to the care, control and management of Welsh Park.

 

 

 

ITEM 10.4    SF340                130214      Utungun Community Centre Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 12 November 2013

79/14 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Utungun Community Centre’s Annual General Meeting held on 12 November 2013

 

 

 

ITEM 10.5    SF326                130214      Senior Citizen's Club Nambucca Heads - Minutes of Annual General Meeting held 12 November 2013

80/14 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Senior Citizen’s Club of Nambucca Heads Committee of Management held on 12 November 2013

 

 

 

ITEM 10.6    SF298                130214      Argents Hill Hall Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 9 October 2013

81/14 RESOLVED: (Flack/Ballangarry)

 

That Council endorse minutes of the Committee of Management for Argents Hill Hall’s Annual General Meeting held on 9 October 2013, and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

 

ITEM 11.1    SF1693              130214      Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program - Solar Waste Compactor Street Litter Bins

82/14 RESOLVED: (Flack/Smyth)

 

That Council allocate an amount of $36,000.00 (Thirty-six Thousand Dollars) funding from the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program (WASIP) to purchase and install solar compactor street litter bins and amend the action table to receive payment from the NSW Environment Protection Authority.

 

 

Item 11.2 was dealt with under Delegations

 

 

 

ITEM 11.3    Q009/2013          130214      Q009/2013 Quotation for the Investigation and Design for Road Embankment Stabilisation Riverside Drive Nambucca Heads

83/14 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Flack)

 

1        That Council accept the quotation for Q009/2013 Geotechnical Investigation & Design for Road Embankment Stability Works, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads from Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd

 

2        That Council update the Contract Register.

 

For the motion:               Councillors Hoban, Morrison, Ballangarry, Flack, Smyth, Finlayson, Ainsworth,

                                       MacDonald and South              (Total 9)

Against the motion:         Nil

 

 

 

ITEM 11.4    Q010/2013          130214      Q010/2013 Quotation for the Investigation and Design Landslip Stabilisation below Foreshore Close on Riverside Drive Nambucca Heads

84/14 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Flack)

 

1        That Council accept the quotation for Q010/2013 Geotechnical Investigation & Design for Landslip Stabilisation below Foreshore Close, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads from Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd.

 

2        That Council allocate an additional $12,000 to the allocation to match the required funding for the works.

 

3        That Council update the Contract Register.

 

For the motion:               Councillors Hoban, Morrison, Ballangarry, Flack, Smyth, Finlayson, Ainsworth,

                                       MacDonald and South              (Total 9)

Against the motion:         Nil

 

 

 

ITEM 11.5    SF453                130214      Waste Management Quarterly Report October - December 2013

85/14 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/Flack)

 

That Council receive and note the information provided in the Waste Management Quarterly Report for the period October – December 2013.

 

    

 

COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING

 

86/14 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/South)

 

That Council note that the details of Items 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 in Closed Meeting were dealt with in Open Meeting.

 

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 9.00 pm. 

 

Confirmed an signed by the Mayor on 27 February 2014.

 

 

 

 

CR RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

          


Special Meeting of  Council                                                                                          20 February 2014

General Manager

ITEM 9.1      SF1950            200214         Special Rate Variation

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager; Scott Norman, Assistant General Manager Corporate Services         

 

Summary:

 

Recent modelling of rate outcomes has indicated that the revaluation of rateable values in the Shire has had a material impact on the affordability of the proposed increases.

 

The decrease in valuation in the residential town category is of particular concern as it resulted in 75% of assessments in that category being levied at the minimum rate.  That leaves 25% of assessments in that category to cover the short fall in yield through the ad-valorem component of the levy.  This results in some substantial increases for that minority.   The application of a SRV compounds this result as the minimum rate is only increased at the rate peg amount of 2.3% whereas the increase in total yield is proposed to be 5.3%.

 

An alternate proposal that spreads the rate increase over three years instead of two is presented for Council’s consideration and is recommended for adoption.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council make application to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) for a Section 508A special rate variation to increase general rates by:

 

3.8% in 2014/2015

 

5.0% in 2015/2016

 

5.5% in 2016/2017

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has many potential options.  However the deadline for submitting any application to IPART is 24 February and a substantial application has to be completed before that date.  The application must include detailed modelling to indicate the impact of any requested special rate variation compared to the increase which would have occurred by only adopting the rate peg.  Given the scheduled Special Meeting on 20 February it will be impossible to consider new options and have them modelled, considered and included in the application to IPART by 24 February.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

With a substantial commitment of staff time considerable progress has been made on an application to IPART for rate rises of 5.3% in 2014-2015 and 6% in 2015-2016.

However recent modelling of rate outcomes has indicated that the revaluation of rateable values in the Shire has had a material impact on the affordability of the proposed increases.  As with all general revaluations there have been winners and losers.  The impact suffered by the losers is such that Council may wish to not increase the impact by pursing the proposed special rate variation in the form proposed. 

An alternate proposal that spreads the rate increase over three years instead of two is presented for Council’s consideration.

 

 

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Existing proposal put to IPART

2.3% rate Peg + 3% SRV = 5.3%

3% rate peg + 3% SRV = 6%

No application included to vary above rate peg

Additional SRV Income per year (above rate peg)

3% = $272,717

3%= $286,000

 

Alternate SRV spread over 3 years

2.3% rate Peg + 1.5% SRV = 3.8%

3% rate peg + 2% SRV = 5.0%

3% rate peg + 2.5% SRV = 5.5%

Additional SRV Income

per year

1.5% = $136,359

2.0% = $188,500

2.5%= $247,500

 

Both proposals produce an ongoing income stream of a total of 6% above rate pegging.   The SRV income is to be used to fund road and bridge works.  The proposed bridge program was workshopped by Council at a meeting 18th December 2013 and was included in the LIRS application for 2014-15.  This program assumed borrowing of $2M with repayments funded by the SRV, the alternate program will have sufficient income to fund borrowings of $1M in the 2014-15 year.  This does not allow for a 3% interest subsidy from LIRS.  Applying the subsidy, the ability to borrow increases by about $150,000.  An amended proposed bridge program is listed below. These are all timber structures being replaced with timber structures

MENZIES NO. 3

             92,000

PETERKINS

           182,000

BROWNS CROSSING NO. 2

           139,000

BAKERS CREEK

           415,000

SINCLAIRS NO. 1

           125,000

TOTAL

           953,000

 

Boat Hour Bridge has been deleted from the 2014-15 program.  It was bought forward under the original proposal from 2016/17 and the work was valued at $1,010,000.  It was proposed to replace the timber structure with a concrete one, under the alternate proposal this work would be deferred but completed in the next 2 years.

Impacts of the Revaluation of Rateable Values

Council was advised of the rateable land values effective for the 2014-15 year late in 2013.  The next revaluation is due in 3 years’ time.

Assuming the same amount of rates revenue in total, a revaluation will potentially change how much each individual contributes to that total.  In short, for everyone who benefits under a general revaluation somebody else pays more.  These changes are largely beyond Council’s control but it is appropriate to consider them in assessing the affordability of a rate rise.

A Summary and Analysis of the revaluation is attached.  The total change in values can be summarised as

 

Total rate values

2010 Values

$1,449,976,224

2013 Values

$1,355,781,969

Net Change

-$    94,194,255

 

To highlight which rating categories were most affected by the reduction of value, compare the net change with table below

Net change in Residential Town Category

$ -81,652,651

Net change in Residential Village Category

$   -9,189,510

Total change in urban residential

$ -90,842,161

 

The decrease in valuation in the residential town category is of particular concern as it resulted in 75% of assessments in that category being levied at the minimum rate.  That leaves 25% of assessments in that category to cover the short fall in yield through the ad-valorem component of the levy.  This results in some substantial increases for that minority.   The application of a SRV compounds this result as the minimum rate is only increased at the rate peg amount of 2.3% whereas the increase in total yield is proposed to be 5.3%.  Again those assessments paying ad-valorem pick up the extra.  The alternate SRV with a total proposed yield of 3.8% lessons this impact.

The following is a review of those assessments in the Residential Town Category with proposed rates increase of over $200 in 2014-15.  It compares the impact of the revaluation (which Council can do little about), with the impact of the alternate SVR of 1.5% (plus rate peg) and the proposed SVR of 3% (plus rate peg). 

Please be mindful this report focuses on the worst affected assessments and that some of those will have a very legitimate reason for the change such as an amalgamation of multiple assessments.  Also that we are focusing on a very small (but relevant) percentage of all assessments.

 


 

Comparison of 2014-15 levee alternatives for Residential Town Assessments with increases of over $200 per year

Comparing 

Reval + 2.3% rate peg

2.3% rate peg + 1.5% SRV

2.3% rate peg + 3% SRV

 

Base Date

Base Date

 

Rate Peg

$ change

SRV

Addition $

SRV

Addition $

Assessment

1/07/2010

1/07/2013

2013-14

2.3%

increase

2.3% +1.5%

increase

2.3% + 3.0%

increase

Number

Valuation

Valuation

Levy

Levy

2014-15

SRV 1.5%

2014-15

SRV 3.0%

11217437

150,000

500,000

724

2,584

1,860

2,660

76

2,729

146

11269468

375,000

540,000

1,729

2,790

1,061

2,872

82

2,947

157

11197166

218,000

330,000

1,005

1,705

700

1,755

50

1,801

96

11197174

213,000

320,000

982

1,653

671

1,702

49

1,747

93

11197158

350,000

420,000

1,614

2,170

556

2,234

64

2,292

122

11166686

300,000

360,000

1,383

1,860

477

1,915

55

1,965

105

11213093

744,000

731,000

3,431

3,777

346

3,888

111

3,990

213

11163337

225,000

277,000

1,037

1,431

394

1,473

42

1,512

81

11180559

231,000

275,000

1,065

1,421

356

1,463

42

1,501

80

11199875

517,000

519,000

2,384

2,682

298

2,761

79

2,833

151

11131209

181,000

225,000

835

1,163

328

1,197

34

1,228

66

11269280

221,500

260,000

1,021

1,343

322

1,383

40

1,419

76

11199841

492,000

490,000

2,269

2,532

263

2,606

74

2,675

143

11199859

492,000

490,000

2,269

2,532

263

2,606

74

2,675

143

11151720

442,000

440,000

2,038

2,273

235

2,340

67

2,402

128

11134948

165,000

197,000

761

1,018

257

1,048

30

1,075

57

11165729

282,000

298,000

1,300

1,540

239

1,585

45

1,627

87

11199833

392,000

390,000

1,808

2,015

208

2,074

59

2,129

114

11173099

336,000

334,000

1,549

1,726

176

1,777

51

1,823

97

11118544

318,000

318,000

1,466

1,643

177

1,691

48

1,736

93

11133984

315,000

315,000

1,452

1,628

175

1,675

48

1,719

92

11130732

309,000

309,000

1,425

1,597

172

1,644

47

1,687

90

11180703

305,000

305,000

1,406

1,576

170

1,622

46

1,665

89

11117027

303,000

303,000

1,397

1,566

168

1,612

46

1,654

88

11145452

315,000

313,000

1,452

1,617

165

1,665

48

1,708

91

11192904

208,000

220,000

959

1,137

178

1,170

33

1,201

64

11202327

339,000

333,000

1,563

1,721

157

1,771

51

1,818

97

11164812

288,000

288,000

1,328

1,488

160

1,532

44

1,572

84

 



 

Town Residential Assessments with rises over $200

Project Levies next 3 years as per alternate 3 year SRV

Assessment

1/07/2010

1/07/2013

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Number

Valuation

Valuation

Levy

2.3% + 1.5%

3% + 2%

3%+2.5%

11217437

         150,000

         500,000

            724

             2,660

         2,850

         3,070

11269468

         375,000

         540,000

         1,729

             2,872

         3,078

         3,316

11197166

         218,000

         330,000

         1,005

             1,755

         1,881

         2,026

11197174

         213,000

         320,000

            982

             1,702

         1,824

         1,965

11197158

         350,000

         420,000

         1,614

             2,234

         2,394

         2,579

11166686

         300,000

         360,000

         1,383

             1,915

         2,052

         2,210

11213093

         744,000

         731,000

         3,431

             3,888

         4,167

         4,488

11163337

         225,000

         277,000

         1,037

             1,473

         1,579

         1,701

11180559

         231,000

         275,000

         1,065

             1,463

         1,568

         1,689

11199875

         517,000

         519,000

         2,384

             2,761

         2,958

         3,187

11131209

         181,000

         225,000

            835

             1,197

         1,283

         1,382

11269280

         221,500

         260,000

         1,021

             1,383

         1,482

         1,596

11199841

         492,000

         490,000

         2,269

             2,606

         2,793

         3,009

11199859

         492,000

         490,000

         2,269

             2,606

         2,793

         3,009

11151720

         442,000

         440,000

         2,038

             2,340

         2,508

         2,702

11134948

         165,000

         197,000

            761

             1,048

         1,123

         1,210

11165729

         282,000

         298,000

         1,300

             1,585

         1,699

         1,830

11199833

         392,000

         390,000

         1,808

             2,074

         2,223

         2,395

11173099

         336,000

         334,000

         1,549

             1,777

         1,904

         2,051

11118544

         318,000

         318,000

         1,466

             1,691

         1,813

         1,953

11133984

         315,000

         315,000

         1,452

             1,675

         1,796

         1,934

11130732

         309,000

         309,000

         1,425

             1,644

         1,761

         1,897

11180703

         305,000

         305,000

         1,406

             1,622

         1,739

         1,873

11117027

         303,000

         303,000

         1,397

             1,612

         1,727

         1,860

11145452

         315,000

         313,000

         1,452

             1,665

         1,784

         1,922

11192904

         208,000

         220,000

            959

             1,170

         1,254

         1,351

11202327

         339,000

         333,000

         1,563

             1,771

         1,898

         2,045

11164812

         288,000

         288,000

         1,328

             1,532

         1,642

         1,768

11133798

         272,000

         272,000

         1,254

             1,447

         1,550

         1,670

 


 

Residential Town  - Largest Decreases in 2014-15 Levy "the winners"

Projected Levies alternate 3 year SRV

Assessment

1/07/2010

1/07/2013

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Number

Valuation

Valuation

Levee

2.3% + 1.5%

3% + 2%

3%+2.5%

11223802

         2,280,000

         1,600,000

         10,513

             8,510

           9,120

             9,824

11158138

             270,000

             130,000

           1,245

                741

               763

                 798

11221876

             990,000

             680,000

           4,565

             3,617

           3,876

             4,175

11222733

             280,000

             150,000

           1,291

                798

               855

                 921

11212990

             394,000

             260,000

           1,817

             1,383

           1,482

             1,596

11162705

             310,000

             197,000

           1,429

             1,048

           1,123

             1,210

11173659

             417,000

             280,000

           1,923

             1,489

           1,596

             1,719

11212982

             387,000

             260,000

           1,784

             1,383

           1,482

             1,596

11162690

             333,000

             220,000

           1,535

             1,170

           1,254

             1,351

11162713

             310,000

             204,000

           1,429

             1,085

           1,163

             1,253

11171364

             309,000

             208,000

           1,425

             1,106

           1,186

             1,277

11163751

             260,000

             172,000

           1,199

                915

               980

             1,056

11181220

             358,000

             252,000

           1,651

             1,340

           1,436

             1,547

11175740

             207,000

             139,000

               954

                741

               792

                 853

11175732

             217,000

             149,000

           1,001

                793

               849

                 915

11162682

             333,000

             237,000

           1,535

             1,261

           1,351

             1,455

11175716

             189,000

             132,000

               871

                741

               763

                 810

11163793

             309,000

             223,000

           1,425

             1,186

           1,271

             1,369

11154972

             182,000

             124,000

               839

                741

               763

                 786

11164820

             182,000

             124,000

               839

                741

               763

                 786

11175708

             203,000

             144,000

               936

                766

               821

                 884

 

 

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The closing date for submissions on the proposed special rate variation was 14 February 2014.

 

As at 16 February the Council had received 118 written submissions in response to the information mail out to all ratepayers of the proposed special rate variation.  A further 26 telephone responses had been received by the General Manager.  A summary of the submissions and telephone responses are attached.  As they contain personal details, the full text of the written submissions is provided in a confidential attachment.

 

The written responses to the mail out indicate that of the 118 submissions received as at 16 February, there are 69 objections, 29 in full support, 4 in partial support and 16 where no position is indicated.

 

The telephone responses to the mail out indicate that of the 26 calls received to 16 February, there were 17 objections, 7 in support and 2 neither in support or objecting.

 

In overall terms, as at 16 February 2014 opposition to the proposed rate increase as expressed in submissions responding to the mail out was running at about 60% compared to 40% who either support it in full or in part or who have no opinion.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no significant implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

As indicated in the submissions the community’s capacity to pay is a significant issue.  Whilst the majority of assessments are on the minimum rate and would only receive the rate peg increase, as the submissions indicate there are many pensioners who reside on land which is rated above the minimum and, depending upon the value of the property, the ad valorem rate increase proposed can be quite significant in percentage terms.

 

Economic

 

Increases in rates and charges do have an economic effect.  To some extent this is balanced by the Council spending the rates and charges undertaking infrastructure work.  Construction work is usually undertaken by Council’s (local) staff or local contractors.

 

Risk

 

The risk essentially relates to balancing Council’s weak financial sustainability with the community’s capacity to pay and then other options such as removing services or reducing service levels so as to reduce Council’s cost structure.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The budgetary impact of the existing and alternate proposal is considered in the report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.  The report concerns the revenue component of future budgets.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There is a huge commitment of staff time and resources to preparing a special rate variation application.  The commitment is such that annual SRV applications could not be sustained.  There is merit in a Section 508A application to seek increases over a number of years in as much as Council staff could not service the process on a more regular basis.

 

Attachments:

1

4289/2014 - Comparison of rating analysis between 2 and 3 year special rate Variation Proposals with % change

 

2

2048/2014 - Telephone Submissions

 

3

4292/2014 - Comparison of 2015 Levies  No SRV  1.5% SRV  3%SRV  attachment to report Council meeting 20 February 2014

 

4

2904/2014 - SUMMARY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS - Proposed Special Rate Variation

 

  


Special Meeting of  Council - 20 February 2014

Special Rate Variation

 


Special Meeting of  Council - 20 February 2014

Special Rate Variation

 

Special Rate Variation – Telephone Submissions – Received by General Manager

 

Name & Address

For/Against

Comments

1

Barbara Williams – Nambucca Heads

For

Supports a rate increase for the repair of roads & bridges.  Believes the Council is doing a great job.  Is prepared to pay as she believes the increase is necessary.

2

Monica Delamare – Macksville

Against

Queries why all the timber bridges have to be kept and maintained.  Queries whether the users of the timber bridges could pay for them.  Doesn’t believe there are enough footpaths in Macksville.  Believes one side of Wallace Street should have a continuous footpath.

3

Hayley Bradley – Warrell Creek

Against

Owns vacant land in Warrell Creek.  Does not get anything for the rates which are paid.  Also objects to the tip availability charge.

4

Kathleen Fanning – Newee Creek

Against

Council should receive more money from the State and Federal Governments.  Does not have a high income and rates are a lot of money.

5

Arvai Cordingley – Allgomera

Against

Believes farmland rate is already too high.  Believes it would be unfair to increase those rates further.

6

Charles Hamilton – Nambucca Heads

Neither for or against

Believes the State Government should provide more funds to Council.

7

Steve Hayes – Missabotti

Against

The proposal is too expensive.  Does not have any suggestions as to how Council can increase its revenue.

8

John Christopher – Macksville

Against

Believes the Council should be building bridges in concrete, not timber, as concrete bridges will last 3 times longer.

9

Peter Bray – Macksville

For

Supports a rate increase as being required.

10

Marjorie Wade – Nambucca Heads

For

Believes the Council needs the additional funds.

11

Faye & Graeme Whan – Newee Creek

Against

Faye & Graeme live on an unsealed section of Newee Creek Road.  They have been writing to Council for 30 years to get the road sealed without success.  Their major concern is dust.  They may be prepared to reconsider their position if the Council undertook to seal the road in front of their property.

12

Hani Soliman – Valla Beach Road

Against

Believes that the people who use the rural roads and bridges, and not the community generally, should pay for them.  Also believes that the repair and maintenance of roads and bridges should be undertaken earlier before the asset is worn out.  This would reduce costs.

13

Allan Keens – Bowraville

For

Believes that the Council needs the funds to undertake works.

14

Barbara Hill - Nambucca Heads

Against

Pays over $1,600 per annum in rates.  The land value of the property has decreased by $21,000.  Believes the proposed increase is too large.

15

Keith McKay – Scotts Head

For

Believes the Council needs the funds to undertake works.

16

Mark Versace – Scotts Head

Against

Opposed to the increase because it is unaffordable.

17

Graeme Moxall – Newee Creek

Against

Lives on 25 acres.  Has 4 cows.  Is against the proposed rate increase but would accept rates being increased by the rate peg.  In 25 years of paying rates, has only ever asked for Gordons Knob road to be graded once a year.

18

Anonymous – Nambucca Heads

Against

There are too many people working for the Council who produce services and things that nobody wants, eg, the cycleway at Bellwood, beach walkways, the pedestrian bridge over Newee Creek.  Also the Council staff are always driving around in brand new trucks.  Also doing work that is not required, eg traffic control for replacing pipes, pressure cleaning boat ramps.  Council staff take extended lunches.  Residents are already paying too much for the services they get.

19

David Healy – Hyland Park

Against

Is involved with a neighbourhood association which he believes the Council should never have approved.  The association has a sinking fund to undertake maintenance on an internal road, a sewerage pumping station as well as insurance.  They pay $420 per year into the sinking fund.  His argument is that he has to pay additional costs which would normally be part of the rates funded services provided by Council.

20

Jeff Unwin – Missabotti

Against

Is a full time farmer and between cattle prices and the drought is unable to afford any rate increase.  Unlikely people of wages, farmers don’t have any indexation of their income and in recent years the value of cattle has fallen.

21

Dennis Martin – Nambucca Heads

For

Agrees that with Council’s road and bridge network a rate increase is required so that they can be properly maintained.

22

Ian Taylor – Buckrabendinni

Against

Is a farmer who can no longer continue with rising input prices and falling cattle prices.  Simply can’t afford it.

23

Bob Graham – Valla

No opinion

Requested investigation of drainage issue caused by neighbour.  Expressed concern about productivity of outdoor staff.

24

Cheryl Hanley – Scotts Head

For

Subject to some funds being spent on Scotts Head Road.  Has issues with shading from trees on road reservation and also the lack of street drainage affecting their property.

25

Ross Malouf – Nambucca Heads

Against

Land value has gone down but you keep putting up rates.  Ever thought of minimising your labour force and restricting break times.  Use private contractors – would be more economic.  When is the joke going to stop.

26

Ken Whalan – Warrell Creek

Against

Is a farmer.  Farming incomes aren’t increasing so can’t afford additional rates.

 

 


Special Meeting of  Council - 20 February 2014

Special Rate Variation

 


Special Meeting of  Council - 20 February 2014

Special Rate Variation

 

 

Name

Support/

Objection

 

Submission

#1 Peter Moxon

Gumma

[TRIM 1575/2014]

Part support

Support for temporary variation to cover the bridges, but does not support a permanent rate rise.

Each year should be looked at on its merit and the financial planning based on current issues.

 

#2 Robert Barron

Scotts Head

[TRIM 1649/2014]

 

No position indicated

Seeking details on Minimum Rates under the proposed SRV

#3 DM Johnson

Utungun

[TRIM 1796/2014]

 

Objection

Concerned that rate increase disadvantages Farmland ratepayers. Already pay higher rates than Residential and Business ratepayers but receive none of the services (except roads and bridges). Live on a dirt road that receives little upkeep. Last two years have been impacted by drought, low cattle prices and low returns. Acknowledge that roads and bridges need to be maintained but why pay higher rates for roads and bridges that do not carry the same amount of traffic as the town roads do.

 

#4 Ann Pevinsky

Valla Beach

[TRIM 1795/2014]

 

Objection

Object to the rate increase as council has continually increased rates and annual charges over the last couple of years. Costs of living including fuel and grocery prices are increasing. More government grants and expenditure savings are preferred.

 

#5 Reverend Gillian Jones

Tamworth

[TRIM 1798/2014]

 

Part support

Owner of property in Nambucca Heads. Support for application, however given instability of the economy, employment and personal incomes in the Nambucca region, it would be desirable to revert back to the rate peg amount in 2016/17. Opposed for the special variation to be permanently incorporated into the general revenue, without a further re-evaluation.

 

#6 WF & JM Rowsell

Warrell Creek

[TRIM 1804/2014]

 

Support

Support application as roads and bridges are no good to anybody in their current condition.

#7 Ray & Sue Nash

Macksville

[TRIM 1808/2014]

 

Objection

Own several properties. Low wage earner, cattle prices are not good, experienced driest year ever and council wants more money.

 

#8 Gary Dallwitz

Way Way

[TRIM 1846/2014]

 

Objection

Self-funded retirees living on a semi-rural property. The only personal service received is garbage collection. Also Cookies Lane residents totally ignored at last bulk clean-up. Private enterprise has to do things smarter to reduce costs and remain competitive but Council just continues their inefficient practices and expect ratepayers to foot the bill.

   

#9 AJ Vine

Warrell Creek

[TRIM 1848/2014]

Support

Support proposal as it is extremely important to maintain the infrastructure if the area is to thrive and prosper. Rises should have been greater, even taking into account the impact on low income families and individuals. For Nambucca Valley to become a “to live” and “to do business” place its needs to be functional and affordable, and that can only come about by good infrastructure and sound financial management.

 

#10 Wendy Ritchie

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 1850/2014]

 

Support

Support rate increase in order to better maintain the roads and bridges in the shire.

 

#11 Rhonda Davies

Valla

[TRIM 1852/2014]

Objection

Cannot support the rate increase because of amount of money being spent on Valla Road. Raises a number of issues relating to the quarry operations. Aware of hard times faced by farmers.

 

#12 S & A Wallwork

Valla Beach

[TRIM 1869/2014]

Objection

Critical of the manner in which council administers, communicates and attempts to address or action issues. The approach to repairing roads demonstrates poor quality workmanship. Maintenance to pathways, parks and reserves around North Valla Beach is nil. The bottom of Gregory street is a disgrace. A hand rail to provide disabled access to North Valla Beach still hasn’t been addressed. As a ratepayer I am getting the minimum value for money. The amount of roads and bridges is irrelevant. Council needs to present a more positive approach towards better governance and administration of budgets.

  

#13 Brian Barber

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 1877/2014]

Objection

Council lost $24M in a share market slump a few years ago and it was a bad management decision to let that happen. Programming of works has been of a low standard. Think council is overstaffed. Why hasn’t the bridges been budgeted for over the years? The solution is good planning and costing and not let the council get ripped off by contractors.

 

#14 Rob & Lyn Fletcher

Scotts Head

[TRIM 1880/2014]

Objection

Do not support a rate increase of this magnitude. Cannot justify current rate bill for the services provided. Suggest do it right and do it once, have a maintenance program, reduce the number of councillors, consider amalgamation and shut some facilities. Pay 3 times the rates compared to a residence in the eastern suburbs of Sydney.

 

#15 Sandra & Charles Vella

Burrapine

[TRIM 1884/2014]

 

Objection

Only service received is a grading of the road approximately twice a year. Rates primarily fund town roads. Why has the wash way on Taylors Arm Road not been fixed? Increase is hard to justify on the basis that rates are already indexed and we don’t seem to see much for it.

  

#16 Graeme Schmidt

Utungun

[TRIM 1887/2014]

 

Support

Support the proposed rate increase to improve the roads and bridges.

#17 Ian & Lesley Taylor

Macksville

[TRIM 1886/2014]

 

Support

Support the proposed rate increase as the essential work needs to continue and taxpayers ought to contribute. Have lived in Macksville for 2 years and consider that town is clean and cared for and prepared to pay more in order to maintain the high standard.

 

#18 Sandy Saunders

Hyland Park

[TRIM 1890/2014]

 

Support

Support the proposed 2 year plan on the condition that the extra money is directed solely to the works identified. The upgrade of Hyland Park Road has vastly improved the life style and safety of residents. Disappointed at the Essential Power deferral of an alternative electricity supply to Hyland Park.

 

#19 Carole Parberry

Lake Macquarie

[TRIM 1898/2014]

 

Objection

Rates in Lake Macquarie (10 ha property) and Coogee are less than holiday house at Scotts Head. This would suggest that Council has a management and planning problems. Construction of beach accesses at Scotts Head and works on the adjoining property were shoddy. Reduction in waste would eliminate the need for the large rate rise.

   

#20 Leo & Pam Debattista

Newee Creek

[TRIM 1908/2014]

 

Support

Support the rate increase for the 2014/15 and 2015/16 years. The roads require continued maintenance and are essential to safe travelling around the Valley. Good long term investment.

 

#21 Margy Hewetson

Gumma

[TRIM 1911/2014]

 

No position indicated

Would like to know how the work priorities are decided on and how ratepayers will be informed of the program expenditures.

 

#22 Brenda Santi

Talarm

[TRIM 1921/2014]

 

Support

Expected a simple questionnaire to complete as did not want to complete formal submission. Support the rate rise to maintain the roads and bridges.

 

#23 Joan Rossington

South Arm

[TRIM 1923/2014]

 

Objection

Objects to the proposal. Council should not have been granted the previous rate variation due to unsubstantiated information being included in the submission. Average Farmland rates are significant and the economic outlook for farmers is worsening. Ratepayers should receive a copy of the submission in order to assess the information provided by council.

 

#24 Howard Penn

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 1924/2014]

 

Support

Support the variation.

#25 Dennis & Natascha Rutherford

Eungai Creek

[TRIM 1925/2014]

 

Objection

Object to the increase. As self-funded retirees the costs of living are a burden. Primary production is difficult at present. Urge council to be more lenient towards primary producers and businesses and to continue with the cost cutting strategy.

  

#26 Gina Bennett

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 1926/2014]

 

Objection

Opposed to any further rate increase as currently struggling with current costs of living.

#27 Christine Johnson & Steve Saill

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 1929/2014]

 

No position indicated

Local roads and bridges are not the only things that need upgrading. The poor appearance and lack of civic pride in the Nambucca Heads town centre is of concern. Retailers and café owners are reluctant to invest in the area because the street does not entice pedestrian traffic. Numerous improvement suggestions provided. Does council have plans to improve the town centre?

 

#28 Margaret & John Tait

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 1932/2014]

Support

Support the proposed special rate variation as ratepayers have paid insufficient rates to maintain structures built many years ago.

 

#29 Kim Perry

Scotts Head

[TRIM 1952/2014]

Objection

Object to proposal. Low income earner and Nambucca Valley wages are the lowest in the state. Struggling with cost of living pressures. Scotts Head Road is unsafe due to the potholes.

 

#30 Chantelle & Warick Wheeler

Bowraville

[TRIM 1957/2014]

 

Objection

Object to the proposal as they do not use the bridges. Extra rates are not affordable.

#31 K Summerfield

Macksville

[TRIM 1984/2014]

 

Objection

Object to the proposed rate increase.

#32 Annie Higginson

Viewmont

[TRIM 1994/2014]

No position indicated

Dirt roads are dangerous and create ongoing dust problems. Seeking information on funding and reasons for road works on Valla Road. Also seeking evidence on the process for prioritising this particular work.

 

#33 P & S Rudolph

Scotts Head

[TRIM 2056/2014 & 2327/2014]

 

Objection

Pay significant rates and have been waiting for road works on the neglected Scotts Head Road. Seeking project details of bridge works and asking why a permanent increase in rates. No budget allocated for reseal of Scotts Head Road and replacement of asbestos water main pipes and coastal erosion infrastructure works not yet addressed. Also suggest that rate calculations for road works be user pay or a flat rates the same as water rates. Lobbying Scotts Head ratepayers to boycott and fund a legal challenge to the rate hike. It appears that the tax is representative of poorly prioritised spending and a thinly disguised rate increase for general revenue. Increase represents lousy value for Scotts Head rate payers.

  

#34 John Hangalong

Location unknown

[TRIM 2062/2014]

 

Objection

Not recorded as a council ratepayer. There is a lot of unnecessary expense and rip-offs going on. Stop these practices and might just have the money for the roads and other services.

 

#35 Lew & Helen Louden

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 2066/2014]

 

Support

Support the proposed rate increase as they understand the infrastructure pressures on council. If council is able to attend to the pressing bridge maintenance issues then in time resources and energy will be able to focus on other issues.

 

#36 Peter Kent

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 2138/2014]

 

Objection

Object to the proposed special rate rise due to financial burden of costs of living and being a pensioner.

#37 Erik & Birgit von Forell

Eungai Rail

[TRIM 2193/2014]

 

Objection

Object to the proposal. Based on key Census Data council is on a path of unsustainable development. In 15 years the median age will reach disastrous proportions and the council’s income will be dominated by retired ratepayer contributions. Rate increases on the backdrop of low average income will not address the fundamental long term issues. Expenditure reductions are not enough to overcome the required investment in infrastructure maintenance and renewal. Changes needed are increase in ratepayers, more opportunity to subdivide small farms, enlarge the council area through amalgamation.

      

#38 Melina Murphy

Eungai Creek

[TRIM 2195/2014]

 

Objection

Asking that farmland rates not be increased as the costs of running a farm is like a big hole.

#39 Diane Newbury

Yarranbella

[TRIM 2196/2014]

Support

Agree in principle but struggling to live. Farming is a very hand to mouth existence. Save council money by undertaking roadside weed management, control of riverbank erosion and collection of road litter.

 

#40 Donna & Terry Ryan

Macksville

[TRIM 2197/2014]

 

Objection

Instead of building the dam use some of the $50M on the roads. 

#41 D McIntyre

Valla Beach

[TRIM 2232/2014]

Objection

Object to rate increase. Rate should be the same for all rate categories and low income earners.

 

#42 Barry Hussell

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 2233/2014]

 

Support

No objection to the proposed rate rise provided ratepayers get something back and the money is not wasted on silly things like the cycle path south of the Plaza. Alexandra Drive is one of the worst roads in the shire and needs urgent attention. Cannot understand why Seaview Street has been resurfaced leaving Alexandra Drive in limbo.

 

#43 Colin Edmonds

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 2262/2014]

 

Objection

Oppose the proposal on the basis that the median weekly income is significantly below the national average, the variation should not be permanent, other services need to be reduced or deleted, rate pegging is an indication of affordability and further pressure should be applied on Federal and State governments for special grants to replace the bridges.

 

#44 Roger & Kerry Turner

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 2264/2014]

 

Objection

Object to proposal. Business operators are faced with such situations every day. You have to decide to trim services or make the services more efficient and effective.

 

#45 David Sanday

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 2269/2014]

 

No position indicated

Council should publish a list of the roads and bridges complete with priorities, costings, timelines and justifications, on the website. The roads and bridges to be repaired should only be those of high usage by the majority of the community.

 

Other comments were provided in regard to anti-social behaviour in Nambucca and the desire for some of the proposed rate variation to be used on measures to combat this issue.

 

#46 Karin Croghan

Gumma

[TRIM 2274/2014]

 

Support in part

Do not object “per se” to the proposal but wish to protest the gross inequity of the proposal which places a significantly increased financial burden on a relatively small proportion of ratepayers. Times have been difficult for farmers and the rate increase creates further financial stress due to tight budgets. The whole of the proposed rate variation outside any assumed rate peg will be sourced from 41% of ratepayers as 59% are on the minimum rate and the largest increase is on the farmland rate.

Infrastructure expenditure is required across the whole council area and is for the benefit of all the community. Any costs should therefore be shared equally by all ratepayers. As a matter of interest what would be each ratepayer’s share of the $580,000.

 

#47 PM & AM Turnbull

Point Clare

[TRIM 2277/2014]

 

Support

Owner of Bowraville property. Support the proposed rate increase. Also appreciate that council is also restricted by the 59% of all rate assessments being at the minimum rate. Questioned if council is reimbursed by the State government in respect of these reduced rate assessments and are the works subject to competitive sub contract tendering to ensure the maximum utilisation of rates revenue?

 

#48 Marjory & Mervyn Ellison

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 2326/2014]

 

Support

Support the proposed SRV.

#49 Kenneth Watson

Newcastle

[TRIM 2329/2014]

 

Objection

Landowner in Scotts Head. Aware of council positions generally across NSW, general condition of regional roads and bridges and NSW Government’s being less helpful with additional funding opportunities. Council proposal is an outrage as funding for civil works must be funded from general council budgeting first and assisted through special grants. These works are the bottom platform and must be provided before any environmental or administrative extensions. Other areas can be trimmed or dispensed with as unaffordable during tighter fiscal times. Council much better served by decreasing expenditure and shrinking departments and programs.

 

#50 Sue Smoothy

Bowraville

[TRIM 2331/2014]

 

Support

Agree with the proposed variation based on understanding of importance of maintaining infrastructure and the difficulty of obtaining sufficient funding.

Considering the fact that there will be more roads in the future to maintain, once the Pacific Highway bypass is complete, now is the perfect time to get our current assets up to the best condition we can.

 

#51 Marie Biggart

Valla Beach

[TRIM 2332/2014]

 

Support

The completion of the Pacific Highway is important and provided the rate increase can and will assist in this matter I am prepared to offer my support.

 

#52 Dorothy Laverty

Taylors Arm

[TRIM 4240/2014]

 

Objection

Inappropriate timing.  Times are too tough for farmers.

#53 T & J Nelson

Valla

[TRIM 2400/2014]

 

Objection

As concerned rural Farmland ratepayer object to proposed rate increase. Community survey stated that ratepayers were prepared to pay an extra $98 not $299. Farmers are experiencing increased transport costs and cattle prices are lower than 10 years ago. Also have to maintain council owned access road off East West Road.

 

#54 Noel Milson

Nambucca Heads

[TRIM 2500/2014]

 

No position indicated

Understand that the past few years have done a lot of damage to local roads and bridges. Also know how hard it is to meet all the increases in the cost of living. Have a small investment home which means a double rate hit.

 

#55 Richard B Wright, Valla Beach

[TRIM 2615/2014]

Objection

Objects to waste associated with a patch repair undertaken in Gregory Street, Valla Beach.  Drain under property needs attention.

 

#56 Keith & Lynne Jervis, Burrapine

[TRIM 2621/2014]

Objection

Pension increases limited to the CPI and so should Council rate increases.  Council needs to budget within its means and concentrate on traditional basic services.

 

#57 Raewyn Macky, Yaranbella

[TRIM 2629/2014]

Support

Wants money spent wisely.  Queries the money which has been spent on the traffic lights at Congarinni.

 

#58 Mike Gray, Valla

[TRIM 2676/2014]

Objection

Rates on our farm have increased more than 20% in the last 2 years.  Increases make farming unviable.  Suggests Council should increase efficiency and ensure value for money to achieve a balanced budget.

 

#59 Gregory & Gai Weaver, Allgomera

[TRIM 2781/2014]

Objection

As farmers they are against any additional rate increases.  Live on a dirt road and the level of maintenance is of a very poor standard.  Do not receive value for money.

 

#60 Stuart Field

[TRIM 2914/2014]

Objection

Senior staff not helpful in promoting development.  Lost employment opportunities.  Amalgamation may be better.  Work in Nambucca Heads not proportionate to rates collected.

 

#61 Cath Walsh

[TRIM 30028/2013]

 

Objection

Already too difficult to keep up with the cost of living.  There must be other ways for council to reduce their costs; sale of assets, close one of the libraries, reduce staff numbers.

 

#62 Brendan Coyne

[TRIM 30030/2013]

 

Objection

Vast majority of ratepayers can’t afford ever increasing council rates.  Council should make hard decisions to cut expenditure.  Two libraries is an extravagance.

 

#63 Jeff & Lynne Mott

[TRIM 2818/2014]

 

Support

Believe it is time something is done in relation to the state of roads and bridges.

#64 Ian & Bobbie Taylor

[TRIM 30443/2013]

 

Objection

Can’t afford constant rate increases.  Rely on farm income and constant price increases cause hardship.

#65 M Hewetson

[TRIM 1964/2014]

 

No position indicated

Seeks advice on how Council will decide on priorities for road and bridge works; would Council commit to spending all new money on roads and bridges; asks how ratepayers will know if money was spent on roads and bridges.

 

#66 D C Brown

{TRIM 3334/2014]

 

Objection

Rate increase should be no more than rate of inflation.  Need to trim fat and get more out of contractors.

#67 Bill Good

[TRIM 3336/2014]

 

Support

There are no other viable options

#68 Tony Nichols

[TRIM 3337/2014]

 

Objection

Land values going down.  Tourists staying away because of professional fishers.

#69 James Rope

[TRIM 3340/2014]

 

Objection

Receives little in return for farmland rate.  Has to pay for waste in rates but receives no waste service and has to pay to take waste to the depot.

 

#70 Hazel Shepherd

[TRIM 4239/2014]

 

Support

Will pay more if it means keeping beautiful Shire in a better condition.

#71 David Sanday

[TRIM 3445/2014]

 

No position indicated

Concerned about crime and anti-social behaviour

#72 Maria Lucas & Alf Tesser

[TRIM 3447/2014]

 

Support

Queries reasons for different rate categories.  Requests to be well informed as to how additional funds are spent.  Reluctantly in support.

#73 Roger Evans

[TRIM 3465/2014]

 

Objection

Applying full minimum rate to each home unit/apartment is unfair.  Discount for those who pay by direct debit.  Questions when new valuations will apply from; when will Scotts Head Road be resealed from Grassy Head road turnoff and Scotts Head; will Scotts Head Road be made flood free?

 

#75 Jill & Warwick Anderson

[TRIM 3525/2014]

 

Objection

Queries rate currently paid;  Rate increase will drive people with limited income out of the Nambucca Valley.  Cites examples of Council waste – Rodeo Drive/Tewinga Lane intersection.

 

#76 Barry & Cathy Gilbey

[TRIM 3580/2014]

 

Objection

Why has disrepair of roads and bridges continued for so long.  Questions how representative community survey is.  Questions benefit of $580K per year and suggests Council lobby for special assistance from State and Federal Governments.

 

#77 R Turner

[TRIM 3621/2014]

 

Objection

Need better management of finance and staff and need to learn to live within your means.

#78 Graham Clarke

[TRIM 3715/2014]

 

No position indicated

Questions why it is called a “special” variation if the revenue is retained permanently.

#79 Mary Howe

[TRIM 3716/2014]

 

Support

Sees no other option but to support a rate increase.

#80 Gary George

[TRIM 3718/2014]

 

Objection

Objects because rural rate payers have to pay residential valued rates.  Need to manage with existing funds.  Eliminate wastage and negotiate extra cash from State and Federal Governments.

 

#81 Gail DeGabriele

[TRIM 3841/2014]

 

Objection

Rates are increasing but property values declining.  Rates are more expensive than in Melbourne but not compensated by rising property values.  Increasing rates won’t attract new residents.

 

#82 W Down

[TRIM 3945/2014]

 

Objection

Objects to two year increase being permanently incorporated in general income.  What has Council being doing with its roads and bridges for the last 150 years?  Need to “bite the bullet”.  Queries whether community survey is representative.  Need to live within means

 

#83 Benjamin & Neville Miles

[TRIM 4001/2014]

 

Objection

Little of no income from farms.  Rates increasing but property prices falling.

#84 Strata Plan 19511

[TRIM 4002/2014]

 

Objection

50% of rent going in Council rates.  Too many vacant shops in Macksville.  To fill shops have to reduce rent but can’t do that if rates are increasing.

#85 Neville & Sandra Miles

[TRIM 4004/2014]

 

Objection

Increase is excessive in a community which is struggling.

#86 David Ainsworth

[TRIM 4031/2014]

 

Questions

Questions Council’s invested funds and whether any of those funds can be directed to funding roads and bridges.

#87 Marian Kew

[TRIM 4041/2014]

 

Objection

Not fair for people on a single fixed income.

#88 Phil & Lis Pyott

[TRIM 4054/2014]

 

No position

Propose prioritisation, change to service levels and cost/benefit analysis to decide on approach to maintaining infrastructure.

#89 Geoff Brown

[TRIM 4079/2014]

 

Support

Has some concerns about disparity in increases of residential and farmland rates.  Rural residents do not receive many services.  Suggests voucher system for tip.

 

#90 Elias Zannis

[TRIM 4081/2014]

 

Queries

Queries why rural ratepayers and farmers have to pay for the Bowraville off river water storage.

#91 Nambucca Heads Chamber of Commerce

[TRIM 4082/2014]

 

Support

Chamber passed  “in principle” support for the special rate variation.  Lists some work requests to be attended to.

#92 John Vassallo

[TRIM 4088/2014]

 

Objection

“Please explain why a rural farmland ratepayer will pay more than a residential ratepayer when we receive no council services at all except a dirt road which may get graded once a year if we are lucky.”

 

#93 Coral Freeman

[TRIM 4090/2014]

 

Objection

Concerned about negative population grown in Nambucca Heads and lack of employment.

#94 Frank Cufone

[TRIM 4101/2014]

 

Objection

Rates are already among some of the highest in the State.  Registers concern over poisoning of native trees at Valla Beach.

 

#95 Helen Hoelscher page 1

[TRIM 4108/2014]

 

Objection

Believes council is not sincere about community consultation.  Cites decision to build a single lane bridge on Eungai Creek Road.  Eungai residents receive little from Council.  Council wastes money on band aid repairs to roads.  Large section of Main Street resurfaced in a very shoddy manner.

 

#96 Helen Hoelscher

Page 2

[TRIM 4109/2014]

 

Objection

Nambucca Shire Council has far too many councillors who do not contribute much to council meetings.  Do we need so many councillors?

#97 Barry & Janine Reed

[TRIM 4121/2014]

 

Support

Satisfied Council has done a lot of hard work in bringing down costs.  However it is hard times for business.  Difficult for people on the land.  Support in general for local businesses should be a priority.  Need to move beyond being a low socio-economic area.  Reliance on survey is disappointing.  If Council worked with the community, particularly businesses, to develop a positive approach with the goal of improving the economics of the area, perhaps the pain of rate increases would be lessened.

 

#98 Ken Graham

[TRIM 4122/2014]

 

Queries

Seeks guarantees that extra funding will be spent on roads and  bridges.  Queries time taken to repair flood damage.

#99 Glynn & Janelle Sutton

[TRIM 4126/2014]

 

Objection

People on land and in business will find it hard to pay additional rates.  With land values going down so should rates.  Council should not be considering increase the way cattle prices and farm products are.  Need to live within means.

 

#100 Judy Stanfield

[TRIM 4139/2014]

 

Objection

Increasing costs are causing household financial stress.  Council needs to apply to NSW and Federal Governments for funding.  Need to look at wastage and productivity of Council employees.  Need to prioritise.

 

#101 Gary Adams

[TRIM 4146/2014]

 

Objection

Rates have increased faster than the CPI.  Question return from rates.  Queries whether they are being charged excessive rates.

 

#102 Gary Armitage

[TRIM 4154/2014]

 

Conditional support

Support conditional on exhausting all other avenues of cost saving.  Shouldn’t cost be shared by all rate payers evenly?  Suggests discontinuing recently introduced bulky waste collections in rural areas and all bulky waste collections.

 

#103 June Forbes

[TRIM 4159/2014]

 

Support

Fairest option.  Well maintained roads and bridges are safer.

#104 Mary Boylan

[TRIM 4160/2014]

 

Objection

Looking at Macksville, many empty shops, and seven opportunity shops; there is a huge number houses/properties for sale in the whole region.  This area is a low socio-economic one.  The big picture surely reflects an overall community in financial straits.  Thus Council's proposed rate increase will result in considerable stress and hardship on low/fixed income rate-payers.

 

#105 Mark Buchanan

[TRIM 4165/2014]

 

Objection

While there is a dire need to improve the quality of roads in the area, this must be funded by the government and local councils using the revenue raising means in place. Review the amount of money which goes into the use of council vehicles, and the overall effectiveness of the 'elephant' truck, the vehicle which fills the potholes on the road.   If, as stated in the proposal letter you sent, the NSW Government Treasury reviewed our councils financial situation as weak, with a Negative outlook, what is the treasury doing to assist us?  The Nambucca Shire, as you are well aware, is heavily populated with retirees, many of whom struggle to make ends meet. 

 

#106 Dawn Silvester

[TRIM 4172/2014]

 

Objection

Pays rates of $86 per week and receives no garbage service and a gravel road.  Queries effect of falling land values on advertised rate increase and what the Council will do to notify rate payers of the difference.

 

#107 Dawn Thornton & Terry Bates

[TRIM 4179/2014]

 

Objection

We support the provision of a special fund for rural road and bridge repair in 2013/15 and 2015/16.  We do not support for the special variation to be permanently incorporated into the Councils’ general income. This is because of the potential for the funds raised to be diverted to other items funded through Councils’ general income.   Council should adopt competitive tendering for all road and bridge works under the special rate funds to ensure that the best value for money is obtained from ratepayers contribution.

 

#108 Peter Moroney

[TRIM 4186/2014]

 

Objection

Prices for weaners have dropped from $2.81 per kg in 2010 to $1.40 per kg in 2013 (if you can get it).  Suggests Council tightens its belt another notch.

 

#109 Brian Ricketts

[TRIM 4214/2014]

 

Objection

Hard to justify rates.  Council needs to take into account other domestic charges that have increased – electricity, gas, insurance, rego.  Land valuation has dropped.  Happy to pay rate peg increase only.  Council needs to become more efficient.

 

#110 Dale Newling & Wayne Welsh

[TRIM 4215/2014]

 

Objection

Oppose the proposal because we believe it would add to our cost of living pressures, particularly in light of the proposal for the special variation to be permanently incorporated into the general income base.

 

#111 Glynis East

[TRIM 4217/2014]

 

Objection

I realise there are fewer dollars to go around and this valley suffers from a low socio-economic welfare community, and would therefore like Council to seriously reconsider how additional funding can be obtained rather than hitting the rate payers. Monies can be saved by being more productive and less wasteful.

 

#112 Marjorie Smith

[TRIM 4220/2014]

 

Objection

People in our area are struggling to make ends meet. Many people are in crisis and to make another increase would leave many people very disadvantaged.

 

#113 Knut & Sally Meyer

[TRIM 4234/2014]

 

Objection

Our current rates are high enough as it stands.

We are also of the opinion that any rate increases specifically to raise funds for the maintenance of local country roads and bridges should be divided between all properties who rely, use and benefit from these roads and bridges.

 

#114 Eileen Szabados

[TRIM 4235/2014]

 

Support

I am all for increase in our rates to upgrade rural areas in our Shire.  The idea of spreading out extra payment over 3 years sounds a good idea.  We had a property out on Newee Creek Road and know all about problems of bridges etc. being upgraded.  And of course all over the Nambucca rural shire.

#115 John Vassallo

[TRIM 4236/2014]

 

Comments

What should be taken into account as a council that is made up of local residents (the Mayor herself being a rural property owner) is the hard times we are going through in this current drought - buying feed and water for stock etc., and I really don't think another financial burden is necessary at this time.  Maybe the rate increase could be postponed.

#116 Annie Higginson

[TRIM 4237/2014]

 

Comments

If constituents live on a dirt road then I suggest their

rates should be adjusted to compensate for that lack of benefit.  Similarly, rates should be adjusted to compensate those who pay rates on a sealed road that is continually resurfaced and the subject of major reconstruction because of commercial use.

#117 K Jones

[TRIM 4238/2014]

Comments

Proposes a political science perspective for examining the issue.

#118 Hazel Shepherd

[TRIM 4239/2014]

Support

I am only too happy to pay a little more on my rates if it means keeping our beautiful Shire in a better condition.

#119 Colin McCurley

[TRIM 4241/2014]

 

Objection

The opening paragraph states that the rate increase is specifically limited “to fund the renewal of our local roads and bridges” and is limited to “two years”.  Yet in the second paragraph we find the real purpose of the rate increase is for the special variation to be permanently incorporated into the Council’s general income, that is, it is no longer limited to the renewal of our local roads and bridges, and it has no time limit.