NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

28 April 2016

 

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:

 

Nambucca Shire Council believes that the opportunity for any person to address the Council in relation to any matter which concerns them is an important demonstration of local democracy and our values.  Accordingly 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.

 

In relation to regulatory or enforcement matters it needs to be understood that the Council has certain legal obligations which will generally prevent the Council from providing an immediate response to any concerns or grievances which may be raised in the public forum.  In particular the Council has to provide procedural fairness and consider all relevant information.  Generally this cannot be done with matters which have come direct to Council via the public forum.  So the fact that the Council may not immediately agree to the representations and seek a report instead should not be taken to indicate disagreement or disinterest.

 

In the public forum 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

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

 

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 - 14 April 2016...................................................................................... 7

5        NOTICES OF MOTION  

6        PUBLIC FORUM

 

James Parker on behalf of Jetty Research

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.................................................................................... 19

9.2     Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 6 April 2016 - 19  April 2016..................................................................................................................................... 25

9.3     Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management  - Request for Reimbursement of DA fees totalling $1445.95 - DA2016/35........................................................................................ 28

9.4     Council Ranger's Report March 2016............................................................................... 32

9.5     Impact of Transfer of Public Housing Properities to NGO's............................................... 37

9.6     Review of the Local Government Rating System.............................................................. 42

10      Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

10.1   Donations Program (Section 356) 2016/2017 - Applications for Approval........................... 47

10.2   Customer Satisfaction Survey March 2016..................................................................... 116

10.3   Schedule of Council Public Meetings............................................................................. 176

11      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

11.1   Minutes of the NSW Rural Fire Service Liaison Committee - 10 February 2016.................. 177

11.2   Capital Works Report - March 2016................................................................................ 183

11.3   Retention of Plant 5138 Isuzu tipping truck and conversion to a water cart....................... 192

11.4   Overall plan for the parking of bicycles.......................................................................... 195

11.5   Waste Management Quarterly Report January - March 2016............................................. 198    

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

12.1   Business Investment Inquiry - Valla Urban Growth Area

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) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

  

            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

13      MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

14      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 14 April 2016 COMMENCING AT 5.30 PM AT THE vALLA RURAL hALL

The following document is the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held 14 April 2016.  These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on Thursday 28 April 2016 and therefore subject to change.  Please refer to the minutes of 28 April 2016 for confirmation.

 

PRESENT

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

Cr John Ainsworth

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM (arrived 6.06pm)

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)

Keith Williams (Act/AGM Engineering Services)

Lorraine Hemsworth (Minute Secretary)

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM – apologies for being late

 

 

PRAYER

 

Reverend Ross Duncan, Nambucca Anglican Church, offered a prayer on behalf of the Nambucca Minister's Association.

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

Councillor K MacDonald declared a non-pecuniary – less significant conflict of interest in Item 9.4 Proposed Tennis Club House under the Local Government Act as Cr MacDonald is a social member of the Tennis Club.  Cr MacDonald remained in the meeting for the discussion of this item.

 

Councillor K MacDonald declared a pecuniary interest in Item 11.2 Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes – 5 April 2016 under the Local Government Act as Cr MacDonald works for a fuel company.  Cr MacDonald left the meeting for this item.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting

 

SUBJECT:   CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 31 March 2016

156/16  RESOLVED:       (Flack/Smyth)

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 31 March 2016  be confirmed.

 

 


NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Hoban

ITEM 5.1      SF2183              140416      Notice Of Motion – Councillors’ Work Health And Safety Obligations (SF164)

157/16  RESOLVED:       (Hoban/South)

 

That Council note the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 obligations of Councillors according to legal advice provided to LGNSW.

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Hoban

ITEM 5.2      SF2183              140416      Notice Of Motion – Request For Reduction In Speed Limit Valla Beach Road (SF1540)

158/16 RESOLVED:        (Hoban/MacDonald)

 

That Council apply to RMS through the Local Government Road Safety Program to have the speed limit from the railway bridge to the western side of Kuta Ave on Valla Beach Road reduced to 40kph.

 

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Finlayson

ITEM 5.3      SF2183              140416      Notice of Motion - Climate Change (SF1075)

159/16  RESOLVED:       (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That the Notice of Motion in relation to Climate Change be deferred to the Council meeting on 26 May 2016.

 

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Flack

ITEM 5.4      SF2183              140416      Notice of Motion - Energy Use and Climate Change Adaptation Program and Budget (SF688)

 MOTION:     (Flack/Smyth)

 

That Council includes an annual Sustainable Energy Use and Climate Change Adaptation Program budget in its Environment Levy Program and considers appropriate project opportunities when it considers the draft 2016/17 Environment Levy Program and Budget.

 

Amendment:       (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That a report be prepared on the opportunities for energy efficiency in Council’s operations with a suggested budget.

 

The amendment was lost.

 

 

 

 

160/16  Resolved:       (Flack/Smyth)

 

That Council includes an annual Sustainable Energy Use and Climate Change Adaptation Program budget in its Environment Levy Program and considers appropriate project opportunities when it considers the draft 2016/17 Environment Levy Program and Budget.

 

 

  

6.06 pm – Cr Ballangarry entered the meeting and apologised for lateness.

 

DELEGATIONS

That the following Delegation be heard:

 

5.2     Notice Of Motion – Request For Reduction In Speed Limit Valla Beach Road (SF1540)

          Mr Graham Jenson – collected petitions and handed to Council to request Council support to approach the RMS for a reduction of the speed limit on the Valla Beach Road

 

That the following Public Forums be heard:

 

i)           Ms Judith Tobin - Public Forum - Mayor read issues on Ms Tobin’s behalf

161/16  Resolved:       (Smyth/Morrison)

 

That there be a report on the cost of Council providing the bulky goods pick up once or twice a year plus a comment on the voucher system which is being trialled.

 

ii)          Ms Carrolline Rhodes - Public Forum - Valla Beach North of Footbridge

·                vehicles and dogs going into the Not Permitted areas

·                lady assaulted when a person thought she had taken a photo of a car registration

·                request for sign to be moved closer to water so it can be better seen

·                request for Ranger to patrol this section of the beach

 

iii)         Mr Michael Joyce - Public Forum - Condition of Road from Ocean View Drive to Lions Reserve

·                Unsealed road through Lions Reserve

·                Increase in people using the fish table

·                Dirt road adjacent to village and resort

·                With increase in traffic comes large amounts of dust

·                Request Council to lightly seal the road

·                Council to take up with the Valla Beach Community Association

 

iv)        Ms Tracey Suter - Public Forum - Valla Beach Public Seating Project

·                Advised of public seats being designed by TAFE students

·                Hope to install seats with Council support in Valla Beach and Valla Rural

 

v)         Mr Bim Morton - Public Forum - Tafe Teacher Regarding Valla Beach Seating Project

·                Discussed the seating program

 

vi)        Ms Susan Jenvey – Public Forum – NSW Draft North Coast Regional Plan

·                Expressed concerns about the provisions of the Draft North Coast Regional Plan

·                Expressed concerns about the Valla Quarry

·                Would like to see mining licences repealed

·                Spoke of organic farming in the area as a better economic outcome

 

 

 

 

162/16  Resolved:       (Flack/Ainsworth)

 

That the recording of this Council meeting be permitted.

 

vii)       Ms Chels Marshall – Public Forum - Overview of Cultural and Environmentally Significant areas

·                Biruygan came from Valla area

·                Very significant

·                Phenomenal biodiversity in area

·                Request that Council meet with all groups to consolidate a response to the Department of Planning and Environment

·                General Manager advised report to Council meeting of 12 May 2016

 

viii)      Paul Coe – Public Forum - East West Road and Valla Beach Intersection

·                Burkes Lane, East West Road and Valla Roads all had separate intersections

·                Concerned about safety of East West Road overpass, intersection, poor sight distance

·                Approached RMS on Information day – no progress

·                No response from Melinda Pavey

·                Lack of merging lane heading north

·                Request for consultation on intersection and speed limits before highway project is finalised

 

ix)        Dr Peter Sobey – Public Forum - Future Directions for Valla

·                Outlined impact of mining

·                Area labelled as suitable for mining

·                Immediate impact is Valla Quarry

·                Complained about noise from Quarry

·                Complained about blasting

 

x)         Gae Marshall – Roadway at Valla Reserve and Off Leash area for dogs

·                Requested an off leash area in Valla Reserve

·                Concerned over the lose of trees in Valla Park

·                Overgrown drain in Park (just inside entrance to Park)

 

xi)        David Smyth – Public Forum – Condition of Mitchells Road

·                Concerned about condition of Mitchells Road

·                Truck speed not observed by trucks (Council trucks major offenders)

·                Lives at eastern end of Mitchells Road

·                A lot more traffic

·                Eastern end of Mitchells Road needs to be upgraded to Echidna Road

·                Little bridge had some planks replaced – planks protruded and need to be looked at as it is a surface hazard

 

 

 

7.10 pm – 7.20 pm          The meeting adjourned for a break

 

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      SF959                140416      Outstanding Actions and Reports

163/16  RESOLVED:       (Ainsworth/Flack)

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.2      SF848                140416      Nambucca Heads Island Golf Club - Rates and Charges

164/16  RESOLVED:       (Morrison/Ainsworth)

 

1        That the information concerning the provision of a credit adjustment to the Nambucca Heads Island Golf Club be received.

 

2        That there be a further report to Council on the review of ratepayers with large sewer access charges.

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.3      DA2015/093        140416      DA2015/093 - Use of Shed as Depot - Modification

MOTION:      (Flack/Smyth)

 

The request to modify the development consent be refused for the following reasons:

 

1        Council’s standard requirements for new traffic generating development with access to a sealed road requires sealing of the access to a minimum of 3 metres within the property boundary or 10 metres from the edge of the road so as to minimise the tracking of gravel and sediment onto the road pavement.

 

2        The approved hours of operation are consistent with consent conditions applied to development that may cause local noise impacts.

 

3        The modifications sought to conditions 17 and 18 are incapable of enforcement.

 

Amendment:       (Hoban/Ainsworth)

 

The request to modify the development consent be refused except for the requested change to Condition 18 which be approved for the following reasons:

 

1        Council’s standard requirements for new traffic generating development with access to a sealed road requires sealing of the access to a minimum of 3 metres within the property boundary or 10 metres from the edge of the road so as to minimise the tracking of gravel and sediment onto the road pavement.

 

2        The approved hours of operation are consistent with consent conditions applied to development that may cause local noise impacts.

 

 

WithdrawAL:      (Hoban/Ainsworth)

 

That the Amendment be withdrawn.

 

 

Amendment:       (Hoban/Ainsworth)

 

That the Item be deferred to seek further clarification in relation to the request regarding Condition 18.

 

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

 

165/16  Resolved:       (Hoban/MacDonald)

 

That the Item be deferred to seek further clarification in relation to the request regarding Condition 18.

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.4      DA2016/035        140416      Proposed Tennis Clubhouse

166/16  RESOLVED:       (Ainsworth/Smyth)

 

That Council as the consent authority, pursuant Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, grant consent for Development Application 2016/044 for the construction of a tennis club house at Lot 7010 DP 1054529 Wellington Drive, Nambucca Heads, subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in attachment 2 of this report.

 

For the motion:                        Councillors Hoban, South, MacDonald, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, Flack,   Morrison and Ballangarry    (Total 9)

Against the motion:        Nil                                           (Total 0)

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.5      SF1541              140416      Planning Proposal - Addition to House Keeping Amendment - Waratah St Scotts Head

167/16  RESOLVED:       (Ainsworth/Morrison)

 

That Council resolve to rezone land at 54 Waratah Street Scotts Head from R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use and submit the amendment to the Minister of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It will be requested that this amendment be included as part of Councils recent gateway application for a housekeeping amendment.

 

For the motion:                        Councillors Hoban, South, MacDonald, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, Flack,  Morrison and Ballangarry    (Total 9)

Against the motion:        Nil                                           (Total 0)

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.6      SF2172              140416      Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 23 February 2016

168/16  RESOLVED:       (Flack/Smyth)

 

1        That a note of thanks from the  Access Committee be passed on to Council staff for their continued work to improve facilities for people with disabilities, particularly in regard to the improvements to public amenities.

 

2        That Council note discussions regarding change facilities for adults with disabilities at Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre and that although an application for funding did not proceed on this occasion, the concept be listed for forward planning.

 

3        That Council endorse the remaining minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 23 February 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.7      SF2172              140416      Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 22 March 2016

169/16  RESOLVED:       (MacDonald/Flack)

 

That Council endorse the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 22 March 2016.

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.8      SF2173              140416      Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 23 March - 5 April 2016

170/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That the information be noted by Council.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.9      SF2173              140416      2016 March - Received Development Applications and Complying Development Applications

171/16  RESOLVED:       (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That the Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received in March 2016 be received for information.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.10    SF2173              140416      2016 March - Approved Construction Certificates and Complying Development Certificates

172/16  RESOLVED:       (Flack/South)

 

That the Construction and Complying Development Certificates approved for March 2016 be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 10.1    SF2116              140416      Investment Report To 31 March 2016

173/16  RESOLVED:       (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

That the Accountants’ Report on Investments placed to 31 March 2016 be noted.

 

 

 

 

ITEM 10.2    SF251                140416      Schedule of Council Public Meetings

174/16  RESOLVED:       (Flack/Ballangarry)

 

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

 

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1    SF2218              140416      Tender for Supply and Delivery of Modular Concrete Bridge Components (SPT081617NAM)

175/16  RESOLVED:       (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        That Council accept tenders from the following suppliers:

                   Holcim(Australia) Pty Ltd t/as Humes

                   Rocla Pipeline Products

                   Waeger Constructions Pty Ltd

 

2        That the panel contract is to run for a period of 24 months commencing 15 April 2016 to 15 April 2018.

 

3        That a provision be allowed for a 12 month extension based on satisfactory supplier performance which may take SPT081617NAM contract through to 15 April 2019.

 

For the motion:                        Councillors Hoban, South, MacDonald, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, Flack,  Morrison and Ballangarry    (Total 9)

Against the motion:        Nil                                            (Total 0)

 

 

 

Cr MacDonald left the meeting for this point 6 of this Item at 8.06 pm and returned after the conclusion of the Item at 8.12 pm.

 

ITEM 11.2    SF90                  140416      Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 5 April 2016

176/16  RESOLVED:       (Flack/Ballangarry)

 

That Council:

 

2        Install signs to reinforce No Stopping restrictions at the corner of Ridge and Hill Streets, Nambucca Heads.

 

3        i)        Approve the road closures subject to the following being received by Council:

 

·           Certificate of Currency for Public Liability Insurance

·          Traffic Management Plan confirming Accredited Traffic Controllers will be on site, and

·           Police approval for the road closure.

 

          ii)       Endorse the road closures for the ANZAC DAY marches to be held on ANZAC DAY 25 April 2016, following the receipt of the appropriate documents from the Returned and Services League of Australia, Macksville, Bowraville and Nambucca Heads branches, as follows:

 

          a        Macksville - Dawn Service between 0500 and 0630 hours; and again between

                                      1030 and 1230 hours;

 

          b        Bowraville - between 0945 and 1115 hours; and

 

          c        Nambucca Heads - between 0830 and 0930 hours.

 

          iii)      Advertise the road closures seven (7) days prior to Anzac Day March.

 

4        Install signage advising motorists of a NO PARKING zone outside 11 Ocean Street, Scotts Head.

 

5        i)        Aprove the extension of the Cook Street Bus Zone for an additional 20m south.

 

         ii)       Replace bus zone signage to remove inconsistences and reflect actual bus company usage.

 

          iii)     Note that at this stage there is no funding available for an additional set flashing lights at the School Zone as requested by the Bowraville Central School.

 

7        Change School Bus Zone times at Macksville High School to 8.00 am – 9.00 am and 2.30 pm – 4.00 pm School Days.

 

177/16  Resolved:       (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        i)        Note the contents of the report into the merits of nose-to-kerb on-street parking in Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads and retain the existing rear-to-kerb angled parking arrangements

 

ii)       Thank the Nambucca Heads & Valla Beach Chamber of Commerce for their interest in trialling an amended parking arrangement in Bowra Street Nambucca Heads and notify them of the reasons why it is not feasible for a trial.

 

 

178/16  Resolved:       (Flack/Smyth)

 

That Council write to the Nambucca Heads & Valla Beach Chamber of Commerce & Industry Inc and advise of Council’s decision and advise them if they would consider a survey of members to assess interest in a trial of nose-to-kerb parking.

 

 

179/16  Resolved:       (Flack/Ballangarry)

 

6        Adopt the interim road safety measures including “No Stopping” signs and “Keep Clear” line marking as recommended by Traffic Engineers Colston Budd Hunt & Kapes Pty Ltd in Main Street, Nambucca Heads outside the Caltex Service Station.

 

 

     

 

COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING (CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC)

180/16  RESOLVED:       (Ainsworth/South)

 

1          That Council consider any written representations from the public as to why the Meeting should not be Closed to the public.

 

2        That Council move into Closed Meeting to discuss the matters for the reason(s) listed above.

 

Reason reports are in Closed Meeting:

 

 

General Manager Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.1    T021/2015           140416      Tender for the Operation of the Macksville Memorial Aquatic and Fitness Centre

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.2    SF848                140416      Nambucca Heads Island Golf Club - Rates and Charges

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.

 

 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.3    SF2218              140416      Tender for Supply and Delivery of Modular Concrete Bridge Components” (SPT081617NAM) - Confidential Attachments

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) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

 

CLOSED MEETING

 

The Ordinary Council Meeting's Meeting IN CLOSED MEETING commenced at 8.12 pm.

 

RESUME IN OPEN MEETING

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Ordinary Council Meeting resume in Open Meeting. The Ordinary Council Meeting resumed IN OPEN MEETING at 9.10 pm.

 

 

FROM COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING

 

General Manager Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.1    T021/2015           140416      Tender for the Operation of the Macksville Memorial Aquatic and Fitness Centre

181/16  RESOLVED:       (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

1        That Council accept the tender from Community Aquatics Pty Ltd for the operation of the Macksville Memorial Aquatic and Fitness Centre for the next 5 years.

 

2        That Council’s seal be attached to contract documents as required.

 

3        That the relevant provisions of the contract be entered into Council’s contract register.

 

For the motion:                        Councillors Hoban, Flack, South, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, MacDonald, Morrison and Ballangarry    (Total 9)

Against the motion:        Nil                                           (Total 0)

 

 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.2    SF848                140416      Nambucca Heads Island Golf Club - Rates and Charges

182/16  RESOLVED:       (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That the information concerning the correspondence and the rates and charges be received.

 

 


For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.3    SF2218              140416      Tender for Supply and Delivery of Modular Concrete Bridge Components” (SPT081617NAM) - Confidential Attachments

183/16  RESOLVED:       (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That Council note the confidential attachments in this report pertaining to Item 11.1 in open Council for the tender of the Supply & Delivery of Modular Concrete Bridge Componentry.

 

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 9.15 pm. 

 

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on 28 April 2016.

 

 

CR RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

          


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    28 April 2016

General Manager

ITEM 9.1      SF959              280416         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.

 

 

 

 

 

FILE

NO

COUNCIL

MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION

BY

STATUS

 

MARCH 2011

1

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

 

GM

The draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan has been circulated to Councillors and the Estuary Committee.

 

Council has received a preliminary draft of the flood Risk Management Study and Plan which is presently being reviewed. The report will be distributed to Council and the Nambucca Rivers Creeks and Coastline Management Committee after this review is complete.

 

Council staff and OEH are reviewing the draft.  The draft requires further work before it can be circulated to the Estuary Committee and Councillors.

 

JULY 2011

2

SF1031

21/7/11

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

 

GM

The project is awaiting the completion of the floodplain risk management matrix.

 

Council has received a preliminary draft of the flood Risk Management Study and Plan which is presently being reviewed. The report will be distributed to Council and the Nambucca Rivers Creeks and Coastline Management Committee after this review is complete.

 

Council staff are still in the process of reviewing the draft document

 

AUGUST 2013

 

3

SF1031

14/08/13

That the tree policy be again presented after Councillors have had sufficient time to comment on the amendments presented by Councillors and in view of the previous motion of Council, namely “Tree Removal” (SF629) containing the 6D principles.

 

 

AGMES

Report in September 2013.

Deferred to October 2013.

At the request of Cr Morrison this item has been deferred to the first meeting in November 2013.

Cr Morrison has provided information to the Manager Civil Works who will draft a report to the December Council meeting.

Staff on leave during December – deferred until February 2014.

Deferred until April – Staff dealing with landslips.

Deferred until May 2014

Deferred until June 2014

Deferred until September 2014 and a report will be prepared on the outcome of the meeting.

Policy has been redrafted and a new operations procedures manual developed. A memo with the updated policy and procedures will be provided to Councillors for comment at the end of December

Deferred with staff on leave - Guidelines and tree assessment form developed and now being trialled for tree assessment with the Policy and guideline review to be presented to Council for comment after trial – anticipate April.

Deferred until September after the budget, restructure and staffing levels settle.

Provided to Councillors on 29 October for comment.

Not provided to Councillors on 29 October - now propose to provide to Councillors mid December 2015 for comment. 

 

Deferred whilst trialling the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Hazard Evaluation form which is intended to replace the tree inspection form within the policy. The policy in its present form has shown some issues pertaining to property owners wanting healthy trees removed citing the criteria in the policy, the new form provides greater transparency and clarity   

 

 

DECEMBER 2013

 

4

SF1842

11/12/13

That if Council and IPART support a rate increase above rate pegging, Council provide a quarterly report either through a media release or its rates newsletter to confirm to ratepayers that the additional funds are being spent on roads and bridges as indicated in our community consultation.

 

GM

The first quarterly report would be the rates newsletter to be distributed with the 2014/2015 rates notice.

Report produced.

Media release issued before 13 November Council meeting.

Second media release issued 20 May 2015.

 

Third media release issued 30 November 2015.

 

MARCH 2015

 

5

SF841

12/03/15

Council make representations to the Member for Oxley, both pre and post 28 March 2015, for their support for the proposition that the bridges and major culvert structures which are located on the existing Pacific Highway through the Nambucca Valley should remain State assets and not be handed over to Council.

 

GM

Letter written w/e 20/3/2015.

As at June 2015 arrangements are being made for a consultant to assist Council staff in investigating the liability associated with the proposed handover of the existing Pacific Highway to Council.  Data provided by the RMS needs to be reviewed as well as a physical inspection of the road and bridge assets.

Mayor and GM met with the Member for Oxley on 18 September 2015.  Details of Council’s previous submissions forwarded to the Member for Oxley with a request that she make representations on behalf of Council.

 

The early estimates of annual depreciation for the northern section of the Pacific Hwy (Nambucca Heads to Oyster Creek) assets are proposed to be transferred is approximately $1million per annum. 

 

 

APRIL 2015

 

AUGUST 2015

 

6

PRF72

13/08/15

Council investigate opportunities to assist in the management of the (Kingsworth Lake) reserve and the matter be reported back to Council in 6 months.

 

GM

Report in February 2016.

 

Deferred due to workload of Coordinator Strategic Planning and Natural Resources.

 

Matter has been discussed and no opportunities identified.  Will be reported to Council in the next month.

 

 

7

SF674

13/08/15

Council write to the appropriate Minister drawing attention to the history of the matter (negotiations to extend Council’s Waste Depot) and particularly Council’s investment in studies made in good faith as well as the importance of the facility to the growth and security of our local community.

 

AGMES

Letter to be drafted to appropriate Minister.

Letter sent week ending 30 September 2015.

Nil response from the Minister to date, another letter sent 3 December 2015.

 

Response received from Minister and report to a meeting in March 2016.

 

Minister referred staff to Forests and a meeting is being organised with Forests NSW in May 2016 for further discussion with a report to be presented to Council afterwards

 

 

SEPTEMBER 2015

 

8

Q17/2015

24/09/15

That Council receive a further report and briefing from Greg Powter Consulting once an independent assessment has been completed (re the Pacific Highway Assets Handover)

AGMES

Council briefing planned for April 2016

Consultants engaged. RMS reviewing data supply.

Still being assessed; report not complete; briefing now scheduled for 28 April 2016.

Consult not available for 28th April, will report to the 12th May 2016 meeting.

 

OCTOBER 2014

 

9

SF95

15/10/15

Following the 6 month trial period of nose-to-kerb parking arrangements in River Street adjacent to the river bank, that Council receive a further report on the outcome of the trial period.

 

AGMES

Report late 2016

 

10

DA2015/

191

 

29/10/15

That Council take action regarding the unapproved shipping container at 21 George Street, Bowraville.

 

GM

Notice of Intention to Serve an Order has been issued (was issued prior to the Council meeting on 29/10/15).

Letter sent.10 February 2016.

 

The number of cats was reduced to an acceptable number but an inspection in January indicated that breeding cages were being used.  A notice of intention to serve an order will be served.

 

Discussed with staff on 6/4/2016.  Final warning to be provided to lodge a DA or receive a fine for undertaking development without consent.

 

 

11

SF1031

29/10/15

That the General Manager follow up the question of the appropriate number of companion animals at 21 George Street, Bowraville, and the requirement for a DA for the shipping container.

 

GM

Inspection being arranged.  Report to Council in late November/early December.  Proposed to report to second meeting in January 2016.

 

A letter has been sent requiring the lodgement of a DA for the continued use of the container.

 

NOVEMBER 2015

 

12

PRF30

12/11/15

That Council approach the Minister for Primary Industry, Land & Water advising him of the present situation (with the Rotary Lookout) and that Council is willing to providing matching funding to the funding provided by Rotary and requesting the Minister reconsider their allocation of funds.

 

GM

Letter sent 17/11/2015

 

Reply received declining Council’s request 4210/2016

 

13

SF1963

12/11/15

Council make representations to the Minister for Social Housing in relation to its concerns about the transfer of public housing to various non-government organisations and the substantial loss of rate income which will flow from such transfers.

 

GM

Letter sent 17/11/201531

Response received from LGNSW supporting Council’s representations and indicating they will also lobby in relation to the issue.

 

LGNSW have passed on the Minister’s Response which has been report to the Council

meeting 28th April 2016

 

 

14

SF2068

12/11/15

Council receive a future report on the preferred treatment options & procurement process to gain the most economical outcome for the recycled water scheme at the Bowraville STP.

 

AGMES

Report in 2016

 

15

SF1855

26/11/15

That Council receive a report regarding any options for traffic lights at River Street and Cooper Street following the completion of the Macksville by-pass.

 

GM

Report late 2017

 

JANUARY 2016

 

16

SF102

14/1/16

That the Engineering staff consider and report on an overall plan for the parking of bicycles.

 

AGMES

Report to meeting in April 2016

 

Report to be presented to the March 2016 Council meeting.

 

Deferred until July as staff are assessing the highway handover of new road assets

 

Report presented to the 28th April 2016 Council meeting

 

 

17

SF996

28/1/16

Council review its Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy based on the NSW Ombudsman 2015 Enforcement Guidelines for Councils

 

GM

Report March 2016

 

Preparation of Policy underway.

 

Will be reported to Council in May 2016.

 

FEBRUARY 2016

 

18

SF2183

11/2/16

That the Notice of Motion concerning climate change be deferred to the first Council meeting in April 2016.

 

GM

List for Council meeting on 14 April 2016

List for Council meeting on 26 May 2016

 

19

SF848

11/2/16

That the customer’s progress in reducing the outstanding balance on their water account be reviewed in July 2016 in a report to Council.

 

AGMCS

List for a meeting in July 2016

 

20

DA2014/198

25/2/16

Modification to development consent - to connect Old Coast Road to Florence Wilmont Drive.

 

GM

Deferred at Council’s meeting of 17 March 2016 to enable assessment of trees requiring removal from the road alignment.  Applicant advised & now awaiting additional information.

 

MARCH 2016

 

21

SF929

17/3/16

Council staff report back on NVTA suggestions and any other suggestions (re VIC at Highway Service Centre) and approach Bellingen Shire Council to determine their interest.

 

GM

Report in April 2016

Report in May 2016

 

22

LF7116

31/3/16

That Council receive a report from the Engineer on options for improving water flow through the property (8 Loftus Lane) and the costs of those options.

 

AGMES

Report to June meeting following of assessment by design staff.

 

A report will be prepared for July after a catchment assessment is undertaken by design staff as there a number of design priorities for Council’s capital works program.

 

APRIL 2016

 

23

SF1540

14/4/16

That Council apply to RMS through the Local Government Road Safety Program to have the speed limit from the railway bridge to the western side of Kuta Ave on Valla Beach Road reduced to 40kph.

 

AGMES

Letter drafted

 

24

SF2183

14/4/16

That Council includes an annual Sustainable Energy Use and Climate Change Adaptation Program budget in its Environment Levy Program and considers appropriate project opportunities when it considers the draft 2016/17 Environment Levy Program and Budget.

GM

Proposals to be included in the 2016-17 Budget papers

 

25

SF453

14/4/16

That there be a report on the cost of Council providing the bulky goods pick up once or twice a year plus a comment on the voucher system which is being trialled. 

 

AGMES

Will be included in next quarterly waste services report

 

26

SF848

14/4/16

That there be a report to Council on the review of ratepayers with large sewer access charges.

AGMCS

AGMES

Review commenced

 

27

SF90

14/4/16

That Council write to the Nambucca Heads & Valla Beach Chamber of Commerce & Industry Inc and advise of Council’s decision to retain rear-to-kerb parking in Bowra St, Nambucca Heads and advise them if they would consider a survey of members to assess interest in a trial of nose-to-kerb parking.

AGMES

Letter sent

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    28 April 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2      SF2173            280416         Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 6 April 2016 - 19  April 2016

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Lisa Hall, Technical Officer - Development and Environment         

 

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).

 

Table 2 shows 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:

 

That the information be noted by Council.

 

 

 

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

 

Please note that there are no unresolved Development Applications in excess of 12 months old.

 

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

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/099

2 July 2015

132 Lot Residential Subdivision

Lot 1 DP 1119830, Marshall Way, Nambucca Heads

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

Two public submissions has been received – they oppose the development:

 

·        The increase in expected traffic raises major concerns re safety (particularly for the elderly and the young), congestion, parking within the Plaza and speeding.

·        Concerned that there isn’t enough local infrastructure and services to support new residents eg doctors.

·        A community forum should be held to gauge dissatisfaction with the proposal

·        Spring Street isn’t wide enough to cope with the increased traffic

·        Stormwater in Spring Street and surrounding areas is already a problem

·        Concerned about the safety of turning out of Spring Street, when Marshall Way is a through road

STATUS:

Council resolved on 31 March 2016 to accept APZ on road reservation and adjoining reserve.  DA to be reported to Joint Regional Planning Panel on a date to be fixed.

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/197

26/11/2015

Piggery

Lot 22 DP 828660, 652 Boat Harbour Road, Yarranbella

Two submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the proposal

·             Not enough information in application

·             Concerned about run-off, odours, contamination, fencing and noise from the development

·             Untidy huts and pigs are already located on the property

STATUS:  Response received from DPI advising information submitted with DA is inadequate.  Applicant has been provided with 30 days to supply the required information.

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2014/198/01

04/12/2015

26 Lot Subdivision

Lot 42 DP 711098, Old Coast Road, North Macksville

Thirty-two submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the modification

·          Connecting Florence Wilmont Drive and Old Coast Road will bring too much traffic and noise into the community.

·           Lumsdens Lane should be used instead

·           Florence Wilmont Drive is already in poor condition in some spots – this would make it worse

·          All residents of Kingsworth Estate should have been notified, not just properties fronting Florence Wilmont Drive

·           Linking Florence Wilmont Drive to Old Coast Road will provide many short-cut opportunities

·           Detrimental to koala habitat and to other native fauna

·           Benefits new developer at expense of current residents of Kingsworth Estate

·           Old Coast Road still won’t be fully sealed

STATUS:  Applicant to submit an ecological report on trees to be removed.  When the report is received the DA will be referred to Council for determination.

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/214

14/12/2015

Demolish existing dual occupancy and erect new dual occupancy

Lot 11 Section D DP 17707, 22 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

Four people lodged submissions to the original plans lodged with Council and three of them have lodged submissions (the fourth objector is not very unwell) about the amended plans lodged with Council – they all oppose the proposal, both the initial and amended plans.

·           Excessive site coverage could lead to runoff problems for properties below the development

·           8.5m height limit is exceeded – overshadowing impacts. Ground level has been artificially raised

·           Notification period should be extended – difficult to obtain professional advice about the proposal over the Christmas/New Year period

·           Not enough information on Council’s website

·           Floor area calculations include external open areas which would be easy to enclose at a later date

·           View loss for adjoining property

·           Unclear as to whether deep soil zone, setback and excavation requirements in DCP will be complied with

·           Current building contains asbestos – removal needs to be done according to requirements

·           Safety concerns with access to the site

·           Proposed design out of character with Scotts Head village

·           Too many variations to Council’s DCP

·           Three storey, not two storey dwelling

·           Setback inadequate

·           Southern setback deficient

·           Deep soil zone deficient

·           Total footprint is misleading

·           Proposed excavations too great

·           Updated plans still show a three storey building, not two storeys and an attic

·           Setbacks deficient, footprint has been underestimated, DSZ deficient, not compliant with height, bulk and scale, still restricts views, excavations still excessive, no stormwater plans, does not fulfil the aesthetic criteria of the DCP

·           Variations from DCP are significant – revised plans have only been amended minimally

·           Applicant has paid little or no regard to issues raised by objectors

·           Proposed communal fencing unsatisfactory

·           Proposed retaining wall may lead to drainage issues

STATUS:  Amended plans submitted – adjoining owners re-notified. Submissions close 4 April 2016

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2016/010

27/01/2016

45 Lot Residential Subdivision

Lot 2 DP 1076480 & Lot 21 DP 1084161, Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

Six submissions have been received

 

·           One submission raises site-specific concerns about an on-site sewage management system

·           Additional properties could increase stormwater and flooding issues at Kings Point.

·           Four submissions request the erection of a colourbond fence at the applicant’s cost prior to earthworks commencing due to dust and noise concerns

·           No objection to the DA, however town water and sewer should be connected to his property by the applicant prior to subdivision being released.

STATUS: Additional information  due 25 March 2016

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2016/027

12/02/2016

Retail & Multi-dwelling Housing

 

Lot 91 DP 800950, 66 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

Thirty submissions have been received – they oppose the development

·           View loss, overshadowing, building exceeds height limit

·           Rubbish bins to be stored under bedroom window of adjoining property.

·           Out of character with the area – village atmosphere will be affected

·           Will increase traffic during and after construction

·           Shops will be lost – supermarket may close meaning jobs will be lost

·           Concerns for pedestrian safety

·           Parking problems as caravan park is already over-developed

·           Bulk and scale too much – will have a severe impact on 64 Waratah Street

·           Additional pressures on water and sewerage

·           May damage nearby buildings during construction

·           Will set a precedent for high-rise development

·           Doesn’t comply with planning provisions and controls

·           Not enough information with application

·           Plans lack an honest showing of dimensions

·           Existing and future impact of development have not been considered by the applicant

·           There is already enough holiday accommodation in Scotts Head

·           Parking provisions for the development appear inadequate

·           Traffic information with application inadequate

·           Shadow diagrams incomplete

STATUS: Being assessed – additional information required from applicant

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/093/01

1 March 2016

Depot (Modification)

Lot 202 DP 841112, 765 Wilson Road, Congarinni North

One submission has been received – it opposes the proposed modifications

·           Proposed changes make the development prohibited development and will affect the amenity of the area

·           Sealed driveway requirement should be changed as it is a requirement under the Roads Act

·           Servicing of trucks/machinery will create excessive noise

·           Pacifico’s hours of operations mentioned by the applicant are incorrect

·           “No financial gain” to owner should not be relevant

STATUS:  Reported to Council’s meeting on 14 April 2016 – Council has requested further information

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    28 April 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3      SF25                280416         Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management  - Request for Reimbursement of DA fees totalling $1445.95 - DA2016/35

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Teresa Boorer, Business Services Officer         

 

Summary:

 

Council has received a request from Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management for the reimbursement of DA fees totalling $1445.95, for a new tennis club house at Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads. The DA was submitted so an Approval could be sought to assist with the submission of grant applications in the future for the construction of the club house.

 

In the 2015/2016 budget, there is provision for $15,000 for donations under Section 356, however there is not enough funds left in this financial year to fund this request in full. An amount of $1,000 could be refunded to the Committee of Management as a partial reimbursement for the application fees.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Gordon Park Tennis Club Committee of Management be advised that Council can only reimburse the fees in part, as the budget will only allow for a reimbursement amount of $1000 in this financial year.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has discretion as to whether or not to reimburse the DA fees of $1445.95 in whole or in part.  There is limited funding remaining in the donations budget for 2015/2016 and any reimbursement would need to come from the balance of 2015/2016 budget and next year’s budget of $15,000.  Applications for 80% of this budget have already been called for, and received, for the 2016/2017 financial year.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received a request from Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management for the reimbursement of DA fees for DA2016/35 for a Tennis Club House, at Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads.

 

As a Committee of Management and a not-for-profit organisation, Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management is seeking the consideration of Council to waive and refund the development application fees paid on 1 March 2016.  A copy of the request is attached.

 

On 1 March 2016 Council received a development application for a Tennis Club House at Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads.  The estimated cost of the development is $156,411 and the development application fees paid were $1445.95.

 

Council has a “Donations Policy” in place, and the policy provides:

 

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.

 

5.0       Selection Criteria

 

In 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, and this will include an annual donation of $50 to each of the Nambucca Shire’s fourteen (14) schools, as listed below, for annual presentation days. This money will be allocated in July of each year.

 

In the 2015/2016 budget, there is provision for $15,000 for donations under Section 356, however there is not enough funds left in this financial year to fund this request in full.

 

The budget for 2016/17 is $15,000 in total, with 80% allocate by calling for applications between February and April. The closing date for applications was 8 April 2016, and is the subject of a separate report, suffice as to say requests for donations are much higher in total than the available $12,000.

 

There are some limited funds available in the budget for 2015/2016 and as such a part refund could be offered to the Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management for the DA fees.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in relation to the recommendation. 

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The only discernible risk is that if Council chooses to reimburse the DA fees, there could be a spate of similar applications which will quickly deplete the entire donations budget.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The recommendation has no budgetary impact.  The request could be partially met from the balance of the 2014/2015 donations budget. 

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1

12558/2016 - Request from Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management to reimburse DA fees

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management  - Request for Reimbursement of DA fees totalling $1445.95 - DA2016/35

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    28 April 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4      SF1148            280416         Council Ranger's Report March 2016

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Teresa Boorer, Business Services Officer         

 

Summary:

 

The following is the Council’s Ranger’s report regarding Council’s Companion Animal Activities and listing of penalty notices issued by Council’s Ranger for March 2016.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council’s Ranger’s report for March 2016 be received and noted by Council.

 

 

 

Cats

Dogs

COUNCIL’S SEIZURE ACTIVITY

 

 

Seized (doesn’t include those animals dumped or surrendered)

         0

0

Returned to Owner

0

0

Transferred to - Council's Facility from Seizure Activities

0

0

ANIMALS IN AND ARRIVING AT COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Animals In Council's Facility - (Start of Month)

0

2

Abandoned or Stray

1

8

Surrendered

0

1

Animals transferred from Seizure Activities

0

0

Total Incoming Animals

1

11

ANIMALS LEAVING COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Released to Owners

0

6

Sold

0

0

Released to Organisations for Rehoming

0

0

Died at Council's Facility(other than euthanased)

0

0

Stolen from Council's Facility

0

1

Escaped from Council's Facility

0

0

Other

0

0

EUTHANASED

 

 

Restricted Dogs

 

0

Dangerous Dogs

 

0

Owner’s Request

0

0

Due to Illness, Disease or Injury

0

0

Feral/infant animal

1

0

Unsuitable for rehoming

0

2

Unable to be rehomed

0

1

Total Euthanased

1

3

Total Outgoing Animals

1

9

TOTAL IN COUNCIL'S FACILITY - (END OF MONTH)

0

2

 

 

March 2016

PARKING

REGO NO.

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

DATE ISSUED

BP-45-SZ

3120601689

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

1/03/2016

ASC-24Q

3120601698

         Loading Zone

177.00

1/03/2016

VHE-182

3120601707

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

1/03/2016

405-RGI

3120601716

Taxi Zone

177.00

1/03/2016

790-MYN

3120601725

Park longer than permitted

106.00

1/03/2016

BT-37-NF

3120601734

Bus Zone (School Zone)

319.00

1/03/2016

CD-72-UJ

3120601743

No Parking (School Zone)

177.00

1/03/2016

DAP-94B

3120601752

Bus Zone (School Zone)

319.00

1/03/2016

YHQ-805

3120601761

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

2/03/2016

YQN-990

3120601770

No Parking

106.00

2/03/2016

BQ-49-QJ

3120601780

No Parking (School Zone)

177.00

3/03/2016

AV-72-RN

3120601799

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

235-LAB

3120601808

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

8/03/2016

DOT-333

3120601817

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

8/03/2016

BPK-92G

3120601826

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

8/03/2016

989-LWI

3120601844

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

8/03/2016

YJL-74R

3120601835

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

8/03/2016

AM-42-LH

3120601853

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

EK-380

3120601862

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

BP-81-GH

3120601871

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

YTR-141

3120601880

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

AK-09-PN

3120601890

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

MC-989

3120601909

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

CDA-64Y

3120601918

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

CSW-11Y

3120601927

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

XGP-595

3120601936

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

AM-92-VQ

3120601945

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

BHE-56F

3120601954

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

AT-66-RA

3120601963

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

BKV-63V

3120601972

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

CPD-41L

3120601981

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

AUC-46K

3120601990

Park longer than permitted

106.00

8/03/2016

ATM-52J

3120795509

Park longer than permitted

106.00

24/03/2016

ZJM-144

3120795518

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

WBJ-434

3120795527

Stop on Path/strip

106.00

24/03/2016

CSQ-07Q

3120795536

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

CE-43-PG

3120795546

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

 

March 2016 (cont.)

PARKING

REGO NO.

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

DATE ISSUED

BV-34-FQ

3120795554

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

RON-53H

3120795563

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

QZB-973

3120795572

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

BZF-87Y

3120795581

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

CEM-97D

3120795590

No Parking

106.00

24/03/2016

CA-26-JT

3120795600

No Parking

106.00

24/03/2016

AN-68-MY

3120795619

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

24/03/2016

AU-61-KG

3120795628

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

24/03/2016

BN-08-TX

3120795637

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

1AT-3RT

3120795646

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

24/03/2016

177-IIY

3120795655

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

CA-75-UD

3120795664

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

BZ-42-QI

3120795673

No Parking

106.00

24/03/2016

CB-65-YA

3120795682

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

CB-68-XI

3120795700

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

YCQ-05F

3120795710

Park longer than permitted

106.00

24/03/2016

AUC-46K

3120795729

Park longer than permitted

106.00

24/03/2016

DAF-18X

3120795738

Park longer than permitted

106.00

24/03/2016

BKV-63V

3120795747

Park longer than permitted

106.00

24/03/2016

ZCD-350

3120795756

Not park wholly within bay

106.00

24/03/2016

CD-37-ZX

3120795765

No Parking

106.00

24/03/2016

BS-27-SD

3120795774

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

ASW-48E

3120795783

No Stopping

248.00

24/03/2016

AWC-56X

3120795792

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

CD-37-ZX

3120795801

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

CD-21 UJ

3120795810

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

24/03/2016

AQ-65-WA

3120795820

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

24/03/2016

BS-87-HM

3120795839

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

24/03/2016

BY-51-MC

3120795848

         Loading Zone

177.00

24/03/2016

MK-327

3120795857

Stop on Path/strip

106.00

24/03/2016

BH-39-YF

3120795866

No Parking

106.00

24/03/2016

 

March 2016 (cont.)

PARKING

REGO NO.

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

DATE ISSUED

CZJ-09X

3120795875

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

24/03/2016

BMX-93U

3120795884

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

24/03/2016

BU-11-ZN

3120795893

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

24/03/2016

AKN-48F

3120795902

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

24/03/2016

VSU-223

3120795911

No Stopping

248.00

24/03/2016

BV-00-MO

3120795920

No Parking

106.00

24/03/2016

BW-76-PW

3120795930

No Parking (School Zone)

177.00

24/03/2016

CMM-04E

3120795949

No Stopping (school zone)

319.00

24/03/2016

243-VS0

3120795958

Bus Zone

248.00

30/03/2016

WTL-12

3120795967

Bus Zone

248.00

30/03/2016

ZBC-234

3120795976

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/03/2016

CC-56-VU

3120795985

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/03/2016

CA-56-XL

3120796003

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/03/2016

663-WGT

3120796012

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

1EGR-151

3120796021

No Parking

106.00

30/03/2016

YQN-990

3120796030

No Parking

106.00

30/03/2016

BH-06-YF

3120796122

No Stopping

248.00

30/03/2016

CB-68-XI

3120796131

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/03/2016

CYH-48R

3120796140

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

107-VDY

3120796150

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

121-SIS

3120796169

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

AA-06-KI

3120796178

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

GK-727

3120796187

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

CML-56L

3120796196

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

888-IHI

3120796122

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

BWQ-66Q

3120796214

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

UFY-507

3120796223

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/03/2016

CHQ-35R

3120796232

Taxi Zone

177.00

30/03/2016

 

 

TOTAL:

13726.00

 

 

March 2016

COMPANION ANIMALS & OTHER

CHIP NO.

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

DATE ISSUED

943094320252378

3120795691

Not under control P/place

220.00

24/03/2016

N/A

3120796040

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

30/03/2016

N/A

3120796059

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

30/03/2016

N/A

3120796068

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

30/03/2016

N/A

3120796077

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

30/03/2016

N/A

3120796086

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

30/03/2016

N/A

3120796095

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

30/03/2016

N/A

3120796104

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

30/03/2016

N/A

3120796113

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

30/03/2016

N/A

3120795994

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

30/03/2016

 

 

TOTAL:

1210.00

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    28 April 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5      SF1963            280416         Impact of Transfer of Public Housing Properities to NGO's

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Following the successful action by Community Housing Limited against this Council and other Councils to gain an exemption from paying rates representations were made to the Minister for Social Housing, the Hon. Brad Hazzard, in relation to its concerns about the transfer of public housing from Housing NSW to various non-government organisations and the substantial loss of rate income which will   flow from such transfers.  Council requested that the Minister introduce legislation which ensures that       such organisations be required to pay Council rates on the public housing which they own.  A copy of the letter was also forward to Local Government NSW for their information.

 

The Minister has replied through LG NSW and noted that it was his opinion that the impact was small and it would not be appropriate to take action while review of the Rating System is underway.  The Minister suggested if LG NSW wished to pursue the matter that they take it up with the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Paul Toole as he has responsibility for statutory exemptions to the Local Government Act 1993.  A copy of the Minister’s letter is attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.       That Council make representations to the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Paul           Toole, in relation to its concerns about the transfer of public housing from Housing NSW     to           various non-government organisations and the substantial loss of rate income which will           flow from such transfers.  Further that the Minister be requested to take these concerns into           consideration when responding to the  Review of the Local Government Rating System.

 

 

2.       That Local Government NSW be informed of representations.

 

3.      That Council make a submission to IPART in regard to the Issues Paper for its Review of the           Local Government Rating System, seeking to have the impact of transfer of public      housing           from Housing NSW to various non-government organisations          and the loss of rate            income which will flow from such transfers included in the review.

 

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can choose not to pursue the matter further and simply receive the report for information.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Community Housing Limited took action against this Council and other Councils who had made the same determination that they should pay rates.  The other Councils which were party to the action were Clarence Valley Council, Parramatta City Council, Port Macquarie Hastings Council, Gosford Council and Coffs Harbour Council.  The Marsden Law Group acted as solicitors for all the councils.

 

The Court dismissed the proceedings and ordered Community Housing Limited to pay costs.  The judgement found that Community Housing Limited is not a public charity or public benevolent institution as referred to in the LGA.  However Justice Harrison only dismissed the application on a limited basis that having regard to the construction of the terms of the object clause in Community Housing Ltd’s constitution that they were not properly characterised as a public benevolent institution or public charity for the purposes of the Local Government Act.

 

Community Housing Limited then appealed this decision in the Court of Appeal.

 

By decision delivered on 19 October, the Court of Appeal which was constituted with three judges has now upheld the appeal by Community Housing Ltd with the councils being ordered to pay the costs of Community Housing Limited.  A copy of the advice from the Marsdens Law Group concerning the appeal is attached.

 

The outcome of the matter does have some important policy implications for all local government areas where the Department of Housing owns existing public housing stock.

 

In the Nambucca local government area, the Department of Housing (NSW Housing) have until recently been the registered owner of 240 residential properties.  Under the Housing Act 2001 NSW Housing are obliged to pay local government rates on these properties.  Assuming these properties are all on the minimum rate they having been paying in 2015 dollars 245 x $785 or a total of $192,325 per annum in rates.

 

Recently Housing NSW financed the purchase of 5 properties for Community Housing Ltd.  Also they have transferred management responsibility for a further 15 properties to Community Housing Ltd.  The concern is that Housing NSW will continue to transfer ownership of public housing to non-government organisations such as Community Housing Ltd and over time the Council will incur a significant short fall in rate revenue.   This is a classic example of cost shifting.

 

The Council made representations to the Minister for Social Housing, the Hon. Brad Hazzard as well as to Local Government NSW in relation to this cost shifting.

 

The Minister has replied through LG NSW and noted that it was his opinion that the impact was small and it would not be appropriate to take action while review of the Rating System is underway.  The Minister suggested if LG NSW wished to pursue the matter that they take it up with the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Paul Toole as he has responsibility for statutory exemptions to the Local Government Act 1993.  A copy of the Minister’s letter is attached.

 

The outcome of the matter does have some important policy implications for all local government areas where the Department of Housing (Housing NSW) owns existing public housing stock.  Under the Housing Act 2001, NSW Housing are obliged to pay local government rates on these properties.  However if they are transferred to non-government organisations such as Community Housing Ltd then rates are not payable.  The rates income from the Department of Housing (Housing NSW) existing public housing stock is a little over 2% of total rates income, this may seem to a small percentage but is still larger than the rate pegging increase for 2016-17 and the loss of any income impacts Council’s capacity to provide services to the Nambucca community.

 

It is recommended that Council write to Hon. Paul Toole, Minister for Local Government explaining these concerns and requesting that they be taken into consideration when considering the  Review of the Local Government Rating System.

 

It is also recommended that That Council make a submission to IPART in regard to the Issues Paper for its Review of the Local Government Rating System, seeking to have the impact of transfer of public housing from Housing NSW to various non-government organisations and the loss of rate income which will   flow from such transfers.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Michael Coulter - General Manager

Chris Wills – Rates Officer

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental implications.

 

Social

 

There are no significant social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The financial risks to Council are discussed in the report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The Council’s has incurred substantial legal costs to date that have previously been reported to Council.

 

The Council has also had to write back the outstanding rates on the 5 properties owned by Community Housing Limited over a period of three years.  The total of the rates write back was $11,851.  Council will be deprived of future rate income of approximately $4000 per year in today’s dollars.

 

If all Department of Housing (Housing NSW) existing public housing stock was transferred to non-government organisations such as Community Housing Ltd the reduction in rates income would be a little over 2%.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds at this stage.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There is no impact on service levels at this stage.

 

Attachments:

1

13080/2016 - Minister's response regarding the Impact of Public Social Housing Properties to Non Government Organisations

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Impact of Transfer of Public Housing Properities to NGO's

 



Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    28 April 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6      SF2025            280416         Review of the Local Government Rating System.

 

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

 

Summary:

 

IPART has released an Issues Paper relating to its Review of the Local Government Rating System. It outlines how IPART proposes to approach this review, explains how stakeholders can provide input, and discusses the issues on which it particularly seeks comment. 

 

The Issues Paper as well as the Terms of Reference for this review is available on the IPART’s website.  A copy of a summary Fact Sheet is attached for reference. Interested stakeholders are invited to make submissions by 13 May 2016. 

 

Although the time frames are very tight it is recommended that Council make a submission highlighting the issues raised in the Nambucca Fit For Future Council Improvement Proposal and the recent decision which resulted in Community Housing Ltd not having to pay rates on the basis that they qualified for an exemption as a benevolent institution.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council make a submission to IPART on its Review of the Local Government Rating System.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can choose not to make a submission

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The NSW Premier has requested IPART to review the rating system for local government.  IPART has released an Issues Paper as part of the review process.  The Issues Paper outlines how IPART propose to approach this review, explains how stakeholders can provide input, and discusses the issues on which IPART particularly seek comment.  Interested stakeholders are invited to make submissions on the issues raised in the Issues Paper by 13 May 2016. 

 

The time frames are very tight with an Interim Report on options for achieving the rate path freeze for merging councils to the Minister for Local Government by 17 June 2016 and a public release a Draft Report on all the issues in August 2016.   A Final Report will be provided to the Minister for Local Government in December 2016.

 

Nambucca Shire Council has recently raised issues in representations made to the Minister for Social Housing, the Hon. Brad Hazzard, in relation to its concerns about the transfer of public housing from Housing NSW to NGO’s and in the Shire’s Fit for Future Council Improvement Proposal.  It is therefore recommended that Council make a submission based on these concerns.  More specifically that Council’s submission is based on the following comments as referenced in the Issues paper.

 

 

Issue One - Rating of caravan and mobile home parks - Issues Paper Section 4.3 Rating Categories

 

There are nine caravan parks and two mobile home parks in the Nambucca Shire.  These are intense centres of population and activity (and therefore significant users of Council services) They are levied modest rates based on land valuation alone.  Permanent park residences represent approximately 6% of dwelling in the Nambucca Shire compared to a NSW average of approximately 1% of dwellings.  If the owners of these homes paid minimum rates the additional income on top of what the Parks currently pay would be $292,767 or 2.9% of the 2015-16 rate income.

 

Council is seeking a solution to address this inequity, possibly by enabling LGA’s to establish a rating category that captured caravan and mobile home parks so rates could be levied that reflected the intensity of use.  Council is of the opinion this should be additional rate revenue is open to any other effective solution to this problem.

 

 

Issue Two - Rate Pegging - Issues Paper  Section 4.5 Rate pegging and special variations

 

It is argued that Councils should be free to work with their communities to set rates that enable the delivery of services the communities are prepared to pay for.  Council supports the Advisory Panels option that Rate Pegging be Replaced with Rate Benchmarking.

 

As a second option Council supports the Panel’s option of introducing earned autonomy, where certain councils demonstrating consistent high performance could earn complete exemption from rate pegging. 

 

Councils suggests partial relief from rate pegging could also be helpful.  A suggestion is that a prequalified Council (for example a Council Found “Fit for the Future”) be permitted, without making a special rate variation application;  to increase rate revenue a maximum of 4% over rate peg  over a 4 years term of Council, but not by more than 2% in any one year.

 

 

Issue Three - Exemption from Rates - Charities Issues Paper  5.1 Exemptions from Rates

 

Consideration should be given to the impact of transfer of public housing from Housing NSW to various non-government organisations and the loss of rate income which will flow from such transfers addressed and the exemption removed.  This issue relates to the action taken by Community Housing Ltd to claim exemption for rates on public housing on the basis of their charity status.  Nambucca Shire would like to see this exemption removed.

 

Issue Four - Exemption of rates on Crown Land and State Forest  Issues Paper  section 5.1 Exemptions from Rates

 

This is extracted from Council’s Fit for the Future Council Improvement Proposal

 

The Nambucca Shire faces a number of specific challenges in relation to delivering services to the residents on a economically sustainable basis. These include….

 

·    41% of the Shire is either National Park or State Forest that yields no rates revenue

National Parks valued at an average farmland valuation and levied at the farmland rate would yield income of $670,899 or 6.8% of the 2015 -16 rate income.

 

·    State forest valued at an average farmland valuation and levied at the farmland rate would yield income of $724,605 or 7.3% of the 2015-16 rate income.

 

·    Other non-rateable properties.  Crown Land not privately leased, religious organisations, charitable bodies, public benevolent intuitions, local Aboriginal land councils and schools  399 properties valued at $57,476,151 rates foregone $318,919 or 3.2% of the 2015-16 rate income. Nambucca Shire also has 24km of coastline; typically this is Crown land but it is the Shire’s responsibility to maintain it.  While it is a wonderful asset to the Shire, enjoyed by locals and visitors alike, coastal erosion, salt laden air, fragile ecosystems and high public demand for facilities make the coastline an inherently expensive strip of land in which to provide and maintain infrastructure.

 

 

Issue Five Issues Paper section 5.2 Concessions for Pensioners

 

Nambucca Shire attracts a large number of retirees and has one of the largest proportion of rate assessments in New South Wales that attract the pensioner discount. This is consistent with the north coast of NSW being seen as an appealing place to retire.

Last year 2,481 assessments out of a total 9,277 assessments (26.7%) attracted a pensioner discount.  Total rebate was $902,872 with Council being reimbursed $496,579 by the State, for a net cost to Council of $406,293 or 4.1% of 2015-16 rates income. 

It is recommended that Nambucca Shire submits that funding this concession should not be a responsibility of Local Governments and it is open to all reforms that reduce this burden.

 

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Michael Coulter - General Manger

Craig Doolan - Manager Financial Services

Chris Wills Rates Officer

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT and FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

This report discusses a submission seeking to influence legislative reform. In the broader sense these reforms will definitely have sustainability and financial impacts, but to attempt to define these impacts at this time would be mere speculation.  

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

13623/2016 - fact sheet - review of local government rating system - 13 April 2016

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Review of the Local Government Rating System.

 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    28 April 2016

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 10.1    SF25                280416         Donations Program (Section 356) 2016/2017 - Applications for Approval

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Teresa Boorer, Business Services Officer         

 

Summary:

 

Council’s Donations Program 2016/2017 accepted applications from 11 February 2016 to 8 April 2016. Twenty-one (21) community group applications were received. Council’s Donations Policy states that each application will be identified, the amount applied for noted, and the purpose for which the funds are being requested.  This year the applications total $40,861.57 (including a contribution amount of $100 to the Red Cross).   It is intended to allocate $12,000 of Council’s donation budget in this round.

 

Nineteen (19) applications meet the eligibility criteria, however two (2) are for funding an event and the application asks for a signed declaration that:

 

5.       The application is not for funding of an event.

 

The Nambucca River Festival and Volkswagen Spectacular applications are for funding assistance for a specific event.      

 

As per Council’s adopted revised Donations Policy, Council will donate $50 to each of the Nambucca Shire’s fourteen (14) schools for annual Presentation Days, and this amount is set aside from remaining 20% of the donations budget, being $3,000. Once the schools are paid their donation, there will be available funds left of $2,300. 

 

The Donations Program also includes charitable organisations seeking to dispose of waste at the Nambucca Waste Management Facility, both on a regular basis and for one-off events.  Ten (10) waste waiver applications were received within the deadline, and two (2) after – one on Monday, 11/04/2016, and one on Tuesday, 12/04/2016.

 

All applications are attached.

 

 

RecommendationS:

 

That Council:

 

1          Considers approval for all donation requests less than $1000, being:

 

            Bowraville Goannas Rugby Union Club; Trickivic’s Thursday Country – Radio Nambucca Show; Red Cross – $100 (proposed);  Macksville Lions Club; Frank Partridge VC Military Museum; Bowraville Folk Museum – scanner only; and Lions Club of Bowraville; This is a total of $3766, leaving a balance of $8234 to be allocated.

 

2          Considers reduced donations, or not donating, to organisations that have received donations in the past two (2) years, being: North Coast Academy of Sport; Nambucca Community & Arts Centre CoM; Lions Club of Nambucca; Nambucca Valley Garden Club; Scotts Head Sports Field CoM;

 

3          Considers reduced donations for all other eligible applicants, perhaps a donation of a third of the amount requested - [$19745.57 / 3 = $6581.86 OR $6582];

 

4          Considers allocating the balance of $1652 between those applicants that have received donations in the past 2 years, donating $330 to each of the five (5);

 

5          Considers reduced donations for all eligible applicants, perhaps one third of each of their requests – [$35861.57 / 3 = $11953.86];

6          Considers a small donation to each of the ineligible applicants for a Section 356 donation, for an event – VW Spectacular and Nambucca River Festival - from the available balance of the 20% of the donations budget.

 

7          Approves applications for a waste waiver from the charitable organisations of Anglican Parish Opportunity Shop in Macksville, Salvation Army Community Welfare Centre,  Nambucca Valley Phoenix, Nambucca Valley Christian Life Centre – Care n Wear and Nambucca Heads Mens Shed. Also approve applications from Camp Quality Opportunity Shop (received 11/04/2016) and Anglican Op Shop, Nambucca Heads (received 12/04/2016);

 

8          Approves applications for a waste waiver, and provision of services, for one-off events/regular events being: bi-monthly markets and Carols at Valla Reserve (Valla Beach Community Association); Christmas Carols at Macksville Park (Salvation Army); Lions Annual Fair at Valla Hall (Lions Club of Valla); Nambucca River Festival (Rotary Club of Macksville); and Macksville Gift (Macksville Athletics Club Inc).

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That Council reject all the above recommendations and decide to approve or not approve individual applications for funding or waste waivers.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Donations Program Assessment

Twenty-one (21) applications were received from community organisations under the Donations Program (Section 356) 2016/20176 programme, open from 11 February 2016 to 8 April 2016 and eleven (11) applications for waste waivers were received, as summarised in the tables below:

 

Community Group Applications:

 

Organisation

Amount Requested

Use of funds

Source of funds

Frank Partridge VC Public School,  Nambucca Heads

$2,000.00

Further development of cultural garden, bush tucker walk and native habitat.

GL

Bowraville Goannas Rugby Union Club

$966

Applied for various amounts to support the Club, however have listed funding for Under 18’s jerseys

GL

North Coast Academy of Sport

$2,300.00

Donation request based on 12 cents per capital

GL

Nambucca Community and Arts Centre CoM

$1,800.00

Installation of sound insulation panels to rear wall of Main Hall of NCAC building

GL

Volkswagen Spectacular

$2,500.00

Advertising and promotion of the Spectacular

NOT ELIGIBLE

GL

Trickvic’s Thursday Country (Radio Nambucca Show)

$500.00

Costs associated with accommodation and travel for a live broadcast from Hats Off Festival in Tamworth, July 7-10, 2016

GL

Red Cross Calling 2016

$100

(No specific amount requested)

Red Cross Appeal 2016

GL

Gordon Park Tennis Centre CoM

$1509.00

Purchase of 1 X Velo Veltia Tri Blade Hand Dryer and one case of hand sanitizer

GL

Lions Club of Nambucca Heads

$4,200

Various listed needs (see attached applications)

(Note: 2015/16 donation not expended or acquitted)

GL

Macksville Lions Club Inc

$500

Purchase of, paint & install 1 X 3 seater wooden seat within Dawkins Park, Macksville

GL

Nambucca Valley Garden Club Inc

$2,000

Purchase of a PA System for annual Garden Gala and markets

GL

 

Scotts Head Sports Field CoM

$1,200

Purchase of line-marking paint for marking out athletics, cricket, soccer & rugby league fields

GL

Frank Partridge VC Military Museum

$500

Industrial Vacuum Cleaner for use in museum and restoration shed

GL

Nambucca River Festival

$2,500

Support for festival

NOT ELIGIBLE

GL

Nambucca Heads Pre-School

$3,736.57

Retro fit and refurbish existing bathroom facilities

GL

Bowraville Folk Museum

$1,550

Epson Scanner - $700; and Colour Printer - $1,350

GL

Unkya Reserve CoM

$2,000

25m2 of shade sail over children’s sandpit in playground

GL

Nambucca District Band

$2,500

Assistance with running costs

GL

Marine Rescue Nambucca

$8,000

Replacement of rails for vessel launching

GL

Lions Club of Bowraville

$500

Funds to assist in setting up a “soup kitchen” on a regular basis (perhaps monthly)

GL

Macksville Athletic Club Inc

In-kind

On-going assistance with re-establishment of running track at Macksville Park; wavier of fees for Macksville Gift applications

GL

TOTAL

$40,861.57

 

GL

 

·      Lions Club of Nambucca Heads received $1,000 through last year’s funding round, to support the ANZAC Jetty project. They have not yet spent the 14/15 or the 15/16 allocations, ($1,000 each year), as they are still seeking the majority of funding to kick off the project. 

 

 

Waste Waiver Applications – One-off/Regular events:

 

Organisation

 

Estimated tonnage

Valla Beach Community Association – monthly markets on Reserve

0.35

Nambucca River Salvation Army – Annual Carols in Macksville Park

1

Lions Club of Valla – Lions Annual Fair (1st Sunday in January)

2

Nambucca River Festival

1

Macksville Gift (estimated tonnage)

0.35

Total

4.7

 

Waste Waiver Applications:

 

Organisation

 

Estimated tonnage

Macksville Anglican Op Shop

15

Nambucca Valley Phoenix

  5

Salvation Army Community Welfare Centre

16

Nambucca Valley Christian Life Centre – Care n Wear

11

Nambucca Valley Men’s Shed

  2

Camp Quality Opportunity Shop (received 11/04/2016)

15

Nambucca Heads Anglican Op Shop (received 12/04/2016)

  3

Total

67

 

·      All five (5) applicants for the one-off/regular events are new in this financial year, and all seven (7) waste waiver applications for bulk drops at our waste facility, have been previous applicants.

·      If Council adopts the recommendation for waste waiver applications, there will be an allowable tonnage of 71.7 tonnes per annum, which is within the target limit of 75 tonnes set by Council last year.

 

RELATED DONATIONS INFORMATION

 

As per Council’s determination of 13/03/2013 in relation to an ongoing donation to the Nambucca District Rescue Squad Inc for payment of their waste, water and sewer costs, the amount that the NDRS was exempted from paying in 2015/2016 was $510.00.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services

Manager Financial Services

Waste Management Officer

Rates Assistant

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

 

Social

 

There are positive social benefits associated with the donation of money to various community groups throughout the Nambucca Shire.

 

Economic

 

There are positive economic impacts for the charitable organisations which would otherwise be unable to meet the costs of disposal of unwanted goods.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks associated with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

A total amount of $12,000 (80% of the total allocation of $15,000) is available in the 2016/2017 budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

General ledger funds as established by Council.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

No change or implications.

Attachments:

1

12221/2016 - Waste Waiver Applications - 2016/2017 - one-off events (5)

 

2

12238/2016 - Section 356 Donation Applications - 2016 2017 (10) - Part 1

 

3

12239/2016 - Section 356 Donation Applications - 2016 2017 - (9) - Part 2

 

4

12240/2016 - Section 356 Donation Applications for events - 2016 2017 (2)

 

5

12220/2016 - Waste Waiver Applications - 2016/2017 - Op Shops & Charitable Organisations (6)

 

6

12535/2016 - Waste Waiver Application 2016/2017 - Anglican Opportunity Shop, Nambucca Heads

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Donations Program (Section 356) 2016/2017 - Applications for Approval

 






Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Donations Program (Section 356) 2016/2017 - Applications for Approval

 



























Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Donations Program (Section 356) 2016/2017 - Applications for Approval

 























Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Donations Program (Section 356) 2016/2017 - Applications for Approval

 






Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Donations Program (Section 356) 2016/2017 - Applications for Approval

 







Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Donations Program (Section 356) 2016/2017 - Applications for Approval

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    28 April 2016

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 10.2    SF2211            280416         Customer Satisfaction Survey March 2016

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Jetty Research has delivered the final report on the Customer Satisfaction that was conducted in March 2016.  James Parker, Managing Director of Jetty Research will be attending the Council meeting to present the report.  The results show the Community’s priorities are consistent with previous years and there has been a pleasing improvement in Council’s performance.

 

Recommendation:

 

That the report be received

 

 

OPTIONS:

This report is for information

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Jetty Research has delivered the final report on the Customer Satisfaction that was conducted in March 2016.  James Parker, Managing Director of Jetty Research will be attending the Council meeting to present the report.  The survey is similar in format to the 2007, 2010 and 2013 reports to enable for comparison of results.  A notable addition to this year’s survey is a question on Amalgamation. 

 

The report shows a general improvement in Council’s performance compared to Resident’s expectations.

Even the areas with the biggest gap between expectation and satisfaction improved - notably bridges.

 

The survey indicates the area’s where Council needs to improve is responding to enquiries and powering economic growth.

 

It is notable that only a slender majority supported Council remaining an independent Local Government.

 

CONSULTATION:

Bellingen Shire

Jetty Research

General Manager

Sample size 407 participants

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT and FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

The results of this survey build on previous results and will be used to guide future decisions of Council.

The cost was within the current budget and comparable to cost in 2013.  There was a small saving as a result of Bellingen and Nambucca working together

 

 

Attachments:

1

13730/2016 - Nambucca Customer Satisfaction Survey 2016 - Final Draft

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Customer Satisfaction Survey March 2016

 

 

 

 

A report measuring satisfaction with facilities and

services managed by Nambucca Shire Council

 

 

Description: nambucca.jpg

 

 

 

 

Results from a random telephone survey of

407 adult residents in the Nambucca Shire, conducted

by Jetty Research on behalf of Nambucca Shire Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft Final Report dated: April 13th 2016

 

 

Description: address line word

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact:

James Parker

e: James.Parker@jettyresearch.com.au

p: 02 6650 9175

 

 

 

 

Level 1, 30 Industrial Drive

Coffs Harbour NSW

PO Box 1555

Coffs Harbour NSW 2450

 

 

 

 

w: www.jettyresearch.com.au

e: info@jettyresearch.com.au

Coffs Harbour               Sydney

ACN 121 037 429

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by                          Christine Dening

Reviewed by                        James Parker

Date                            April 13th 2016

Document Name   Nambucca Customer Satisfaction Survey April 2016

Version                                  Draft Final

 

Table of Contents

Disclaimer. 5

Executive summary. 6

Introduction.. 9

Background and Objectives. 9

Methodology. 9

Sampling error. 10

Graph i: How sampling error varies with sample and population size. 10

Sample characteristics. 11

Graph i: Survey sample by age. 11

Graph ii: Survey sample by gender 11

Graph iii: Survey sample by postcode. 12

Graph iv: Survey sample by urban v rural setting. 12

Graph v: Survey sample by length of residence in the Nambucca Shire. 13

Part 1: Satisfaction with, and importance of key services and facilities. 14

Graph 1.1: Summary of mean satisfaction scores for 26 different Council services and facilities, 2016 only. 14

Table 1.1: Comparison of satisfaction mean scores 2013 vs.2016 (rated from highest positive change to highest negative change) 15

Table 1.2: Comparison of satisfaction mean scores urban vs. rural respondents 2016 (rated from highest difference to lowest difference) 16

Graph 1.2: Summary of mean importance scores for 26 different Council services and facilities, 2016 only. 17

Table 1.3: Comparison of importance mean scores 2013 vs. 2016 (rated from highest positive change to highest negative change) 18

Table 1.4: Comparison of importance mean scores 2013 vs. 2016 (rated from highest positive change to highest negative change) 19

Graph 1.3: Satisfaction vs. importance matrix: the “big picture”. 20

Graph 1.4: Satisfaction vs. importance matrix in detail 21

Table1.5: Summary of satisfaction and importance quadrants. 22

Table 1.6: Gap analysis for 26 selected facilities and services: 23

Part 2: Overall satisfaction with Council. 24

Graph 2.1: Please rate your satisfaction with Council’s overall performance. 24

Graph 2.2: Can you explain why you gave that score? (unprompted) 25

Graph 2.3: Most important use of Council resources. 26

Part 3: Contact with Council. 27

Graph 3.1: Contact with Council in the past 12 months. 27

Graph 3.2: Frequency of contact with Council in the past 12 months. 27

Graph 3.3: Issue contacted Council regarding. 28

Graph 3.4: Number of contacts required to resolve their most recent enquiry. 29

Graph 3.5: Why issue has not yet been resolved. 29

Graph 3.6: Method for contacting Council 30

Graph 3.7: Satisfaction with how well Council handled your enquiry. 30

Graph 3.8: Method of contacting Council by enquiry type. 31

The link between contact and overall satisfaction. 32

Part 4: Council Website. 33

Graph 4.1: Have you used the Council website during the past year?. 33

Graph 4.2: What did you use it for? (unprompted) 34

Graph 4.3: Awareness that you can access your rates account online. 35

Graph 4.4: Interest in accessing online rates account 35

Graph 4.5: Awareness of road closure information websites. 36

Part 5: Perception of Safety. 37

Graph 5.1: Perception of safety. 37

Part 5: Council mergers. 38

Graph 5.2: Preference for Nambucca Shire merging with neighbouring Council or standing alone. 38

Graph 5.3: Preference for Nambucca Shire merger partner 39

Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire. 40

Appendix 2: Satisfaction with Council services and facilities by groups of interest. 53

Graph A2.1: Satisfaction with Council Services and Facilities, by age. 53

Graph A2.2: Satisfaction with Council Services and Facilities, by region. 53

Appendix 3: Importance of Council services and facilities by groups of interest. 54

Graph A3.1: Importance placed on Council Services and Facilities, by age. 54

Graph A3.2: Importance placed on Council Services and Facilities, by region. 54

Graph A3.3: Importance placed on Council Services and Facilities, by urban v rural 55

Graph A3.4: Importance placed on Council Services and Facilities, by satisfied v dissatisfied. 55

Appendix 4: Contact regarding.. 56

Graph A4.1: Contact inquiry by age. 56

Graph A4.2: Contact inquiry by region. 57

Appendix 5: Suggested improvements to the Council website. 58

 

 

Front cover photo: Nambucca Heads. Photo Courtesy of pacificcoast.com.au


 

 

Disclaimer

 

While all care and diligence has been exercised in the preparation of this report, Jetty Research Pty. Ltd. does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained within and accepts no liability for any loss or damage that may be suffered as a result of reliance on this information, whether or not there has been any error, omission or negligence on the part of Jetty Research Pty. Ltd. or its employees.

 

 

 


 

 

Executive summary

 

In January 2016, Nambucca Shire Council commissioned Jetty Research to conduct a representative and statistically valid telephone survey of 400+ adult residents living within the local government area (LGA). The survey aimed to assess satisfaction with, and priorities towards different Council-managed facilities and services using a random and statistically valid sample.

 

This survey follows similar polls conducted in 2007, 2010 and 2013. Hence it was also designed to see how results have varied from previous research waves, where appropriate.

 

The 2016 survey was also designed to provide community feedback on a range of other issues including: frontline service levels; awareness of and interest in online rates; information on road closures; perception of safety, and; attitude towards fit-for-the-future mergers.

 

Polling was conducted from March 7th to 14th 2016 as a random telephone survey of 407 adult residents living throughout the LGA. No formal quotas were applied, although we did attempt to ensure an adequate mix of respondents across age groups and sub-regions.

 

Based on the number of households within the Nambucca Shire, a random sample of 407 adult residents implies a margin for error of +/- 4.8% at the 95% confidence level. This essentially means that if we conducted a similar poll twenty times, results should reflect the views and behaviour of the overall survey population – in this case “all Nambucca Shire adult residents excluding council employees and councillors” - to within a +/- 4.8% margin in 19 of those 20 surveys.

 

For more information on survey methodology, sampling error and sample characteristics, see pages 9-10. For more detailed information on the demographic breakdown of survey respondents, see pages 11-13.

 

Among the survey’s major conclusions:

1.    Of 26 council services and facilities measured, 20 had a mean satisfaction score of three or above (using a 1-5 satisfaction scale). Top-ranked services included water supply, which scored 4.16 out of a possible 5, and sewage collection and treatment (at 4.11). Libraries, the Council pool and sporting facilities also scored exceptionally well.

2.    Conversely, six services had a mean score of below “par”. Roads were the worst-ranked of the services measured (with unsealed roads scoring a mean of 2.49 and sealed roads a mean of 2.65 out of 5) followed closely by economic development and new investment (2.74) and development applications (2.82).

3.    In terms of importance, river water quality had the highest mean rating at 4.34 (again using a 1-5 scale). This was followed by sealed roads (4.27), waste and recycling (4.20), cleanliness of streets (4.00) and coastal and beach management (3.99).

4.    When placed into a matrix of importance vs. satisfaction, the following picture emerged:

 

 

(Continued next page)

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

5.    Council is currently meeting expectations (i.e. where performance outweighs importance) across six out of 26 services (sewage collection and treatment, sporting facilities, libraries, community halls, water supply Council pool and online services). However in all but one instance (waste and recycling), the expectation gap has narrowed since 2013 – and in most case significantly. This suggests Council is performing better relative to community expectations.

6.    In terms of their overall satisfaction with Council’s performance, 46% declared themselves satisfied against 20% dissatisfied and the balance neutral. The weighted mean satisfaction rating of 3.28 was slightly above the 2013 benchmark score of 3.18.

7.    Roads (34%), attracting new businesses and investment (26%) and addressing environmental concerns and beach erosion (5%) were the top-mentioned priorities for Council resources.

8.    Some 54% of respondents had contact with Council’s administration during the previous 12 months, with half of these (51%) contacting Council three or more times.

9.    Three in five of those who contacted Council did so via the telephone (62%), while a quarter contacted Council face-to-face.

10.  Over half those respondents contacting Council had their issue resolved within one or two contacts (56%) but almost a third of respondents 31% indicated that their most recent enquiry was not yet resolved.

11.  Satisfaction ratings with Council handling of their most recent enquiry were quite polarised, with large proportions rating Council handling as either “very well” (32%), or “very poor” (26%). The mean handling rating was 3.19 with a net handling score of +13% suggesting that there were more good than bad experiences.

12.  Just over a third of respondents had used Council’s website in the past year (38%) – up sharply from the 25% recorded in 2013.


 

 

 

13.  Around half of those surveyed (46%) were aware of that rates information could now be accessed online. And a similar proportion of ratepayers with computers claimed they were interested in accessing this information online.

14.  Awareness of livetraffic.com.au was high at 72% while awareness of myroadinfo.com.au was poor at 27%.

15.  Perceptions of personal safety were generally high, with 95% of respondents feeling safe in their home at day, 80% feeling safe in their nearest town during the day, and 79% feeling safe in their home at night. However only 44% felt safe in their nearest town at night, against 28% feeling unsafe (the balance being neutral or unsure).

16.  Over half of respondents (56%) felt the Nambucca Shire should maintain the status quo and stand alone as a council, while one in five (21%) felt it should merge with one or more neighbouring Councils. A further 23% were undecided. Of those believing Council should amalgamate, the most popular merger partners were Bellingen and/or Coffs Harbour.

 

 

 

 

Description: JamesSIG1

James Parker, B. Ec, Grad Cert Applied Science (Statistics), AMSRS

Managing Director

April 13th 2016

 


 

 

Introduction

 

Background and Objectives

 

In January 2016, Nambucca Shire Council (BSC) commissioned Jetty Research to conduct a random and representative telephone survey of 400 local residents to measure their satisfaction with Council service levels. The survey was also designed to provide for longitudinal (i.e. time-based) comparisons with similar telephone polls conducted by Jetty Research in 2007, 2010 and 2013.

 

In this instance, Council additionally sought community feedback on: frontline service levels; awareness of and interest in online rates; information on road closures; perception of safety, and; attitude towards fit-for-the-future mergers.

 

 

Methodology

 

The survey was conducted using a random fixed line telephone poll of 407 residents aged 18+. Respondents were selected at random from a verified random sample residential telephone database of 3,169 residential telephone numbers within the LGA[1]. A survey form was constructed collaboratively between Council management and Jetty Research (see Appendix 1), based on satisfying the above objectives.

 

Polling was conducted between March 7th and 14th 2016 from Jetty Research’s Coffs Harbour CATI[2] call centre. A team of ten researchers called Nambucca Shire residents on weekday evenings (excluding Friday) from 3.30 to 8pm. Where phones went unanswered, were engaged or diverted to answering machines, researchers phoned on up to five occasions at different times of the afternoon or evening.

 

The poll was conducted on a random basis, other than ensuring an adequate mix of respondents across different sub-regions. Respondents were screened to ensure they were aged 18 or over, had lived within the Nambucca Shire for at least 12 months, and were not councillors or permanent Council employees.

 

Survey time varied from 9 to 36 minutes, with an average of 16.4 minutes. Response rate was satisfactory, with 46% of eligible households reached agreeing to participate.

 

Please note that due to the nature of the survey, not all respondents answered every question. The number of respondents answering each question is marked as “n = XXX” in the graph accompanying that question. Caution should be taken in analysing some questions due to the small sample size.

 

Where differences in this report are classed as significant, this implies they are statistically significant based on independent sample t-scores or other analysis of variation (or ANOVA) calculations. In statistical terms, significant differences are unlikely to have been caused by chance alone. 


 

 

Sampling error

 

According to the 2011 ABS Census (Usual Resident profile) the total population of the Nambucca LGA was 18,644, of which 14,208 (76%) were aged 18 and over. Based on this latter survey population, a random sample of 407 adult residents implies a margin for error of +/- 4.8% at the 95% confidence level. (This means in effect that if we conducted a similar poll twenty times, results should reflect the views and behaviour of the overall survey population to within a +/- 4.8% margin in 19 of those 20 surveys.)

 

As Graph i shows, margin for error falls as sample size rises. Hence cross-tabulations or sub-groups within the overall sample will typically create much higher margins for error than the overall sample. For example using the above population sizes, a sample size of 100 exhibits a margin for error of +/- 9.8% (again at the 95% confidence level).

 

Graph i: How sampling error varies with sample and population size

 

 

In addition to the random sampling error, above, there may also be some forms of non-random sampling error which may have affected results. These include respondents without fixed line phones, the proportion of non-respondents (refusals, no answers etc.) and/or imperfections in the survey database. However there is no evidence (at least in terms of significant variances between demographic groups within the survey sample) to suggest that such non-random error has affected the integrity of the following data.


 

 

Sample characteristics

 

The following breaks down the survey sample by age, gender and place of residence:

 

Graph i: Survey sample by age

 

 

As is common in random phone surveys of this type, the sample was skewed towards older residents. However this has been corrected through post-weighting the survey sample to match the target population characteristics (by age and gender) based on 2011 Census data.

 

Graph ii: Survey sample by gender

 

 

The sample was almost evenly split by gender.


 

 

 

Graph iii: Survey sample by postcode

 

 

In relation to the regional split, the 2016 sample had a higher proportion of Bowraville and Macksville residents than that encountered in 2013. This came largely at the expense of Nambucca Heads.

 

Graph iv: Survey sample by urban v rural setting

 

 

The proportion of urban-based respondents fell from 58% in 2013 to 47% in 2016. This was matched by a 13% rise in rurally-based respondents.


 

 

 

Graph v: Survey sample by length of residence in the Nambucca Shire

 

 

Four in five respondents had lived in the Nambucca Shire for more than 10 years. This was similar to 2013.

 

 


 

 

Part 1: Satisfaction with, and importance of key services and facilities

 

The survey commenced with a series of scale-based questions designed to understand the satisfaction and importance attributed by residents to 26 Council-managed facilities and services. With a few exceptions[3] these were unchanged from the 2013 survey, in order to allow direct comparison of results.

 

Looking first at satisfaction, using a 1-5 scale (where 1 = very dissatisfied, 3 = neutral and 5 = very satisfied):

Graph 1.1: Summary of mean satisfaction scores for 26 different Council services and facilities, 2016 only

 

 

This suggests that 20 of the 26 facilities and services scored at or above the 3.0 “neutral” ranking. These were led by water supply, which scored 4.16 out of a possible 5, and sewage collection and treatment (at 4.11). Libraries, the Council pool and sporting facilities also scored exceptionally well.

 

Among the six facilities and services scoring less than the neutral ranking, roads were the worst-ranked of the services measured (with unsealed roads scoring a mean of 2.49 and sealed roads a mean of 2.65) followed closely by economic development and new investment (2.74) and DA’s (2.82).


 

 

 

 

Table 1.1, below, looks at how mean satisfaction scores compare with the same survey conducted in 2013. Changes of more than 5% are marked in green (positive) and red (negative):[4]

 

Table 1.1: Comparison of satisfaction mean scores 2013 vs.2016 (rated from highest positive change to highest negative change)

 

 

Pleasingly, almost a third of the services and facilities measured (9 of 26) showed an increase in mean score by more than 5%. Better still, bridges, youth facilities and activities, river water quality, sealed roads and economic development/new investment all increased by 10% or more. Coastal and beach management, and waste and recycling decreased by more than 5%, suggesting that these are areas requiring focus.

 

There were a number of differences in satisfaction levels by age, region and urban vs. rural. These differences were quite mixed, and further details are shown in Appendix 2.

 

Table 1.2: Comparison of satisfaction mean scores urban vs. rural respondents 2016 (rated from highest difference to lowest difference)

 

 

There were a number of services and facilities rated higher amongst those residing in urban areas than those residing in rural areas and vice versa.  Specifically, urban residents were more satisfied with waste and recycling, weed control, sewage collection and treatment, dog control and water supply than rural residents.  Conversely, rural residents were (marginally) more satisfied with cleanliness of streets, footpaths and cycleways, coastal and beach management and economic development/new investment.

 

In terms of importance, and again using a 1-5 scale, Graph 1.2 (next page) shows how Nambucca Shire residents rank the relative importance of the same 26 facilities and services:


 

 

 

Graph 1.2: Summary of mean importance scores for 26 different Council services and facilities, 2016 only

 

 

What is most notable about this graph is that almost everything is considered important: apart from the lowest-ranked facility, online services, all facilities and services had a mean of more than three out of a possible five. And 17 of the 26 had mean importance scores exceeding 3.5.

 

Table 1.3, meanwhile, shows how average importance scores have changed since the last survey in 2013.

 

 

 

 

(Continued next page)


 

 

 

Table 1.3: Comparison of importance mean scores 2013 vs. 2016 (rated from highest positive change to highest negative change)

 

 

Between 2013 and 2016, importance decreased across all services. A number of services saw decreases in importance by more than 20% including: sewage collection and treatment, development applications, dog control, libraries and youth facilities and activities. This is likely to be partially due to the higher proportion of rural residents in this latest survey.)

 

Similarly to satisfaction scores, there were a number of differences in perception of importance by groups of interest.  Specifically, those residing in urban areas placed higher importance on footpaths and cycleways, dog control, stormwater drainage, water supply and sewage collection and treatment than those residing in rural areas. And younger residents (aged 18-39) placed higher importance on most Council services and facilities than older residents.  Further detail of these differences, including a number of differences by post code, are outlined in Appendix 3.


 

 

 

Table 1.4: Comparison of importance mean scores 2013 vs. 2016 (rated from highest positive change to highest negative change)

 

 

Those in urban areas placed significantly higher importance on sewage collection and treatment, water supply, stormwater drainage, footpaths and cycleways and dog control than those in rural areas. Those in rural areas placed higher importance on unsealed roads.

 

We can also plot the mean importance and satisfaction scores on a matrix to see how they rank in relative terms. Looking at this firstly in “big picture” terms, Graph 1.3 shows how the 26 services relate to each other on the 1-5 scales of importance and satisfaction:


 

 

 

Graph 1.3: Satisfaction vs. importance matrix: the “big picture”

 

 

This concentration in the top half of the graphs highlights the notion that to local residents, almost everything is important. Satisfaction mean scores, however, (shown on the x-axis) are far more widely distributed.

 

Graph 1.4, on the next page, hones in on this data to show how individual services and facilities fare in relation to each other. Note that we have amended the x- and y-scales in order to provide four quadrants signifying lower and higher satisfaction and importance[5]:

 

Those services and facilities included in the top right quadrant denote those classed as “higher satisfaction, and higher importance”. Those in the top left corner are those considered by residents of higher importance, but for which satisfaction mean scores are less than the average across all services. These are traditionally considered the services and facilities requiring of greatest attention and/or resources by Council.


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Customer Satisfaction Survey March 2016

 

Graph 1.4: Satisfaction vs. importance matrix in detail


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 April 2016

Customer Satisfaction Survey March 2016

 

 

 

 

The quadrants are summarised in Table 1.5, below:

 

Table1.5: Summary of satisfaction and importance quadrants

 

 

Seven of the 26 services and facilities fall into the “higher importance, higher satisfaction” quadrant, and seven into the “higher importance, lower satisfaction” corner.

 

One final way to analyse this data is by measuring the gap between importance (interpreted here as “expectation”) and satisfaction. In an ideal world, the satisfaction of a service would match or exceed the importance placed on it by residents. This does not work in practice, primarily due to the extremely high importance scores for pretty much every facility or service. However it is still useful to see where the “expectation gaps” are highest and lowest. This is shown in Table 1.6 (ranked from lowest to highest gap):

 

 

 

(Continued over page…)


 

 

 

Table 1.6: Gap analysis for 26 selected facilities and services:

 

 

This shows that Council is currently meeting expectations (where performance outweighs importance) across seven out of 26 services (water supply, sewage collection and treatment, sporting facilities, community halls, libraries, Council pool and online services). 

 

In the remaining 20 services, Council is not currently meeting community expectations - importance outweighs performance.

 

Impressively, the gap between importance and performance has decreased across all services (with the exception of one – waste and recycling) – and in most cases this change has been significant. This indicates that Council is getting closer to meeting resident expectations.

 

Even so, the size of the gap highlights the following services as areas of concern: sealed roads; economic development and new investment; river water quality; environmental monitoring and protection; and unsealed roads (all of which have a gap of more than 25%).


 

 

Part 2: Overall satisfaction with Council

 

Once they had been asked to score their satisfaction with the individual facilities and services, respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with Council’s overall performance  - again using a 1-5 scale where 1 denoted very dissatisfied, 3 was neutral and 5 denoted very satisfied.

 

The scores for 2010, 2013 and 2016 are shown in Graph 2.1, below:

 

Graph 2.1: Please rate your satisfaction with Council’s overall performance

 

 

This suggests that 46% of residents were satisfied with Council’s overall performance in 2016 (rating satisfaction as a 4 or 5), against 38% in 2012, a slight increase. Conversely 20% were dissatisfied, against 23% last time around. This suggests that there has been an overall upward movement in the proportion satisfied with Council since 2010 (41% in 2010 and 46% in 2016) at the expense of those feeling neutral (43% in 2010 compared with 34% in 2016).

 

The mean satisfaction score of 3.28 is up slightly on the 3.18 recorded in 2013. Importantly, net satisfaction has risen over the same period from +15 to +26%.

 

Those residents providing overall satisfaction ratings of 1, 2, 4 or 5 were then invited to comment on why they had scored Council accordingly. Their open responses have been coded (i.e. themed), with these themes shown in Graph 2.1, next page:


 

 

 

Graph 2.2: Can you explain why you gave that score? (unprompted)

 

 

The majority of those with positive scores had trouble articulating specific reasons for their satisfaction, noting instead that Council did a good job generally.

 

Others noted that Council tried hard and was good at communicating.

 

Those with negative comments, on the other hand, tended to be more specific. While a significant proportion indicated that there was generally room for improvement, roads and infrastructure were specifically noted as requiring improvement. Some criticised Council management with perceptions that Council was slow to act, a poor communicator or is wasteful.

 

“Other” comments were varied:

·    I know the financial part of it is bad, they need to develop area so the youth doesn’t run away.

·    The river mouth and the estuary is a danger as it needs to be dredged to ensure there is a clear channel. Community development organisation associated with people working with council seem to receive additional funding and funding preference, which is biased and unfair.

·    We have had a DA application in - out several times, altered, payed more payments. The state government legislated that these simpler DAs should not be such a complex problem yet this is just becoming unreasonable, especially as we are working to do the right thing but there has not been much help from the council with clear information. The inspector saw the plans, he could have given us clear advice or warning at the outset, rather than approve something then go back and say no.


 

 

 

·    I think they could do more for the valley investment wise and tourism attract more people to the area. More small business the encouragement, town needs to grow.

·    Staff shortage.

·    I don't think they are doing much in terms of youth development and tourism and bringing and keeping young people in the area it has become more of a retirement village.

 

In an unprompted question, respondents were then asked what they thought Council’s number one priority should be over the next couple of years. (If unsure they were prompted with “this may be a recurring expenditure item, a new piece of infrastructure, or anything else Council should make its number one spending priority for the next few years.”)

 

Graph 2.3: Most important use of Council resources

 

 

Unsurprisingly, roads were considered to be of highest importance in terms of use of Council resources with around one third (34%) believing this should be Council’s number one priority in the next couple of years.  Attracting new businesses and investment was next in line, mentioned by 26% of those surveyed.

 

Smaller proportions also mentioned more specific Council priorities such as addressing environmental concerns (5%), facilities for youth (4%), beautification of the Shire (4%), facilities or services for aged / disabled (3%), bridged (3%) and river quality (3%).

 

“Other” priorities related to Council management (such as improving efficiency), housing development (including subdivision, halfway houses and general development) and focussing on education.  The full list of “other” priorities mentioned are listed in Appendix 3.


 

 

Part 3: Contact with Council

 

The next series of questions dealt with residents’ satisfaction over their personal dealings with Council.

Graph 3.1: Contact with Council in the past 12 months

 

 

Just under half of respondents (46%) had contact with Council in the past 12 months which did not regard a payment. The proportion of residents contacting Council has remained stable wave-on-wave.

 

Rural residents were more likely to have had contact with Council than urban residents (53% and 39% contact respectively). Similarly, those residing in Bowraville were more likely to have contacted Council (59%) than those in Nambucca or Macksville (40% each). And those aged 40-59 were also more likely to contact Council than those aged 18-39 or 60 years and over (55% compared with 42% and 40% respectively).

 

Graph 3.2: Frequency of contact with Council in the past 12 months


 

 

 

Approximately half (51%) of those who had contacted Council in the past 12 months did so once or twice.  The remaining half contacted Council three or more times.  Females and those aged 18-39 years were more likely to have contacted Council just once than males and those aged 40-59 years (30% of females to 20% of males, and 39% of 18-39 year olds to 17% of 40-59 year olds).

 

Graph 3.3: Issue contacted Council regarding

 

 

Understandably, a wide range of topics were mentioned as the reason for most recent contact with Council.  The most frequently mentioned topic of enquiry was roads and footpath improvements (mentioned by 18% of those who contacted Council) followed by vegetation and trees (16%), development applications (12%) and ranger matters (7%).

 

“Other” topics included: fencing; pool inspections; the shooting range, and; property boundaries - to name just a few.

 

Those aged 40-59 years were more likely to contact Council regarding a development application (21% to 6% of both 18-39 year olds and 60 years and over) while older residents were more likely to contact Council regarding vegetation and trees and younger residents were more likely to notify Council of road and footpath improvement requirements. Differences in Council requests by groups of interest are outlined in greater detail in Appendix 4.

 

Respondents were then asked how many contacts they made with Council to resolve their most request enquiry.

 


 

 

 

Graph 3.4: Number of contacts required to resolve their most recent enquiry

 

 

Over half those respondents contacting Council had their issue resolved within one or two contacts (56%) but almost a third of respondents 31% indicated that their most recent enquiry was not yet resolved.

 

Those in urban areas were more likely to have their issue resolved on first or second contact than those in rural areas (51% and 42% respectively).  Those in rural areas were more likely to indicate that their issue was not yet resolved (36%) than those in urban areas (24%).

 

Graph 3.5: Why issue has not yet been resolved

 

 

Almost half of those who indicated that their enquiry was not yet resolved indicated that the issue was ongoing (45%). One in five were unhappy with the resolution (22%) and, disappointingly, 19% indicated that Council didn’t respond to their enquiry.

 

 

 

Those aged 60 years and over were more likely to indicate that their issue was still ongoing than those aged 18-39 years (50% and 38% respectively). Those aged 18-39 years were more likely to suggest that Council didn’t respond to their enquiry than those aged 60 years and over (63% and 6% respectively.

 

Graph 3.6: Method for contacting Council

 

 

Three in five of those who contacted Council did so via the telephone (62%) and one quarter (27%) face-to-face.  Online methods of contact with Council were used by only a very small proportion, suggesting this is an area where promotion is required.

 

Graph 3.7: Satisfaction with how well Council handled your enquiry


 

 

 

 

Satisfaction ratings with Council handling of their most recent enquiry were quite polarised with large proportions rating Council handling as either very well (32%) or very poor (26%).  The mean handling rating was 3.19 with a net handling score of +13% suggesting that there were more good than bad experiences.

 

Graph 3.8: Method of contacting Council by enquiry type

 

 

Online is the preferred method of contact with Council when conducting transactional or passive contacts with Council such as making a payment (53%)or getting updates on road closures (31%). However people preferred to lodge a form or applications in person (56%), likely due to any assistance required for completing the form.  Telephone was preferred when requesting Council to do something (50%).

 

Those aged 18-39 were significantly more likely to prefer online methods for making payments, completing applications and providing feedback on an issue than those aged 60 years or older (61% compared to 45%, 50% compared to 14% and 44% compared to 9% respectively). Conversely, those aged 60 and over were more likely to prefer face-to-face methods for making a payment and completing or lodging applications and forms (38% compared to 13%, and 66% compared to 38% respectively).

 

This suggests, as one would expect, that online tends to be the default contact method for those aged 18 to 39 years.


 

 

 

The link between contact and overall satisfaction

 

Council survey after council survey suggests that overall customer satisfaction is more closely aligned to residents’ experiences in dealing with Council than it is to their satisfaction with specific services and facilities. And so it has proven in this instance as well.

 

Data linking (a) satisfaction scores with how a personal contact has been handled and (b) overall satisfaction suggests a direct link between the two. In particular, there appears to be a statistically significant correlation between dissatisfaction with the way such contact is handled, and a poor overall satisfaction score.

 

This once again highlights the need to ensure that all communication with residents is as timely and empathetic as possible – particularly where the decision is at odds with a resident’s preferred outcome!

 

 

 


 

 

Part 4: Council Website

 

Respondents were then asked a number of questions regarding their use of the Council website.

 

Graph 4.1: Have you used the Council website during the past year?

 

 

Just over a third of respondents had used the website in the past year (38%). Website use is climbing with the proportion of respondents indicating they had used the website showing an upward trend (from 22% in 2010 to 25% in 2013 and 38% in 2016).

 

Unsurprisingly, younger residents were more likely to have used the website than older residents (44% of 18-39 years, and 44% of those aged 40-59 years compared with 27% of those aged 60 years and older.

 

Those who had used the website in the last year were asked what they had used it for:

 

 

 

 

(Continued next page)

 


 

 

 

Graph 4.2: What did you use it for? (unprompted)

 

 

Research (70%), looking up Council policies (14%), making or logging an online request (10%) and to find a telephone number (6%) were the most frequently mentioned website uses.  These website uses have demonstrated changes in proportions over the measurement periods, however the general purposes have remained the same.

 

Those who used the website were asked if they could think of ways in which the website could be improved.  The majority could not think of how to improve it, suggesting that it fitted their need.  The comments made by those who did offer suggestions are outlined in Appendix 3.

 

 

 

 

 

(Continued next page)

 


 

 

 

Graph 4.3: Awareness that you can access your rates account online

 

 

Almost half of those surveyed claimed to be aware that they could now access their rates online. Interestingly this was consistent between different ages and genders.

 

Graph 4.4: Interest in accessing online rates account

 

 

Excluding renters and those without a computer, almost half of the respondents (46%) indicated that they would like to access the rates account online service.

 

Younger age groups showed greater interest in utilising this service than older residents (59% of 18-39 year olds suggested they were interested in accessing their rates account online compared with 37% of those aged 60 years and older).


 

 

 

Graph 4.5: Awareness of road closure information websites

 

 

Meanwhile awareness of livetraffic.com.au was high at 72%. However awareness of myroadinfo.com.au was very poor, at just 27%.

 

Awareness of livetraffic.com.au was highest amongst those aged 18-39 years (83%) and 40-59 years (83%) compared with those aged 60 years and older (57%).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Part 5: Perception of Safety

 

Respondents were next asked how safe they felt across a number of circumstances.  Safety was rated on a 5-point scale (where 1 meant extremely unsafe and 5 meant extremely safe):

 

Graph 5.1: Perception of safety

 

 

Unsurprisingly, the proportion of residents indicating that they felt safe or extremely safe (rating safety as 4 or 5 out of 5) was highest when at home alone during the day (95%).  90% rated safety as a 4 or 5 when in their nearest town during the day and 79% when at home alone at night.  Perception of safety when out in the nearest town at night was significantly lower, with just 44% indicating they feel safe in that situation.

 

As one would expect, older residents felt significantly less safe in their nearest town at night than younger respondents (with mean safety scores of 2.99 for those aged 60-plus, against 3.44 for those 18-39). And Nambucca residents felt less safe than those in Macksville or Bowraville (with mean safety scores of 2.94, 3.39 and 3.39 respectively). However there was no significant difference by gender.

 


 

 

Part 5: Council mergers

 

The survey concluded with a number of questions regarding Council mergers. First, respondents were asked to indicate whether they felt Nambucca Shire should continue to stand alone or merge with one or more neighbouring Council.

 

Graph 5.2: Preference for Nambucca Shire merging with neighbouring Council or standing alone

 

Over half of respondents (56%) felt Nambucca Shire should continue to stand alone while one in five (21%) felt Council should merge with one or more neighbouring Council. A further 23% were undecided.

 

Support for merging was highest among males (29% compared with 14% of females).  Those residing in Macksville were more likely to indicate that they felt Nambucca should stand alone than those residing in Nambucca (65% compared with 44%).

 

Those who indicated that Nambucca Shire should merge with one or more neighbouring Council were asked which Council they thought they should merge with:

 

 

 

 

(Continued next page)

 


 

 

 

Graph 5.3: Preference for Nambucca Shire merger partner

 

 

Bellingen Council was the preferred merger partner amongst respondents favouring a merger (32%). This was followed closely by Bellingen and Coffs Harbour (27%), Kempsey (21%), Coffs Harbour (8%) and Kempsey and Bellingen (6%).

 

However these results should not be extrapolated due to the small sample size (n=86).


 

 

Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire

Version 1

Nambucca_Council_CSS_2016

Last modified:14/03/2016 10:43:16 AM

 

 

Q1.

 Hi my name is (name) and I'm calling from Jetty Research on behalf of Nambucca Shire Council. We're looking to speak with people aged 18-60, would anyone in your household be in that age range?

YES - Council is conducting a customer satisfaction survey of its residents, and you have been randomly selected to participate in this. This survey takes around 12 minutes, we're not trying to sell anything and all answers will remain confidential. Would you be willing to assist Council this afternoon/evening? .NO - We've had such a high response from people over 60 and we now need to hear from other age ranges so we have a good mix of all age groups. Thank you for your time.

 

 

 

Offer CALL BACK if inconvenient time. Council contact is Scott Norman, assistant GM. Phone 6568 0227 during business hours and arrange Callback.

 

 

 

 

Yes

1

Go to Q3

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

 

 

 

Q1

 

 

 

Q2.

Thank you for your time. Have a great afternoon/evening. . .

If NOT IN SHIRE: I'm sorry this survey is for residents in the Nambucca Shire. Thank you for your time. . . .

 

LIVED IN SHIRE LESS THAN 1 YEAR: I'm sorry in that case you don't qualify for this survey as you need to be a resident for at least 1 year to participate. Thank you for your time.

 

COUNCILLOR OR PERMANENT COUNCIL EMPLOYEE: I'm sorry, but councillors and permanent employees or their families are not able to complete this survey. But thank you for your time.

 

 

End


 

 

Q3.

Thanks so much. Before we proceed, I just have three quick qualifying questions. Firstly can you confirm you’re aged 18 or over?

 

 

 

If under 18 ask to speak to an adult and go back to page 1

 

 

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

Go to Q2

 

 

Q3

 

 

 

Q4.

Do you live in the Nambucca Shire?

 

 

 

Nambucca LGA. Where would you go if you had to speak to Council

 

 

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

Go to Q2

 

 

Q4

 

 

 

Q5.

 Have you lived in the Shire for at least 1 year?

 

 

 

Must have lived in Shire for more than 12 months

 

 

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

Go to Q2

 

 

Q5

 

 

 

 

Q6.

And are you or an immediate family member a councillor or permanent employee of Nambucca Shire Council?

 

 

 

Yes

1

Go to Q2

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

 

 

 

Q6

 

 

 

Q7.

May I have your first name for the survey?

 

 

 

Only so we can refer to you by name

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Q8.

Thanks [Q7]. To get us underway, can you please rate your satisfaction with the following Council facilities or services. We'll use a scale of 1-5, where 1 means you think its very poor and 5 is excellent. If you don't use the service, just say so and I'll move to the next one. Firstly how satisfied are you with?

 

 

 

PROMPTED- You may need to remind respondent to only rate sevices they use

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Very poor

2

3

4

5 Excellent

N/A

 

 

Sealed roads

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_1

 

 

Unsealed roads

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_2

 

 

Bridges

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_3

 

 

Footpaths and cycleways

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_4

 

 

Cleanliness of streets

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_5

 

 

Online services

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_6

 

 

Dog control

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_7

 

 

Stormwater drainage

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_8

 

 

Public toilets

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_9

 

 

Weed control

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_10

 

 

Waste and recycling

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_11

 

 

Water supply

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_12

 

 

Sewage collection and treatment

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_13

 

 

Sporting facilities

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_14

 

 

Parks, reserves and playgrounds

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_15

 

 

Council pool

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_16

 

 

Libraries

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_17

 

 

Community halls

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_18

 

 

Youth facilities and activities

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_19

 

 

Services for the elderly

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_20

 

 

Economic development and attracting new investment

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_21

 

 

Tourism marketing

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_22

 

 

Development applications ( DA's)

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_23

 

 

Coastal and beach management

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_24

 

 

Environmental monitoring and protection

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_25

 

 

River water quality

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q8_26

 

 


 

 

Q9.

 I'm now going to read the list to you again but this time please rate how important these Council facilities or services are to you or your family. We'll use a scale of 1-5, where 1 means you think its unimportant, 4 is very important and 5 is critical. So firstly, how important to you or your family is?

 

 

 

PROMPTED- You may need to remind respondent to only rate sevices they use

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Unimportant

2

3

4 Very important

5 Critical

 

 

Sealed roads

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_1

 

 

Unsealed roads

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_2

 

 

Bridges

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_3

 

 

Footpaths and cycleways

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_4

 

 

Cleanliness of streets

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_5

 

 

Online services

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_6

 

 

Dog control

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_7

 

 

Stormwater drainage

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_8

 

 

Public toilets

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_9

 

 

Weed control

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_10

 

 

Waste and recycling

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_11

 

 

Water supply

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_12

 

 

Sewage collection and treatment

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_13

 

 

Sporting facilities

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_14

 

 

Parks, reserves and playgrounds

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_15

 

 

Council pool

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_16

 

 

Libraries

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_17

 

 

Community halls

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_18

 

 

Youth facilities and activities

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_19

 

 

Services for the elderly

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_20

 

 

Economic development and attracting new investment

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_21

 

 

Tourism marketing

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_22

 

 

Development applications ( DA's)

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_23

 

 

Coastal and beach management

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_24

 

 

Environmental monitoring and protection

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_25

 

 

River water quality

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q9_26

 

 


 

 

 

Q10.

Please rate your satisfaction with Councils overall performance on a scale of 1-5. where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied?

 

 

 

1 Very dissatisfied

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

3

 

 

 

Q10

 

 

 

4

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Very satisfied

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q11.

Can you briefly explain why you gave that rating?

 

 

 

PROBE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q12.

And [Q7], thinking about Council services and infrastructure as a whole, what do you think Council's number one priority should be over the next couple of years?

 

 

 

Unprompted. If respondent is unsure: Say this may be a recurring expenditure item, a new piece of infrastructure, or anything else Council should make its number one spending priority for the next few years

 

 

 

 

 

Roads

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridges

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attracting new businesses/investment

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facilities or services for youth

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facilities or services for aged/disabled

5

 

 

 

Q12

 

 

 

Addressing environmental concerns/beach erosion

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upgrade footpaths/cycleways

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beautification of shire

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unsure

666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTHER