Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 19 November 2015

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Mayoral Minute 8.2

Mayoral Minute No. 8.2 Updates on Byron Shire Emission Reduction Initiatives

File No: I2015/1363

I move that Council:

1. Note the update on the Zero Emission Byron project, supported by Council.

2. Note the invitation to the Mayor, to present the Zero Emission Byron project at the 100% Renewable Energy Dialogue Workshop, as part of the ICLEI Global 100% Renewable Energy Cities and Regions Pavilion, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) conference in Paris.

3. Support the Mayor’s acceptance to showcase the Zero Emission Byron Project at the conference as outlined above and acknowledge this participation has, in large part, been funded by over 20 Shire residents and groups.

4. Support the Mayor joining the Compact of Mayors; the world’s largest cooperative effort among mayors and city leaders to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, track progress, and prepare for the impacts of climate change.

Background Notes:

1. Zero Emissions Byron (ZEB) project update

Background

The Zero Emissions Byron Project, to Create Australia’s first net zero emissions community, was first sparked in March 2015. It is a joint initiative of the Byron Shire Council, the internationally renowned research organisation Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) and members of the Byron Shire community. The Zero Emissions Byron (ZEB) Project aims to transition the entire Byron Shire region to zero greenhouse gas emissions, within 10 years. The project addresses all sectors of emissions, focusing on the five key areas of energy, buildings, transport, land use and waste. Byron Shire is the first community in Australia that has committed to this major goal, and the vision is that the project will drive large scale transformations within the region.

The Byron Shire community is passionate about renewable energy and other climate change solutions, and there are many local initiatives already happening within the region, which will form a part of the ZEB strategy. The ZEB project can act as an umbrella project to support other initiatives. For examply, ENOVA is a newly formed business in the region, which is Australia’s first community owned renewable energy retailer, and COREM (Citizens Own Renewable Energy Mullumimby), launched in October 2015, is a not-for-profit model for supporting the growth of solar energy within the local community.

The aim is that the ZEB project will provide a leading example and a replicable model for other communities to follow. Byron’s commitment to the goal of zero emissions places the region as a national and international leader. Already, the project is already attracting local and international recognition. For example, the project has been represented at national events such the Australian Green Development Forum, and the Australian Climate Leadership Summit in November. ZEB is also being showcased at numerous events in the Northern Rivers region, such as the Bioenergy Conference, the Sustainable Housing Design Day, COREM launch, Sustainable Urban Community Homes, and the Mullumbimby Show.

The ZEB project is to be profiled at the upcoming UN Framework Convention for Climate Change COP21 Paris Climate Change Conference. ZEB has been invited to join the ICLEI Global 100% Renewable Energy Cities and Regions Network, and to attend the 100% RE Network Meetings, the Climate Summit for Local Leaders, and the Compact of Mayors event.

It is imperative that we take serious action on climate change, on a local, State, Federal and international level. Byron Shire community is leading the way in tackling the solutions from the ground up, and showing what can be implemented at a community level. It is an ambitious project, but Australian and international research has shown that the transition to zero emissions is both technically and economically feasible. The Zero Emissions Byron project is providing a vital model in scaling solutions to the regional level.

Structure

· Governance

The Project Officer, Tiffany Harrison and Byron Shire Council, BZE and the Centre for Social Change, make up the Steering Committee alongside representatives from each sector’s working group that are helping to steer and support the project. Essentially, the community drives the project. There are five working groups covering each major sector of emissions, as well a group focused on communication and engagement. The working groups are made up of dedicated community members who are working in or passionate about the different sectors, and therefore have invaluable knowledge about what type of changes are both most feasible and of most benefit for the Byron Shire. It is the local input and knowledge that makes this project work for the region.

· Partnerships

A MOU between Byron Shire Council and BZE is currently being finalised; this is due for completion by the end of 2015.

Progress thus far

· Working groups

The five working groups are currently undertaking research and collecting data to assess the baseline emissions for the region. They are also collecting data on techincal solutions and developing methodologies and models that are relevant for the region, which will be used to develop detailed strategic plans for transition to zero emissions for all sectors. They are being supported by the Project Officer and researchers from BZE.

Promotion, Publicity and Wider support

· Presentations

As I outlined at a recent speaking engagement presenting the ZEB project at the Australian Green Development Forum in Brisbane, the drums of ambition reach far and wide. Since the announcement of the project and subsequent early beginnings, the ZEB project has garnered media coverage in the Guardian, local media and global renewable energy on-line journals. As a representative of ZEB, the mayor was invited to speak at a forum at the UNFCCC conference in Bonn, Germany earlier this year. This allowed the project to gain the attention of the Federal government and global emission reduction organisations and businesses. As stated within the background, again as a representative of ZEB, the mayor has showcased the project and the shire in general at the Australian Green Development Forum, and the Australian Climate Leadership Summit only recently. ZEB has also been showcased at numerous events in the Northern Rivers region, such as the Bioenergy Conference, the Sustainable Housing Design Day, COREM launch, Sustainable Urban Community Homes, and the Mullumbimby Show.

Also, as previously outlined, the ZEB project is to be profiled at the upcoming UN Framework Convention for Climate Change COP21 Paris Climate Change Conference.

· Organisational Support

Byron Shire Council, through its affiliation with ZEB has recently joined ICLEI. ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability is the world’s leading network of over 1,000 cities, towns and metropolises committed to building a sustainable future.

ICLEI was founded in 1990 by 200 local governments from 43 countries who convened for the first World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future at the United Nations headquarters in New York. Operations started in 1991 at the World Secretariat in Toronto, Canada, and the European Secretariat in Freiburg, Germany.

ICLEI’s first global programs were Local Agenda 21, a program promoting participatory governance and local sustainable development planning, and Cities for Climate Protection™ (CCP), the world’s first and largest program supporting cities in climate action planning using a five milestone process including greenhouse gas emissions inventories to systematically reduce emissions. ICLEI’s programs and campaigns looked beyond mere environmental aspects and embraced wider sustainability issues. The ICLEI Council acknowledged this and formally broadened the mandate of the association in 2003, renaming the association ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.

For more, see: http://www.iclei.org

Recently, Council as a key organisation within ZEB, was invited to join the Compact of Mayors and the official acknowledgement of its membership was made at a presentation as part of the Climate Leaders Summit in Sydney. For more on the Compact of Mayors, see point 4 below.

Funding

As with most newly established organisations, finances are scare. Currently an interim part time project officer is carrying out administrative and office duties alongside the facilitation and support of all working groups. Council staff time allowance to the project is minimal, though BZE has recently provided the research expertise of some of its members to provide applied research and localised research capabilities across the 5 sectors.

Verbal support for funding has been provided by Minister of Planning Rob Stokes, who held the pertinent Ministry until recently. Recent conversations with the new Minister of the Environment and Heritage, the Hon. Mark Speakman similarly suggest financial support is imminent.

It should be noted, that the base line data that will be developed will be of a high quality and its financial and research benefit to Council alone will be substantial.

Community engagement

Since the moment of its inception, the community have warmly embraced the ambition behind the ZEB project and have participated thoroughly. As so many local and regional residents already work in emission reduction field, it is a testament to the importance and benefit of an umbrella organisation that can focus actions towards the arrowhead outcome of an inspiring and desirable outcome; in this case, becoming a zero net emission community.

To facilitate engagement and communication, a Facebook page has commenced and is already a vibrant ideas forum.

To see more, or join, go to : https://www.facebook.com/Zero-Emissions-Byron-766605713457059/

Individuals with high-level research have quickly offered them for the use of ZEB. This includes the Mullumbimby Public School NSW, Sustainability Assessment Report. Short Term objectives, completed by Rachel Barnden, from the School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore. Also, Svea Portman has proposed to offer her work as part of her Masters of Renewable Energy Dissertation at Murdoch University to provide any research outcomes possible to assist ZEB.

Moving Forward

In the short term, the completion of the research, data collection and clarity on the methodologies to be employed and the eventual action plan to put what has been learned into concrete actions is paramount and should be completed within 6 months.

However, other benefits of ZEB and possibilities for it to it to deliver tangible emission reduction outcomes quickly have emerged. The Federal Government’s Emission Reduction Fund (ERF) could provide an incredible opportunity to secure potentially tens of millions of dollars of funding. Ultimately it is about funding emission reduction and funds projects of a scale usually too high for a local government to gain support. However, if each sectors working group creates a project for large-scale emission reduction they can all join under the ZEB project to become competitive for funding. If further reductions are needed, joining with neighbouring councils could scale up the ultimate proposal even further.

For more info on the ERF, see: https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund

2. Invitation to present the Zero Emission Byron project at the 100% Renewable Energy Dialogue Workshop, as part of the ICLEI Global 100% Renewable Energy Cities and Regions Pavilion, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) conference in Paris.

Byron Shire and the ZEB project are set to be showcased across a few different forums and opportunities throughout the conference.

The ICLEI World Secretariat invited me, as a spokesperson of ZEB and member of Compact of Mayors, to participate in the 100% Renewable Energy Dialogue Workshop which will take place at COP21 on 7 December 2015.

Within the formal invitation, the following information is description is provided:

“A global movement of cities, towns and regions is emerging to meet the challenge of our changing climate and to support each other in setting ambitious goals. Among these, many are now considering the goal of planning for a future based on increased energy efficiency and renewable energy – ideally 100% renewable energy. Given that many local leaders around the world who share these objectives will be coming to COP21 in Paris in early December, this is a great opportunity to bring them together – especially those that have either already made commitments to achieve 100% renewable energy or those that are actively considering if they can reach that goal. Accordingly, our three organizations – Simon Fraser University’s Renewable Cities program, ICLEI, and World Future Council - have partnered together to organize such a dialogue workshop at COP21. We invite you to participate in this event to spend two hours engaging with other local leaders around the following two questions:

· 1- What challenges does your government face in setting or reaching a target of 100% renewable energy?  

· 2- Which strategies to secure support for this goal yield the best results?    

The dialogue will take place December 7 2015, from 14:30 to 16:30 at Cities and Regions Pavilion –

Leaders from fifteen cities, towns and regions from around the world are being invited to participate in this dialogue. We would encourage each invited city, if possible, to be represented by two participants: the Mayor - or if that is not possible by another elected member of your City Council - plus a senior member of your city staff responsible for implementing your city’s energy, climate, environmental or sustainability policies.

The Mayor of Vancouver, Canada, Gregor Robertson, has already agreed to lead off this dialogue by sharing his city’s recent experience with designing a long-term plan to shift Vancouver to using 100% renewable energy. This will be a closed event (not open to media coverage), to encourage free and candid dialogue among participants.

This confidential dialogue will be followed by a larger open session for many more local and subnational governments, as well as civil society organizations and media, from 16:30 – 17:30 in the same Pavilion. Its purpose will be to promote the 100% RE Cities and Regions Network.”

To learn more of this part of the conference: http://tap-potential.org/tap2015-pavilion/

· Other events and showcasing opportunities include; a full-day field trip on 3 December to Lille to investigate the projects involved with Jeremy Rivkin’s “The Third Industrial Revolution" http://www.latroisiemerevolutionindustrielleennordpasdecalais.fr/train-of-change/

· Climate Summit for Local Leaders hosted by City of Paris on 4 December

· 100% RE Network meetings 7 December

· The Oceania timeslot in the Pavilion on 10 December- I have a good chance to formally present the ZEB project at this event

· Compact of Mayors event

3. Support for the Mayor to showcase the Zero Emission Byron Project at the conference as outlined above and acknowledge this participation has, in large part, been funded by over 20 Shire residents and groups

At time of writing, the crowd funding campaign-Showcasing Byron in Paris has raised $2995 with 40 hours remaining. Nearly 30 people have donated many others have expressed support for Byron to be with on the world stage. https://chuffed.org/project/showcasingbyron

4. The Compact of Mayors

As part of the negotiations with world organisations to be able to gain access to info and closed sessions at the UNFCCC conference, we were naturally asked to join these world initiatives. Joining the Compact of mayors is free and the commitments required for membership around emission reduction initiatives and reporting commitment we have already made.

The Compact of Mayors Oceania was a response to the lead up to Paris for councils who are taking up the challenge and leading the way on climate action. Local government in Australia has a history of climate action. Indeed, the largest and most successful council climate change program in Australia, if not the world, was ICLEI Oceania’s Cities for Climate Protection program that grew to a peak in 2008 when 240 councils across Australia were participating in the program, representing 84 per cent of the population.

What is the Compact of Mayors?

Launched at the 2014 United Nations Climate Summit, the Compact of Mayors is a global coalition of mayors and city officials pledging to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions, enhance resilience to climate change, and track their progress transparently.

By committing to the Compact, cities and towns must actively, and publicly, demonstrate their efforts to fight climate change and adapt to it. The significance of these efforts is captured through consistent, transparent reporting of climate data—with an overarching goal to drive more aggressive local actions and reaffirm existing targets.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, his Special Envoy Michael R. Bloomberg, and global city networks ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) and United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), with support from UN Habitat, formed the Compact of Mayors to empower and engage cities of all shapes and sizes to accelerate local climate action in the lead up to the UN Climate Conference in Paris in December 2015. It is supported by The Climate Group, the World Bank and the World Resources Institute (WRI).

By showing the collective successes achieved at the local level, cities can contribute to and support national commitments as momentum builds toward Paris. But the real value is the work that will happen after, as cities continue to meet milestones they have committed to and report on their progress.

Why does the Compact of Mayors focus on measurement and reporting?

The Compact follows the adage of former three-term New York City Mayor and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, Michael R. Bloomberg: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”

The data collected through the Compact of Mayors will help quantify the impact city actions have on global greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. This will allow open and transparent access to cities’ climate data, which can be used by national governments, private investors, the public or academics.

To ensure consistent and transparent measurement of emissions, the Compact of Mayors uses the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories (GPC)—the world’s most widely endorsed greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting and reporting standard for cities.

These measurements will highlight the impact of cities’ climate actions and may later be incorporated into national strategies or used to encourage increased public or private sector investments supporting local action in cities.

Benefits of Joining

Benefits for councils from joining the Compact of Mayors include:

· An opportunity to demonstrate international leadership on climate action  

· A forum for profiling your city and showcasing your innovative, transformative council actions

· Access to an international platform to demonstrate your commitment to be part of the global solution  

· Consistent, standardized and reliable assessment of council impact and progress toward meeting  commitments  

· Increased investor confidence and capital flows into cities  

· Mechanism for state and federal governments to recognize and resource local commitments

Signed: Cr Simon Richardson

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.2

Report No. 13.2 Council Meeting Schedule for 2016

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Mila Jones, Team Leader Administrative Services

File No: I2015/1276

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

This report is prepared to allow Council to determine the schedule of meetings for the 2016 calendar year as well as the dates for the Strategic Planning Workshops.

The proposed schedule of dates, times and places for the Ordinary Meetings and Strategic Planning Workshops in 2016 is recommended for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council adopts the following schedule of Ordinary Meetings and Strategic Planning Workshops (SPW) for 2016:

Date (2016)	Meeting/Workshop	Location (if not Mullumbimby)
4 February	Ordinary
11 February	SPW
25 February	Ordinary
17 March	Ordinary
24 March	SPW
7 April	Ordinary	Ocean Shores
14 April	SPW
28 April	Ordinary
19 May	Ordinary
26 May	SPW
9 June	Ordinary	Byron Bay
16 June	SPW
Midyear recess
4 August	Ordinary
11 August	SPW
25 August	Ordinary
Local Government Elections (10/9/16)
22 September	SPW¹
29 September	Ordinary²
6 October	Ordinary
13 October	SPW
27 October	Ordinary
17 November	Ordinary	To be determined
24 November	SPW
8 December	Ordinary
15 December	SPW

1. This SPW will be for induction and training purposes.

2. This Ordinary meeting will be solely for the purposes of electing the deputy mayor, s355, advisory and regional committee membership.

2. That the Ordinary Meetings to be held in the Council Chambers, Mullumbimby commence at 9.00am and conclude no later than 6.00pm unless otherwise resolved by Council.

3. That the Ordinary Meetings to be held in locations other than Mullumbimby commence at 4.00pm and conclude no later than 9.00pm unless otherwise resolved by Council.

Report

Council’s adopted Code of Meeting Practice Policy No. 14/004 states with relation to “Frequency of Ordinary Meetings of Council” as follows:

“4.1 Ordinary Meetings will be held on a three weekly meeting cycle excluding July and January each year.

4.2 The Council will by resolution, set the time, date and place of Ordinary meetings of the Council.

4.3 The scheduling of Ordinary meetings of Council may be changed by resolution of Council.

4.4 Unless determined to the contrary Special Purpose Committee meetings of Council are to be held according to Schedule “B”.”

Evaluation Report of the Bangalow Meeting and the holding of further meetings at alternate locations in the Shire

On 16 July 2015, Council resolved as follows:

15-327 Resolved that Council:

1. Amend the adopted Meeting Schedule for 2015 to hold the 8 October 2015 Ordinary Meeting starting at 4.00pm and completing no later than 10.00pm at a location, to be determined by the General Manager, in Bangalow.

2. Subject to an evaluation report to Council after the first meeting, consider holding two additional Ordinary meetings over the next 12 months; one in Ocean Shores and one in Byron Bay.

3. Determine the dates for the Ordinary meetings to be held in Ocean Shores and Byron Bay when adopting the Ordinary Meeting Schedule for 2016.

Bangalow - 8 October 2015

In accordance with part 1 of the resolution, the Ordinary Meeting of 8 October 2015 was held in Bangalow at the Moller Pavilion in the Bangalow Showground. The meeting commenced at 4.00pm and concluded at 9.20pm. There were approximately 30 people in the gallery at the commencement of the meeting and three speakers during public access. This number reduced during the course of the meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 7.00pm for dinner. The remaining members of the public left the meeting

during the dinner break, with a number of the community members taking the opportunity to meet and talk to Councillors and staff during the break.

The meeting closed prior to the scheduled time of 10.00pm since all agenda items were dealt with by 9.20pm.

An external company provided the audio facilities and active support during the meeting in order to monitor and adjust audio levels and replace microphones when necessary.

The costs and staff time taken to organise and hold the Ordinary Meeting in Bangalow are listed below. The amounts listed are over and above what a meeting in Mullumbimby usually requires. The items note whether these costs and staff time are one-off costs (due to the Bangalow meeting being the first offsite meeting), and whether the items will be regular offsite meeting costs.

Item	One-off	Regular
Administration
Catering supplies including meals for the public		$200
Urn	$180
Set-up and break-down of hall layout		$400

Technology
Audio facilities & audio recording service		$1,738
New AV equipment (projector/screen + accessories)¹	$5,689
New WiFi hotspot device	$539
Power cables & power conditioning devices	$446
Backup audio recorder	$174

Total costs	$7,028	$2,338

Staff
Administration (site visit, coordination etc)	2 days	1.5 days
IT (configuration, setup & onsite support)	2.5 days	2 days

^{1. This
equipment was purchased from an adopted budget allocation and will be used for
other meetings and for public engagement workshops.}

Future offsite meetings

Ultimately the success of the meeting is a matter for assessment and evaluation by Councillors. This evaluation and assessment needs to consider the access that off-site meetings provide to community members, to Councillors and staff, and that not all of the benefits can be assessed in quantifiable terms.

On the basis that this evaluation and assessment by Councillors is that the Bangalow meeting was successful and met the objectives for the holding meetings at offsite locations in the Shire, the schedule listed below has provided for three offsite meetings during 2016, including Ocean Shores and Byron Bay as per parts 2 and 3 of resolution 15-327. It is recommended though that the meeting finish time be changed to 9.00pm rather thank 10.00pm (as resolved) due to the drop off in the Community interest in the meeting after the tea break and the conclusion of the Bangalow meeting at 9.20pm. Further, it is recommended that the catering for future offsite meetings be provided by a local community organisations where there is a group willing and able to provide this function.

Meeting Schedule 2016

The schedule below has been prepared in accordance with parts 2 and 3 of Resolution 15-327 and in accordance with the determined meeting cycle including provision for a recess period of four weeks in both January and July 2016. The schedule has been prepared with consideration to events, such as public holidays, the local government elections and conferences. Listed below is the proposed 2016 Meeting Schedule:

Date (2016)	Meeting/Workshop	Location (if not Mullumbimby)
4 February	Ordinary
11 February	SPW
25 February	Ordinary
17 March	Ordinary
24 March	SPW
7 April	Ordinary	Ocean Shores
14 April	SPW
28 April	Ordinary
19 May	Ordinary
26 May	SPW
9 June	Ordinary	Byron Bay
16 June	SPW
Midyear recess
4 August	Ordinary
11 August	SPW
25 August	Ordinary
Local Government Elections (10/9/16)
22 September	SPW¹
29 September	Ordinary²
6 October	Ordinary
13 October	SPW
27 October	Ordinary
17 November	Ordinary	To be determined
24 November	SPW
8 December	Ordinary
15 December	SPW

1. This SPW will be for induction and training purposes.

2. This Ordinary meeting will be solely for the purposes of electing the deputy mayor, s355, advisory and regional committee membership.

· The Local Government Elections will be held on Saturday 10 September 2016. Due to the election timeframe, the normal September meeting has not been included in the schedule.

· The 2016 National General Assembly of Local Government will not affect the meeting dates as it is scheduled to be held from 19 to 22 June 2016 in Canberra.

· The LGNSW Annual Conference 2016 will not affect the meeting dates as it is scheduled to be held from 16-18 October 2016 in Wollongong.

· Easter public holidays will not affect the meeting dates as Good Friday and Easter Monday are on 25 and 28 March 2016.

Financial Implications

If it is resolved to hold Ordinary Meetings at off-site locations three times per year, there will be an additional cost of approximately $2,400 per meeting depending on the chosen location. These additional costs could include audio and IT resource equipment, room setup, catering supplies and staff costs. The cost per meeting may reduce over time as staff develop experience in the staging of off-site meetings.

It needs to be recognised that the costs of staging the first off-site meeting included a number of one off costs and additional costs related to staff time in the planning and conduct of the meeting at an off-site location.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The proposed 2016 Meeting Schedule has been prepared in accordance with the meeting frequency determined by Council’s adopted Code of Meeting Practice 14/004.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.3

Report No. 13.3 Budget Review - 1 July 2015 to 30 September 2015

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2015/1297

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report is prepared to comply with Regulation 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and to inform Council and the Community of Council’s estimated financial position for the 2015/2016 financial year, reviewed as at 30 September 2015.

This report contains an overview of the proposed budget variations for the General Fund, Water Fund and Sewerage Fund. The specific details of these proposed variations are included in Attachment 1 and 2 for Council’s consideration and authorisation.

Attachment 3 contains the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) as outlined by the Division of Local Government in circular 10-32.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That That Council authorise the itemised budget variations as shown in Attachment 2 (#E2015/72257) which includes the following results in the 30 September 2015 Quarterly Review of the 2015/2016 Budget:

a) General Fund - $0 adjustment in the accumulated surplus/working funds

b) General Fund - $607,900 decrease in reserves

c) Water Fund - $27,300 increase in reserves

d) Sewerage Fund - $3,900 decrease in reserves

2. That Council adopt the revised General Fund Accumulated Surplus/(Working Funds) of $919,100 for the 2015/2016 financial year as at 30 September 2015.

Attachments:

1 Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2015/72256

2 Itemised Listing of Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2015/72257

3 Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) required Quarterly Review Statement, E2015/72258

Report

Council adopted the 2015/2016 budget on 25 June 2015 via Resolution 15-293. It also considered and adopted the budget carryovers from the 2014/2015 financial year, to be incorporated into the 2015/2016 budget, at its Ordinary Meeting held 27 August 2015 via Resolution 15-386. Since that date, Council has reviewed the budget taking into consideration the 2014/2015 Financial Statement results and progress through the first quarter of the 2015/2016 financial year. This report considers the September 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

The details of the budget review for the Consolidated, General, Water and Sewer Funds are included in Attachment 1, with an itemised listing in Attachment 2. This aims to show the consolidated budget position of Council, as well as a breakdown by Fund and Principal Activity. The document in Attachment 1 is also effectively a publication outlining a review of the budget and is intended to provide Councillors with more detailed information to assist with decision making regarding Council’s finances.

Contained in the document at Attachment 1 is the following reporting hierarchy:

Consolidated Budget Cash Result

General Fund Cash Result Water Fund Cash Result Sewer Cash Result

Principal Activity Principal Activity Principal Activity

Operating Income Operating Expenditure Capital income Capital Expenditure

The pages within Attachment 1 are presented (from left to right) by showing the original budget as adopted by Council on 25 June 2015 plus the adopted carryover budgets from 2014/2015 followed by the resolutions between July and September and the revote (or adjustment for this review) and then the revised position projected for 30 June 2016 as at 30 September 2015.

On the far right of the Principal Activity, there is a column titled “Note”. If this is populated by a number, it means that there has been an adjustment in the quarterly review. This number then corresponds to the notes at the end of the Attachment 1 which provides an explanation of the variation.

There is also information detailing restricted assets (reserves) to show Council estimated balances as at 30 June 2016 for all Council’s reserves.

A summary of Capital Works is also included by Fund and Principal Activity.

Office of Local Government Budget Review Guidelines:-

The Office of Local Government on 10 December 2010 issued the new Quarterly Budget Review Guidelines via Circular 10-32, with the reporting requirements to apply from 1 July 2011. This report includes a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (refer Attachment 3) prepared by Council in accordance with the guidelines.

The Quarterly Budget Review Guidelines set a minimum standard of disclosure, with these standards being included in the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting as mandatory requirements for Council’s to address.

Since the introduction of the new planning and reporting framework for NSW Local Government, it is now a requirement for Councils to provide the following components when submitting a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS):-

· A signed statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer on Councils financial position at the end of the year based on the information in the QBRS

· Budget review income and expenses statement in one of the following formats:

o Consolidated

o By fund (e.g General, Water, Sewer)

o By function, activity, program etc to align with the management plan/operational plan

· Budget Review Capital Budget

· Budget Review Cash and Investments Position

· Budget Review Key performance indicators

· Budget Review Contracts and Other Expenses

The above components are included in Attachment 3:-

Income and Expenditure Budget Review Statement by Type – This shows Councils income and Expenditure by type. This has been split by Fund. Adjustments are shown, looking from left to right. These adjustments are commented on through pages 51 to 63 of Attachment 1.

Capital Budget Review Statement – This statement identifies in summary Council’s capital works program on a consolidated basis and then split by Fund. It also identifies how the capital works program is funded. As this is the second quarterly review for the reporting period, the Statement may not necessarily indicate the total progress achieved on the delivery of the capital works program.

Cash and Investments Budget Review Statement – This statement reconciles Council’s restricted funds (reserves) against available cash and investments. Council has attempted to indicate an actual position as at 30 September 2015 of each reserve to show a total cash position of reserves with any difference between that position and total cash and investments held as available cash and investments. It should be recognised that the figure is at a point in time and may vary greatly in future quarterly reviews pending on cash flow movements.

Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) – At this stage, the KPI’s within this report are:-

o Debt Service Ratio - This assesses the impact of loan principal and interest repayments on the discretionary revenue of Council.

o Rates and Annual Charges Outstanding Ratio – This assesses the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on Councils liquidity and the adequacy of recovery efforts

o Asset Renewals Ratio – This assesses the rate at which assets are being renewed relative to the rate at which they are depreciating.

These may be expanded in future to accommodate any additional KPIs that Council may adopt to use in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP.)

Contracts and Other Expenses - This report highlights any contracts Council entered into during the July to September quarter that are greater then $50,000.

CONSOLIDATED RESULT

The following table provides a summary of the overall Council budget on a consolidated basis inclusive of all Funds budget movements for the 2015/2016 financial year projected to 30 June 2016 but revised as at 30 September 2015.

2015/2016 Budget Review Statement as at 30 September 2015	Original Estimate (Including Carryovers) 1/7/2015	Adjustments to Sept 2015 including Resolutions*	Proposed Sept 2015 Review Revotes	Revised Estimate 30/6/2016 at 30/9/2015
Operating Revenue	72,162,100	0	390,600	72,552,700
Operating Expenditure	78,507,400	2,200	(1,654,200)	76,855,400
Operating Result – Surplus/Deficit	(6,345,300)	(2,200)	2,044,800	(4,302,700)
Add: Capital Revenue	10,726,000	0	764,100	11,490,100
Change in Net Assets	4,380,700	(2,200)	2,808,900	7,187,400
Add: Non Cash Expenses	14,586,500	0	(2,071,400)	12,515,100
Add: Non-Operating Funds Employed	4,100,000	0	0	4,100,000
Subtract: Funds Deployed for Non-Operating Purposes	(43,048,100)	0	(1,322,000)	(44,370,100)
Cash Surplus/(Deficit)	(19,980,900)	(2,200)	(584,500)	(20,567,600)
Restricted Funds – Increase / (Decrease)	(19,980,900)	(2,200)	(584,500)	(20,567,600)
Forecast Result for the Year – Surplus/(Deficit) – Working Funds	0	0	0	0

As the table above highlights, the forecast result for the year has not changed during the review period including Council resolutions. An adjustment though has been made to depreciation (non-cash expenses) to reflect actual depreciation incurred in the 2014/2015 year. This has reduced significantly due to the Roads and Drainage revaluation. Results by General, Water and Sewerage Fund are provided below:

GENERAL FUND

In terms of the General Fund projected Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) the following table provides a reconciliation of the estimated position as at 30 September 2015:

Opening Balance – 1 July 2015	$919,100
Plus original budget movement and carryovers	0
Council Resolutions July – September Quarter	0
Recommendations within this Review – increase/(decrease)	0
Forecast Working Funds Result – Surplus/(Deficit) – 30 June 2016	0
Estimated Working Funds Closing Balance – 30 June 2016	$919,100

The General Fund financial position has had no movement (including budget movements) as a result of this budget review. The proposed budget changes that have overall not impacted on this result have been highlighted in Attachment 1 and summarised further in this report below.

Council Resolutions

There were no Council resolutions during the July to September 2015 quarter that impacted the overall 2015/2016 budget result.

Budget Adjustments

The budget adjustments identified in Attachments 1 and 2 for the General Fund have been summarised by Budget Directorate in the following table:

Budget Directorate	Revenue Increase/ (Decrease) $	Expenditure Increase/ (Decrease) $	Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) Increase/ (Decrease) $
Organisation Development	39,000	39,000	0
Corporate & Community Services	191,300	81,800	109,500
Infrastructure Services	(322.500)	(207,900)	(114,600)
Sustainable Environment & Economy	78,100	73,000	5,100
Total Budget Movements	(14,100)	(14,100)	0

Budget Adjustment Comments

Within each of the Budget Directorates of the General Fund, are a series of budget adjustments identified in detail at Attachment 1 and 2. More detailed notes on these are provided in Attachment 1 but in summary the major additional items included are summarised below by Division and are included in the overall budget adjustments table above:

Organisation Development

· In the Organisation Development Program additional $39,000 expenditure has been provided for the implementation of the organisation restructure with funding from the Structural Change Reserve. Provision was made for this in finalising the 2014/2015 financial statements.

Corporate and Community Services

· In the Councillor Services program additional expenditure of $4,900 is required to cover the increased cost of the Local Government Shires Association subscription.

· In the General Purpose Revenues Program an additional $161,500 in revenue has been recognised as the allocation for Council’s 2015/2016 Financial Assistance Grant is $161,500 more then budgeted. The original budget for this grant replicated the 2014/15 amount as Councils were advised that the Financial Assistance Grant would be frozen for four years including 2015/16. Council though has received an increased allocation following determination from the NSW Local Government Grants Commission as to the distribution of the Financial Assistance Grant allocated to NSW.

· In the Financial Services Program there is a proposed budget adjustment for additional expenditure of $10,000 to purchase a product to manage and streamline Councils fees and charges. This can be funded through the Information Services reserve. An additional adjustment of $10,000 is also required for Councils’ external auditors to review an Asset Management preparedness Assessment for 2015 as required by the Office of Local Government.

· In the Governance Services Program it is proposed to increase expenditure by $7,200 due to Councils participation in the Self Assessment Survey by the Local Government Professionals NSW.

· In the Community Development Program, the revenue budget has been adjusted to account for a $4,800 sport & disability grant and $15,000 returned from Byron Bay Taxis and Limousines for the Taxi Security Scheme. Operating Expenditure has also increased by the grant amounts. Additional expenditure is also attributable to Resolution 15-296 which resolved “That at its first quarterly budget review, council examine ways of reinstating funds of up to $36,000 for the rest of the 2015/16 year for general community Section 356 (S356) Donations”. This resolution has been able to be factored into this Budget Review without altering the overall budget result.

Infrastructure Services

· In the Local Roads and Drainage program, there are a significant number of adjustments outlined under Note 15 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. The majority of these are for various road reseal works, although there is no impact on the overall budget result. Further disclosure is included in the second and third pages of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Local Roads and Bridges. A comparison can then be made as to the scale of works identified in the Original 2015/2016 budget in terms of road reseals and construction compared to revised works proposed as per the September 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

· In the Roads and Maritime Services program (RMS) operating income and expenditure decreased due to a reduction in approved funding from RMS for Natural Disaster works at Huonbrook ($137,100), a reduction to works for Broken Head road that were already taken up in a capital works job ($143,500) and a slight increase in expenditure for Regional roads 463 and 545 ($54,000). It is proposed to increase capital works for design costs for Broken Head road (Reserve funded) and Mullumbimby road (Revenue funded).

· In the Open Space and Recreation program, operating income decreased due to the anticipated shortfall in income for the disposal of trade waste for festivals. Operating expenditure increased largely due to $9,000 being allocated for shark patrols, $209,500 being moved from the Local Roads & Drainage program for works carried out by the Better Byron Crew and an additional $45,400 to cover the cost of Surf Life Saving at The Pass, Wategos and Tallow beaches. Capital works decreased largely due to moving the budget from 2015/16 to proposed 2016/17 for Civic Improvements in Byron Bay that can’t be completed until the Byron Bay Masterplan is finalised. An additional $50,000 for the Cavanbah Sports Centre Lighting so a quote for works can be accepted and a reduction to other various works that cannot attain grant funding so will no longer go ahead.

· In the Waste & Recycling program It is proposed to reduce operating expenditure due to the Kitchen Caddies and Liners ($25,900 - 3415.15) and Education Packs ($20,000 - 3415.16) being completed under budget. It is recommended that this reduction in the budget be reallocated to 4859.57 Organics Mobile Garbage Bins which is over budget. Each of these line items are funded through the Organics Collections Systems grant. It is proposed to increase capital expenditure as costs for RFID Chips and the purchase of Organic Bins are over the current budget.

· In the First Sun Holiday Park program, it is proposed to increase the budget by $30,000 to cover the cost of the annual painting of the park. This would be funded through the Holiday Park reserve.

· In the Facilities Management program operating income decreased due to the rent for Byron Bay Pool Cafe reducing by $35,100 to align with the new Deed of Agreement and a slight increase in the rent due from the Community Learning and Innovation Centre building. Operating expenditure increased due a budget requirement of $80,000 to bring Councils’ administration building fire hydrants up to BCA standard. Capital works increased largely due to the upgrade of Suffolk Park Hall and funding developer contributions associated with the Roundhouse subdivision.

Sustainable Environment and Economy

· Additional revenue is occurring in the Development & Certification Program due to increased development activity.

· In the Planning Policy and Natural Environment Program, the budget is to be amended to cater for three new grants received (Graminoid Clay Heath Restoration $19,500, Land for Wildlife $31,200 and NCCARF Partnership program $3,000).

· In the Economic Development program an additional $8,000 is required for the Byron Bay Masterplan, funded from the General Managers reserve.

WATER FUND

After completion of the 2014/2015 Financial Statements the Accumulated Surplus (Working Fund) balance for the Water Fund, as at 30 June 2015, is $1,968,400 with capital works reserves of $2,577,900. It also held $10,817,600 in section 64 developer contributions at this time.

The estimated Water Fund reserve balances as at 30 June 2016, and forecast in this Quarter Budget Review, are derived as follows:

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$2,577,900
Plus original budget reserve movement	1,130,200
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	(1,445,400)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(2,200)
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	21,300
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	(296,100)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$2,281,800

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$10,817,600
Plus original budget reserve movement	(3,779,000)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	(226,500)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	6,000
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	(3,999,500)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$6,818,100

Movements for Water Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated increase to reserves (including S64 Contributions) overall of $27,300 from the 30 September 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

SEWERAGE FUND

After completion of the 2014/2015 Financial Statements the Accumulated Surplus (Working Fund) balance for the Sewer Fund, as at 30 June 2015, was $1,776,500 with capital works reserves of $4,681,300 and plant reserve of $785,100. It also held $6,228,000 in section 64 developer contributions.

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$4,681,300
Plus original budget reserve movement	2,189,700
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	(125,500)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(3,900)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	2,060,300
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$6,741,600

Plant Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$785,100
Plus original budget reserve movement	0
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	0
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	0
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$785,100

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$6,228,000
Plus original budget reserve movement	(1,853,600)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	(1,803,500)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	(3,657,100)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$2,570,900

Movements for the Sewerage Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated overall decrease to reserves (including S64 Contributions) of $3,900 from the 30 September 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

Legal Expenses

One of the major financial concerns for Council over previous years has been legal expenses. Not only does this item represent a large expenditure item funded by rate income, but is also susceptible to large fluctuations.

The table that follows indicates the allocated budget and actual legal expenditure within Council on

a fund basis as at 30 September 2015.

Total Legal Income & Expenditure as at 30 September 2015

Program	2015/2016 Budget ($)	Actual ($)	Percentage To Revised Budget
Income
Legal Expenses Recovered	0	360	0%
Total Income	0	360	0%

Expenditure
General Legal Expenses	200,000	12,369	6%
Total Expenditure General Fund	200,000	12,369	6%

Note: The above table does not include costs incurred by Council in proceedings after 30 September 2015 or billed after this date.

The current status of the Legal Services Reserve is shown below:

Legal Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$779,100
Less Belongil Bridge Pile Repairs (44217 - Original Budget)	(200,000)
Less Road Reconstruction Works (Various – Original Budget)	(230,000)
Estimated Reserve Balance at as at 30 September 2015	$349,100

Financial Implications

The 30 September 2015 Quarter Budget Review of the 2015/2016 Budget has not changed the overall budget result and as such this result does not affect the estimated accumulated surplus (working funds) position attributable to the General Fund, with this remaining at an estimated $919,100 at 30 June 2016.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 the Responsible Accounting Officer of a Council must:-

(1) Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the statement of the council’s revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

(2) A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

(a) a report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

(b) if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

(3) A budget review statement must also include any information required by the Code to be included in such a statement.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

This report indicates that the short term financial position of the Council is satisfactory for the 2015/2016 financial year, having consideration of the original estimate of income and expenditure at the 30 September 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

This opinion is based on the estimated General Fund Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) position and that the current indicative budget position for 2015/2016 is maintained in this Budget Review. Notwithstanding this, Council will need to continue to carefully monitor the 2015/2016 budget over the remainder of the financial year.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.5

Report No. 13.5 Council Investments October 2015

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2015/1310

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position as at 31 October 2015 for Council’s information.

This report is prepared to comply with Regulation 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report listing Council’s investments and overall cash position as at 31 October 2015 be noted.

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for October 2015, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. The average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of October was 2.15%. Council’s performance for the month of October is a weighted average of 2.88%. This performance is again higher than the benchmark. This is largely due to the active ongoing management of the investment portfolio, maximising investment returns through secure term deposits

Councils’ last remaining capital protected investment (EMU Note) earning 0% interest matured on 25 October 2015, with the funds for the full amount of the invested principal received by Council on 28 October 2015. This was subsequently reinvested in a term deposit and was the last investment held by Council under the ‘grandfathering’ provisions of the Ministerial Investment Order.

The table below identifies the investments held by Council as at 31 October 2015:

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 October 2015

Purch Date	Principal ($)	Description	CP*	Rating	Maturity Date	Type	Interest Rate Per Annum	Current Value
20/06/12	500,000	HERITAGE BANK LTD BONDS	N	BBB+	20/06/17	B	7.25%	536,250.00
08/07/15	2,200,000	POLICE CREDIT UNION	P	NR	30/11/15	TD	2.95%	2,200,000.00
06/10/15	1,000,000	AUSWIDE BANK LTD (Previously Wide Bay)	P	BBB	04/01/16	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
09/09/15	2,000,000	NAB	P	AA-	09/12/15	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
04/09/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	04/12/15	TD	2.93%	2,000,000.00
03/09/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	04/01/16	TD	2.88%	2,000,000.00
08/10/15	2,000,000	BANKWEST	P	A1+	08/01/16	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
07/07/15	1,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	04/11/15	TD	2.90%	1,000,000.00
14/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/11/15	TD	2.91%	2,000,000.00
25/05/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	23/11/15	TD	2.97%	2,000,000.00
08/09/15	2,000,000	SUNCORP	P	A+	07/12/15	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
02/10/15	2,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	31/12/15	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
06/10/15	2,000,000	AUSWIDE BANK LTD (Previously Wide Bay)	N	BBB	04/01/16	TD	2.97%	2,000,000.00
29/09/15	2,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	P	A2	24/02/16	TD	2.95%	2,000,000.00
12/08/15	2,000,000	AMP BANK	P	A	12/11/15	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
02/10/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	02/02/16	TD	2.98%	2,000,000.00
04/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	02/11/15	TD	2.92%	2,000,000.00
16/10/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	14/01/16	TD	2.95%	1,000,000.00
06/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	06/11/15	TD	2.92%	2,000,000.00
07/09/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	07/03/16	TD	2.93%	1,000,000.00
11/08/15	2,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	09/12/15	TD	2.80%	2,000,000.00
11/08/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	09/11/15	TD	2.91%	1,000,000.00
13/05/15	1,000,000	MACQUARIE BANK	P	A1	08/02/16	TD	3.00%	1,000,000.00
14/09/15	3,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	14/12/15	TD	2.85%	3,000,000.00
24/09/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	24/12/15	TD	2.97%	2,000,000.00
02/09/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	02/11/15	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
03/09/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	02/11/15	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
09/06/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	09/11/15	TD	2.95%	2,000,000.00
03/07/15	3,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	04/11/15	TD	2.95%	3,000,000.00
05/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	05/11/15	TD	2.92%	2,000,000.00
14/08/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	14/12/15	TD	2.80%	2,000,000.00
20/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	20/11/15	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
28/08/15	3,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	26/11/15	TD	2.87%	3,000,000.00
31/08/15	2,000,000	AMP BANK	N	A	29/02/16	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
03/09/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	01/02/16	TD	2.88%	2,000,000.00
07/09/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	06/01/16	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
08/09/15	2,000,000	SUNCORP	N	A+	05/02/16	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
08/10/15	2,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	P	A2	07/04/16	TD	3.00%	2,000,000.00
29/10/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	27/01/16	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
N/A	2,736,883	CBA BUSINESS ONLINE SAVER	N	A	N/A	CALL	1.80%	2,736,883.79
Total	76,436,883					AVG	2.83%	76,473,133.79

Note 1.	CP = Capital protection on maturity
	N = No Capital Protection
	Y = Fully covered by Government Guarantee
	P = Partial Government Guarantee of $250,000 (Financial Claims Scheme)

Note 2.	Type	Description
	TD	Term Deposit	Principal does not vary during investment term. Interest payable is fixed at the rate invested for the investment term.
	CALL	Call Account	Principal varies due to cash flow demands from deposits/withdrawals, interest is payable on the daily balance.

Note 3. Term Deposits can be traded on a day-to-day basis, and therefore Council is not obliged to hold the investments to the maturity dates.

For the month of October 2015, as indicated in the table below, there is a dissection of the investment portfolio by investment type. It illustrates the current value of investments has increased by $6,300.00 since September 2015 (due to the EMU note maturing), demonstrating a cumulative unrealised gain of $36,250.00.

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 31 October 2015

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
73,200,000.00	Term Deposits	73,200,000.00	0.00
2,736,883.79	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,736,883.79	0.00
500,000.00	Bonds	536,250.00	36,250.00
76,436,883.79		76,473,133.79	36,250.00

The current value of an investment compared to the principal value (face value or original purchase price) provides an indication of the performance of the investment without reference to the coupon (interest) rate. The current value represents the value received if an investment was sold or traded in the current market, in addition to the interest received.

The table below provides a reconciliation of investment purchases and maturities for the period 30 September 2015 to 31 October 2015 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 30 September 2015 to 31 October 2015

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Closing Balance at 30 September 2015	75,962,424.40
Add: New Investments Purchased	14,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	4,409.39
Less: Investments Matured	13,500,000.00
Less: Call Account Redemption	0.00
Add: Fair Value Movement for period	6,300.00
Closing Balance at 31 October 2015	76,473,133.79

Investments Maturities and Returns – 30 September 2015 to 31 October 2015

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
2,000,000.00	Bankwest	TD	02/10/15	120	2.90%	19,068.49
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	02/10/15	91	2.98%	14,859.18
1,000,000.00	Auswide Bank Pty Ltd	TD	06/10/15	91	2.97%	7,404.66
2,000,000.00	Auswide Bank Pty Ltd	TD	06/10/15	91	2.97%	14,809.32
2,000,000.00	Bankwest	TD	08/10/15	121	2.90%	19,227.40
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	12/10/15	91	2.95%	14,709.59
1,000,000.00	NAB	TD	16/10/15	92	2.95%	7,435.62
1,500,000.00	EMU Note	MGD	28/10/15	3,684	0.00%	*0.00
13,500,000.00						97,514.26

*It should be noted that the EMU note that was earning 0% interest since November 2007. From October 2005 to November 2007 this investment generated interest totalling $214,716.66. This equates to an interest rate of approximately 1.5% per annum for the life of the 10 year investment. No interest has been recognised in this report as none was payable on maturity and interest that was paid was recognised in prior financial years.

The overall ‘cash position’ of Council is not only measured by what funds Council has invested but also by what funds Council has retained in its consolidated fund or bank account as well for operational purposes. In this regard, for the month of October 2015 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 October 2015

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	73,200,000.00	73,200,000.00	0.00
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,736,883.79	2,736,883.79	0.00
Bonds	500,000.00	536,250.00	36,250.00
Total Investment Portfolio	76,436,883.79	76,473,133.79	36,250.00

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	493,184.18	493,184.18	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	493,184.18	493,184.18	0.00

Total Cash Position	76,930,067.97	76,966,317.97	36,250.00

Financial Implications

Council uses a diversified mix of investments to achieve short, medium and long-term results.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with Regulation 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the Responsible Accounting Officer of Council must provide Council with a monthly report detailing all monies Council has invested under section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The Report must be presented at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council after the end of the month being reported. In this regard, the current Council Meeting cycle does not always allow this to occur, especially when investment valuations required for the preparation of the report, are often received after the deadline for the submission of reports for the meeting. Endeavours will be made to ensure the required report will be provided to Council and this will for some months require reporting for one or more months.

Council’s investments are carried out in accordance with section 625(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 and Council’s Investment Policy. The Local Government Act 1993 allows Council to invest money as per the Ministers Order – Forms of Investment, last published in the Government Gazette on 11 February 2011.

Council’s Investment Policy includes the objective of maximising earnings from authorised investments and ensuring the security of Council Funds.

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 8 October 2015 resolved through resolution 15-515 to insert a new objective into its adopted Investment Policy, which gives a third tier consideration by Council to Environmental and Socially Responsible Investments, when making investment decisions.

Specifically, resolution 15-515 required the following new objective to be inserted in Council’s Investment Policy:

“1.3 Environmentally and Socially Responsible Investments

Council gives preference to finance institutions that invest in or finance Environmentally and

Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) where:

i) The investment is compliant with legislation and investment policy objectives and

parameters; and

ii) The rate of return is favourable relative to comparable investments on offer to Council

at the time of investment

SRI status may be in respect of the individual investment, the issuer of the investment, or

both and should be endorsed by an accredited environmentally and socially responsible

industry body or institution.

Environmentally and Socially Responsible Investments will be assessed on the same basis

as other investment opportunities and the Council will select the investment that best meets

its overall investment selection criteria.

The Council’s criteria relating to an SRI are those which:

• direct investment towards the socially and environmentally productive activities listed

below

• avoid investment in the socially and environmentally harmful activities listed below.

The criteria for SRI are all desirable and not mandatory requirements.

Environmentally productive activities are considered to be:

• resource efficiency-especially water and energy

• renewable energy

• production of environmentally friendly products

• recycling, and waste and emissions reduction

Socially productive activities are considered to be:

• fair trade and provision of a living wage

• human health and aged care

• equal opportunity employers, and those that support the values of communities,

indigenous peoples and minorities

• provision of housing, especially affordable housing

Environmentally harmful activities are considered to be:

• production of pollutants, toxins and greenhouse gases

• habitat destruction, especially destruction of forests and marine eco-systems.

• nuclear power

• uranium mining

• coal seam gas mining

• production or supply of armaments

Socially harmful activities are considered to be:

• abuse of Human Rights and Labour Rights

• involvement in bribery/corruption

• production or supply of armaments

• manufacture of alcohol, tobacco or gambling products”

A review of Council’s current investment portfolio has been undertaken to assess, in the absence of an Industry register of authorised deposit taking institutions that are committed to Environmentally and Socially Responsible lending and investing, the current extent that Council’s Investment Portfolio meets the objectives, as amended by resolution 15-515, noting that the majority of the investments held were made prior to 8 October 2015. Staff have assessed that the investment funds held as at 31 October 2015, complied with Part 1 of Resolution 15-515 and the amended Policy Objectives, at the time the investment was made.

Part 1 of Resolution 15-515 being that

“That Council give preference to finance institutions that invest in or finance Environmentallyand Socially Responsible Investments where:

i) The investment is compliant with legislation and investment policy objectives and parameters; and

ii) The rate of return is favourable relative to comparable investments on offer to Council at the time of investment.”

Staff have undertaken also undertaken further Research via the Responsible Investment Association Australasia (RIAA). The RIAA have released the Responsible Investment Benchmark Report 2015 Australia and in that report at Appendix A and Appendix B have outlined responsible investment funds, asset owners, super funds impact investors and community finance organisations considered responsible investment opportunities.

As indicated in Appendix A, there are twenty nine organisations offering different fund products that range across the SRI criteria indicated in resolution 15-515. Unfortunately the Ministerial Investment Order that Council must comply with prohibits investment in any of these organisations/institutions or funds.

Contained in Appendix B are Asset Owners and Super Funds along with Impact Investors and Community Finance Organisations benchmarked in the RIAA report. The National Australia Bank is reported as an Impact investor and community finance organisation, which is defined in the report as ‘includes targeted investments aimed at solving social or environmental problems whilst also delivering financial returns. Impact investing includes community investing, where capital is specifically directed to traditionally underserved individuals or communities, or financing that is provided to businesses with a clear social purpose’. At 31 October 2015, Council has $36million invested with National Australia Bank. This is a significant amount with one institution but it is also a major bank and has been offering better financial returns relative to other financial institutions.

Council is not able to invest directly into Superannuation funds, however the superannuation fund were the majority of Council staff have their superannuation and Council’s contributes its employer contribution to staff superannuation is Local Government Superannuation. Local Government Superannuation has $4.8billion allocated to core responsible investment that includes sustainability themed investing and impact/community investing. With this type of investing it is the largest superannuation fund doing so in Australia.

The extent of the Environmentally and Socially Responsible Investment disclosure for Council may vary from month to month pending new investment opportunities and changes in legislation regarding Council investments or financial institutions with which Council can invest.

For the information of Councillors, Council does not utilise investment advisors and could do so to determine Environmental and Socially Responsible Investments but currently has not allocated any budget for the fees such and advisory service may charge.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.8

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report No. 13.8 PLANNING - Planning Proposal - For finalisation of rezoning of private land and reclassification of community land adjacent to Bangalow Bowling Club

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Joe Davidson, Planning Team Leader

File No: I2015/1107

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

On 28 August 2014, Council resolved to proceed with a Planning Proposal to rezone private land and reclassify community land adjacent to the Bangalow Bowling Club. Council forwarded the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment (DPE), who issued a Gateway Determination, subject to conditions.

Community consultation was carried out in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination. This included an exhibition period for the entire proposal from 28 May to 25 June 2015, and a Public Hearing in relation to the reclassification of community land on 11 September 2015.

This report considers the submissions received in relation to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. The person presiding over the public hearing provided a report on the result of the public hearing.

This Report recommends that Council forward the planning proposal to DPE, as exhibited, and request them to draft and finalise the respective LEP amendments.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

In accordance with the provisions of S375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a Division is to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put to the meeting, for the purpose of recording voting on planning matters. Pursuant to clause 2(a) under the heading Matters to be Included in Minutes of Council Meetings of Council's adopted Code of Meeting Practice (as amended) a Division will be deemed to have been called by the mover and seconder of all motions relating to this report.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council forward the Planning Proposal (and related legal documents) relating to Lot 10 DP 748099 Byron Bay Road, Bangalow and Lot 5 DP 609656 Byron Bay Road, Bangalow, to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment with a request to draft and finalise amendments to Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 having the following effect:

1. That part of Lot 10 DP 748099, Byron Bay Road, Bangalow:

a) is rezoned from RE2 Private Recreation to part R2 Low Density Residential and part SP3 Tourist;

b) is identified on the minimum Lot Size Map as having a minimum lot size partly of 1,000 square metres and partly of 2,000 square metres; and

c) is identified on the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map as having a maximum FSR of 0.5:1

2. That Lot 5 DP 609656, Byron Bay Road, Bangalow is classified as “operational land” in accordance with Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Attachments:

1 Planning Proposal - Newton Denny Chapelle, S2015/3995

2 Public Hearing Report - Planners North, E2015/70374

Report

1. Background

Lot 10 DP 748099

Lot 10 is currently owned by Bangalow Bowling Club Ltd. The land is zoned RE2 – Private Recreation under Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014. The club are seeking to have the land rezoned to part SP3 Tourist Zone and part R2 Residential Zone under Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014. In addition, it is proposed to provide a minimum lot size for the site and a maximum floor space ratio. Concept plans have been submitted for the construction of a motel development and a multi unit residential development within the subject lot. Such would be the subject of a development application in the future.

Lots 5 DP 609656

Lot 5 is currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation and RE2 – Private Recreation under the provisions of Byron LEP 2014.

Lot 5 was acquired by Byron Shire Council in the 1980’s. Council did not, within 3 months after it acquired Lot 5, resolve that Lot 5 be classified as either community land or operational land. Accordingly Lot 5 is taken to have been classified under a local environmental plan as community land in accordance with section 31 of the LG Act. Council is exploring options for provision of car parking and access within this land. Lot 5 needs to be reclassified from community land to operational land in order for it to be formalised as access for adjoining and adjacent land (including the Bangalow Bowling Club) and to enable public car parking to be constructed within it in the future.

Council Resolution

At its meeting on 28 August 2014, Council resolved as follows:

14-426 Resolved:

1. That Council forward the planning proposal contained in Annexure 2(a), #E2014/51076, to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway determination; and

2. That Council advise the Department that it seeks to have relevant plan making functions delegated given that the proposal is of local planning significance only.

Planning Proposal

A Planning Proposal was prepared in relation to Lot 10 DP 748099 and Lot 5 DP 609656, Byron Bay Road Bangalow explaining the objectives and intended outcomes of the proposed LEP amendments. A copy of the Planning Proposal is provided in Attachment 1.

Amendments to Byron LEP 2014 are required to reclassify Lot 5 from Community land to Operational land, and amend the zoning map, lot size map and maximum floor space ratio map relating to Lot 10.

Gateway Determination

Council forwarded the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning and Environment.

The Minister determined that the Planning Proposal should proceed subject to conditions set out in a Gateway Determination issued on 17 December 2014. The Planning Proposal was amended in accordance with Condition No. 4 of the Gateway Determination, to incorporate the following changes:

(a) include the reclassification of Lot 5 DP 609656 from Community land to Operational land;

(b) amend the project time line to address all the additional steps to be completed by Council due to an authorisation to exercise delegation being issued; and

(c) ensure that mapping prepared in accordance with the Department’s standard technical requirements for LEP maps is included.

Public Exhibition

The Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway Determination. A copy of the Planning Proposal is provided within Attachment 1. The Planning Proposal was made publicly available for a period of 28 days, from 29 May until 25 June 2015, at Council’s Administration Building and on Council’s website. Newspaper advertisements and letters to nearby property owners informed the community of the public exhibition. Two submissions were received in relation to the Planning Proposal. The submissions are summarised in the table below with a comment provided in response:

Issue	Comment
Roads and Maritime generally has no safety or traffic concerns with the proposed land rezoning. Due to the proximity to the Pacific Highway council might want to consider the impacts of road traffic noise and vibration when assessing any subsequent development application.	Such impacts are to be considered as part of any future development application for the site. It is noted that the Pacific Highway is currently being realigned to the east of the existing alignment and further away from the site.
Design of motel and town houses - for a village that prides itself in its Heritage atmosphere I would like to see an Architectural and Urban Design brief prepared to ensure the future design is appropriate for the Bangalow Village Heritage atmosphere.	The architecture and design of any future development on the site will be the subject of a development application that will assess the compatibility of the development given the character of the locality.
Town house 4 has vehicles reversing onto Byron Street. This may be improved in a future design.	As part of the planning proposal it is intended to reclassify Lot 10 DP 748099 from community to operational land. This will provide for improved access arrangements to future development within the lot, subject to assessment under a development application.
Stormwater will need to be carefully assessed, in particular the impact on the tennis courts and rugby field. The increase in hard stand area must not flood the adjoining recreation facilities.	Stormwater disposal and the impacts of such would be a matter for consideration under a future development application.

Public Hearing

Council held a public hearing into the Planning Proposal in accordance with section 29 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, on 11 September 2015. An independent town planning consultant presided over the public hearing. The submissions received in relation to the public exhibition were forwarded to the consultant for consideration prior to the public hearing. A number of community members made verbal submissions to the public hearing.

Public Hearing Report

The consultant provided a Report on the public hearing held on 11 September 2015. A copy of the public hearing report (see Attachment 2) was: made available for inspection by the public at Council’s Administration Building; placed on Council’s website; and distributed by email to the people that attended the public hearing who provided their email address.

The public hearing report recommends that Council proceed with the reclassification of Lot 5 DP 609656 from Community Land to Operational Land in accordance with the exhibited Planning Proposal.

2. Additional Matters

Should Council resolve to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment, the Department will need to extinguish the public reserve status and any other interests in the land proposed to be reclassified where relevant. The Department of Planning and Environment require the approval of the NSW Governor for this to occur.

Financial Implications

The financial implications for Council relate to the payment of a Planning Consultant who presided at the public hearing for the reclassification of Lot 5 DP 609656 from Community Land to Operational Land. This cost was allocated to the Section 94 developer contributions budget as the reclassification will enable the future development of public car parking facilities within the lot. All other costs are borne by parties within interests in the Bangalow Bowling Club land.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The legislation of relevance to this Report includes the Local Government Act 1993, particularly Chapter 6 Part 2 relating to classification and reclassification of public land, and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 particularly Part 3 Division 4 relating to local environmental plans.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.9

Report No. 13.9 Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Catherine Knight, Coastal Officer

File No: I2015/873

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

The draft Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment Version 6, herein referred to as the ‘management study’, has been finalised by the consultants Water Research Laboratory (WRL). With reference to Chapter 16 of the management study report, WRL’s recommended coastal management option for Belongil Beach is a three stage adaptive management engineered protection scheme, herein referred to as the ‘adaptive management scheme’, with the following components:

· Stage 1: Seawall with walkway;

· Stage 2a: An initial self-filling trial groyne;

· Stage 2b: Additional groynes; and

· Stage 3: Small scale sand transfer.

The consultant has also recommended a number of investigations and minor actions for other coastal precincts in the Byron Bay Embayment, indicating that a significant departure from the ‘status quo’ is unlikely to be required for these precincts. This is with the exception of North Beach which will need to be considered in the context of the management strategy adopted for Belongil Beach.

Feedback on various elements of the draft management study has been provided by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), Department of Primary Industries (Lands), as well as directly affected Belongil landowners following a workshop in January 2015. This includes advice from OEH, dated 28 October 2015, which raised specific concerns with respect to the cost benefit analysis (CBA) of management options for Belongil Beach, as undertaken in the management study (Appendix N).

The state agency feedback indicates that further, more detailed investigations will be required into the funding and implementation of the management strategies as recommended by the consultant. The most recent OEH advice contends that the CBA does not provide accurate information on the overall performance of the proposed management options, nor a reliable indication of their relative performance.

Recent correspondence from the Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes MP, who administers the Coastal Protection Act 1979; as well as Council resolution 15-476, would appear to confirm the importance of finalising the management study and moving towards the preparation of the CZMP BBE expeditiously.

Given the OEH comments on the CBA, staff are working towards arranging a workshop with the consultant(s), key OEH and Council staff, to work towards reviewing and revising the CBA, where necessary, in a collaborative fashion.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council notes the Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment November 2015, as prepared by the consultants at the Water Research Laboratory, University of NSW.

2. That Council notes that as a result of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) comments on the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) at Appendix N of the Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment, November 2015, a workshop will be convened with the consultants, Water Research Laboratory and Griffith Centre for Coastal Management (sub consultant), OEH and Council staff, with the objective of reviewing and revising the CBA, where necessary, in a collaborative fashion, and that a further Council report will detail the outcome of this workshop.

Attachments:

1 Executive Summary Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment, E2015/72987

2 Confidential - Submissions received, E2015/72989

3 Office of Environment and Heritage comments, dated 18/8/15, E2015/53385

4 Office of Environment and Heritage comments on cost benefit analysis, dated 28/10/15, E2015/72885

5 DPI Crown Lands comments, dated 16/10/15, E2015/72888

6 Letter from Rob Stokes, Minister of Planning, Draft Coastal Zone Management Plan, dated 19/10/15, S2015/13004

Report

http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/coastal-hazard-management-study-for-the-byron-bay-embayment

The management study has been part funded by the State Government under the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Coastal Management Program.

The three main objectives of the management study, and where relevant information may be found in the report, are as follows:

1. Risk Assessment - To provide technical information on the level of risk posed by coastal hazards on infrastructure, assets and development as informed by the most recent coastal hazard study, being the Byron Shire Coastline Hazards Assessment Update (BMT WBM, 2013). The risk assessment is summarised at section 2.2 to 2.8, with more detail at Appendix H, I and J.

2. Management Options Analysis - To determine which management strategies may be considered feasible and reasonable for managing the coastal hazards and risks relevant to the Byron Bay Embayment, in consideration of technical, environmental, social and economic factors, including an economic cost benefit analysis (CBA) of short listed management options. The Management Options Analysis is provided at Chapters 5 through to 15, with more detail at Appendix J, K and N.

3. Management Recommendation - To provide a recommendation for managing the coastal hazards and risks relevant to infrastructure, assets and development in the Byron Bay Embayment. The Management Recommendation is summarised in this report and is at Chapter 16 and 17.

Belongil Beach precinct management study recommendation

With reference to Chapter 16 of the management study report, WRL’s recommended coastal management option for Belongil Beach is a three stage adaptive management engineered protection scheme, herein referred to as the ‘adaptive management scheme’, with the following components:

· Stage 1: Seawall with walkway;

· Stage 2a: An initial self-filling trial groyne;

· Stage 2b: Additional groynes; and

· Stage 3: Small scale sand transfer.

Coastal precincts other than Belongil Beach management study recommendation

With reference to Section 17 of the management study report, WRL’s recommended coastal management option for other coastal precincts in the Byron Bay Embayment, are summarised at Table 1. In general, the consultant has recommended a number of investigations and further minor actions for these precincts, indicating that a significant departure from the ‘status quo’ is unlikely to be required. This is with the exception of North Beach which will need to be considered in the context of the impact of the management strategy that is adopted for Belongil Beach.

Table 1 WRL management study recommendation for coastal precincts other than Belongil Beach (summarised from Chapter 17, Attachment X)

Precinct	WRL Management Study recommendation	Section in report
Wategos	Accurately map the bedrock surface and seawall extent.	17.1
	Check the stability of the existing seawall.
	Consider re-building the seawall and / or partial retreat of Marine Parade which may involve conversion to one way.
The Pass to Clarkes Beach	Accurately map bedrock surface to confirm hazard lines relative to structures.	17.2
The Pass to Clarkes Beach	The small number of structures potentially vulnerable to hazards may make retreat of these structures more justifiable than more intensely developed areas.
Main Beach	Generally continue dune management to allow natural processes to prevail, in conjunction with upgrading the Jonson Street structure (WorleyParsons, 2014). Consider the dynamic wave overtopping potential at Jonson Street.	17.3
Cavvanbah	If nourishment is undertaken for Belongil, Cavvanbah would be a potential placement site, however protection of Cavvanbah with a seawall (north from First Sun towards Border Street) is unlikely to be economically justified to 2050. Reopening or alternative use of the railway line / corridor would necessitate a review of the need for protection in the future. If the projections for ongoing recession and sea level rise beyond 2050 and 2100 eventuate, the protection options would require reconsideration.	17.4
North Beach	Future changes to this beach will be affected by management options for Belongil. Impacts on North Beach need to be considered in the design of any structures for Belongil.	17.5

Consultation and review of the Management Study

As part of developing the management study, a number of consultation activities have occurred. Earlier consultation activities with the broader community are detailed at Chapter 8 of the management study.

The management study has also undergone three major reviews:

1. Review of draft report version 3, July to August 2014 – staff and the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

2. Review of draft report version 4, December 2014 to February 2015 –staff, OEH and Department of Primary Industries Lands (Crown Lands).

3. Review of draft report version 5, July to August 2015 – staff, OEH and Crown Lands.

Directly affected landholder workshop

In January 2015, a workshop was held with ‘directly affected land owners’. At this workshop, an overview of version 4 of the management study was provided, and submissions invited. The workshop materials are available at:

http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/coastal-hazard-management-study-for-the-byron-bay-embayment

From the submissions (10 were received), the directly affected landowners expressed a clear preference to abandon ‘planned retreat’, and at least half of the submissions supported the adaptive management option. Key issues such as funding models, the seawall design and alongshore access (public walkway on seawall), were raised. The key messages from the directly affected landowner submissions are detailed in Table 2 below. A copy of the submissions is at CONFIDENTIAL Attachment 2.

Table 2 Key messages from ‘directly affected landowner workshop’ and related submissions, January to February 2015

Issue/Theme	Submission Number (10 received)	Key messages
Abandon Planned Retreat	1, 3, 4, 5, 7	Submissions by 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 make explicit mention of desire for Council to abandon ‘planned retreat’.
Supportive of WRL recommendations	2, 6, 8, 9, 10	Direct mention of support for the draft consultant’s recommendation - staged, protective adaptive management strategy for Belongil Beach.
Support upgrade / strengthen existing seawall construction	1, 3, 4, 7	Support for strengthening and enhancing existing protection works and limited support for the adaptive engineering options e.g. end control and groynes.
Sand nourishment	1, 3, 4, 7	Limited or no support for the sand nourishment scheme, wide range of views expressed, re-design the sand delivery position and mechanisms, sand nourishment is a last resort option, the CZMP should not depend on sand nourishment, it should be scrapped altogether.
Jonson St. protective works (JSPW)	1, 4, 7	Attention drawn to down-drift sand transport affects of the JSPW on the coastal environment to the north and on Belongil Beach.
Protection of old jetty site	9, 10	Support for strategy that manages and / or protects the Old Jetty site.
Protection of First Sun to Border Street	7	Mention of need to protect the beach from First Sun Caravan Park to Border Street from coastal erosion.
Support of funding model as presented, or elements of funding model	4 (elements of funding model)	No explicit support for the funding model as presented by the consultant. Unclear if submissions that supported consultant’s recommendation also supported funding model. One submission, lodged on behalf of a number of landowners, support bearing the cost of rockwalls, though would prefer repairing and re-using existing walls where feasible, and making a proportionate contribution to end control and nourishment relative to benefits gained, noting a caveat with respect to the Jonson Street Protection Works.
Concerns about funding arrangements and costings for seawall construction	1, 4, 7	These submissions express concern regarding the costings and funding models presented and support the upgrade of existing walls which are structurally sound or able to be made safe with additional armouring, thereby negating the need to fund a full rebuild. One submission expressed desire for funding to be removed from the report.
Inclusion of walkway within seawall design unnecessary	1, 4, 7	A number of the submissions contained objections to a public walkway incorporated into the seawall design, citing loss of privacy/security issues and added costs which they must bear. One submission noted that if a walkway is to be included, it should be a wooden structure cantilevered off the rockwall.
Re-zoning of land use restrictions	1, 3, 7	After protective measures have been implemented, Belongil Beach property should be re-zoned, based on the new levels of property safety.
Emergency (and construction/maintenance) vehicle beach access	1, 7, 10	Concerns that there are no direct references in consultant’s materials regarding vehicle access to beach. One submission proposed the construction of, possibly 2, curved access ramps for construction and emergency vehicle access, doubling as a groyne at Manfred St.
Right to make further submissions	1, 3, 4,	Explicit mention of a desire to engage in further community consultation processes.

The landowner feedback indicates that approximately half of the submissions supported the adaptive management scheme, as presented by the consultant, whilst the other half favoured strengthening and upgrading the existing rockwalls. This would indicate that if an adaptive management scheme was adopted by Council, then stage one (seawall) would be well supported. It is unclear, however, if other elements of the adaptive management scheme are supported by the majority of landowners

Much of the other issues raised by landowners, may best be resolved and worked through in partnership, as part of implementing a certified CZMP BBE, should the adaptive management scheme, or aspects of the adaptive management scheme, be adopted by Council and incorporated into a certified CZMP BBE.

From the landowner feedback, a management strategy that relies solely on a ‘planned retreat’ approach is unlikely to have the general support of directly affected landowners.

State agency feedback

State agency comments, are summarised at Table 3, copies of the comments are at Attachment 3, 4 and 5.

Table 3 Key messages from state agency feedback, version 5 draft Coastal Hazard Management Study BBE

Agency

Summary of key messages

Staff comments

Office of Environment and Heritage

Comments (excluding cost benefit analysis)

18/08/15

Refer Attachment 3

Several, more detailed investigations would need to be undertaken as part of preparing, and prior to finalisation of, the Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment (CZMP), should the adaptive management approach be incorporated into the CZMP BBE. These investigations would include, but may not necessarily be limited to:

i) The form, scale, specification and location of protection works along Belongil Spit;

ii) Adaptive management of sand nourishment to improve amenity and offset adverse down-drift impacts from protection works;

iii) Appropriate monitoring to facilitate (thresholds/triggers) adaptive management;

iv) Dedication of appropriate long-term sand nourishment source;

v) Committed funding model to give effect to the aforementioned.

Given the time pressure on the CZMP, as well as budgetary constraints, these detailed investigations would best be undertaken as part of preparing the draft CZMP BBE or as part of implementing a certified CZMP BBE, dependent on the management approach to be incorporated into the CZMP BBE.

Office of Environment and Heritage comments on cost benefit analysis

28/10/15

Refer Attachment 4

· The OEH review found a number of errors and assumptions, after correcting for these, the relative ranking of options changed with planned retreat the highest preforming option.

· The review indicates that the CBA does not provide accurate information on the overall performance of the proposed coastal management options, nor a reliable indication of their relative performance. As such, assessment of management options for coastal risk mitigation in the Byron Bay Embayment should not rely on the benefit-cost ratios arising from that analysis.

· If Council is to rely on its CBA to finalise a coastal zone management plan for the Byron Bay Embayment, then additional work on the CBA is recommended.

The OEH advice contains a number of statements that are not clearly evidenced or substantiated in the commentary. Staff sought clarification on the comments from the OEH, at a meeting on 9 September 2015.

Further information on the meeting with OEH, was provided to Councillors at a workshop on 9 September 2015.

As a result of the OEH review comments, there are conflicting CBA results and it is difficult to confidently assess the economic impacts of the various management options, and to balance these against other considerations - refer extract of OEH Guidelines (2013), in the Statutory and Policy Implications section of this report.

Department of Primary Industry (Lands)

15/10/15

Refer Attachment 5

· Cost sharing arrangements (speculative funding models) do not adequately assess differing levels of risk associated with coastal processes for private and public lands. Arrangements should be based on a risk ratio percentage, rather than basing it on length of beach frontage (Example Old Jetty Site).

· Negative impacts on public land assets such as loss of access, beach amenity etc. have not been adequately considered and a more detailed assessment of hazards and management options for the Old Jetty Site would be required before landowners consent and any funding contribution could be progressed.

· With respect to the alongshore access incorporated into the seawall design, the study should consider the tenure of the seawall and implications for the maintenance of public access rights.

· Works proposed in the recommended adaptive management scheme will have significant policy, management and funding implications for the state. The proposed arrangements would not be supported without a comprehensive cost benefit analysis and all risks associated with measures are considered.

· Clarification is required as to the expectations on all parties for the required duration of funding commitments.

· DPI Lands welcome the opportunity to provide input into the development of planning controls, a key consideration will be the approach taken towards the assessment of development proposals in hazard zones on Crown Land, e.g. Clarkes Beach Holiday Park.

Given the time pressure on the CZMP, as well as budgetary constraints, further work on details such as the management approach for the Old Jetty site and funding models, would best be undertaken as part of preparing the draft CZMP BBE or as part of implementing a certified CZMP BBE, dependent upon the management approach to be incorporated into the CZMP BBE.

Cost Benefit Analysis

In order to finalise the CBA, a workshop on the CBA is being arranged with the consultant(s), key Council and OEH staff as a matter of priority. The objective of this workshop will be to work through the OEH review of the CBA and to revise the CBA, where necessary, in a collaborative fashion.

Staff are working towards convening a workshop before the end of November 2015.

A Council report will detail the outcome of the workshop.

Minister feedback

On 20 February 2015, the Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes MP, clarified a matter raised at the January workshop with ‘directly affected landowners’. The key advice was communicated via the OEH, as follows:

The Minister has recently advised OEH that in principle he supports the adaptive management approach currently proposed that would appear to have the general support of the Council and Belongil residents. Whilst the Minister is keen to ensure the sand transfer system remains a key element of the CZMPs adaptive management approach, he has listened to resident concerns and would permit the seawall component to be constructed prior to the sand transfer scheme in order to alleviate the threat to the properties. The Minister asked that this position be conveyed to council to update prior advice from OEH on this particular requirement."

As reported to the 17 September 2015 Ordinary Meeting, staff wrote to the Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes MP on 20 August 2015, raising several key issues with the OEH advice issued 18 August 2015. Concerns raised were as follows:

1. Lack of a timeframe for the provision of comments on the CBA.

2. The implication that several, more detailed investigations will need to be undertaken as part of preparing, and prior to finalisation of, the Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment (CZMP). From the comments, these investigations include, but may not necessarily be limited to:

i) The form, scale, specification and location of protection works along Belongil Spit;

ii) Adaptive management of sand nourishment to improve amenity and offset adverse down-drift impacts from protection works;

iii) Appropriate monitoring to facilitate (thresholds/triggers) adaptive management;

iv) Dedication of appropriate long-term sand nourishment source;

v) Committed funding model to give effect to the aforementioned.

3. A failure of the OEH to contextualise their expectations in terms of Council’s financial and resource constraints and to acknowledge the significant work completed to date.

4. An ongoing shift in the OEH advice concerning the level of detail required for informing the CZMP and an apparent disconnect between OEH expectations and the timeframe imposed by the Ministerial Direction for submitting the draft CZMP, being 30 June 2015.

The Minister’s response to Council’s letter, received 19 October 2015, is at Attachment 6. In summary, the Minister has advised:

1. He appreciates Council bringing various matters to his attention.

2. He is currently writing to all councils under Ministerial direction to prepare CZMPs for coastal erosion hotspots, reminding them of their obligations under section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 (refer Statutory and Policy Implications section)

3. As per earlier advice, councils under Ministerial direction will only be eligible for funding of works under the Coastal Management Program if the works are consistent with certified plans.

4. Those councils yet to finalise their CZMPs, including Byron Shire Council, cannot expend grant funds for preparing plans after December 2015.

Staff are following up on a potential further meeting with the Minister, as originally requested in the letter dated 20 August 2015.

Council Resolution 15-476

At Ordinary Meeting 17 September 2015, Council resolved as follows:

15-476 Resolved:

1. That Council reaffirms its commitment to the previously resolved timeframes for the public exhibition of the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment (CZMP BBE).

2. That Council will incorporate consideration of any OEH advice received into the draft CZMP BBE up to the adopted exhibition date.

3. Any submissions or advice from OEH received after the commencement of the draft CZMP BBE exhibition period will be considered along with all other submissions.

4. That Council rejects consideration of any sand nourishment schemes at Tallow Beach on the grounds of its potential detrimental impacts on the environment, incursions into Aboriginal land and National Parks, disruption and impacts to public amenity, and cost.

5. That the General Manager is delegated the authority to engage suitably qualified consultants on fair and reasonable terms to complete preparation of the draft CZMP BEE by the adopted exhibition date. Funds are to be sourced by a transfer from account 1501.64 to account 2605.083, as well as appropriate general revenue sources if additional funds are required.

The intent of resolution 15-476 (part 2), in the context of the OEH comments on the CBA, is unclear. The staff recommendation concerning convening a collaborative workshop to review and revise the CBA, may impact on immediate CZMP BBE timeframes, although it is hoped that this will be avoided and therefore, will have minimal implications concerning part 1 of resolution 15-476.

Resolution 15-476 (part 4) raises significant uncertainties concerning the sand nourishment source for the third stage of the potential adaptive management option for Belongil Beach. With reference to the Minister’s advice received 19 October 2015 (1 to 3 above), as well as resolution 15-476 (part 1), it is not considered that it would be prudent to conduct detailed investigations into this issue at this stage of the management study. These detailed investigations may best be pursued as part of implementing a certified CZMP BBE, should the CZMP BBE incorporate a future sand nourishment scheme.

Financial Implications

The financial costs of preparing the management study are detailed at Table 4, excluding internal Council costs for managing and administering the project, reviewing reports etc.

The management study is the key activity at Milestone 2 of the CZMP BBE grant, as funded through the state government’s Coastal Management Program. The figures at Table 4, assume that the OEH will fully reimburse their component of the management study expenses as per the grant funding conditions. Noting this is subject to fully expending this milestone by 31 December 2015, as well as submission of a management study milestone report and expenditure certificate which demonstrates compliance with grant conditions.

Table 4 Expenses and funding (ex GST) for preparing the Coastal Hazard Management Strategy Byron Bay Embayment as at time of preparing report

Expenditure Description	BSC Funds ($)	State Government Funds ($)	*Total Expenditure ($)**
Original contract amount	49,750	49,750	99,500
Variation 1: investigation sand transfer system, funding split	18,000	18,000	36,000
Variation 2: additional cost benefit and distribution analysis	27,340	0	27,340
Formal response CBA comments	1,950	0	1,950
Additional meetings, workshops	2,880	2,500	5,380
Miscellaneous (e.g. catering and advertising)	1,454	0	1,454
Total	101,374	70,250	171,624

* Excluding internal Council costs for managing and administering the project, reviewing reports etc.

CZMP BBE Grant Coastal Management Program

Under the CZMP BBE grant, Milestone 1 and 2, which entail the ‘management study’, are likely to be fully expended by 31 December 2015. Therefore funding for the management study is unlikely to be affected by the Minister’s most recent advice, Attachment 6, concerning a 31 December 2015 deadline for grant funding.

With reference to the Minister’s advice, however, funding for Milestone 3 of the CZMP BBE grant may be affected by the Minister’s deadline. Milestone 3 is ‘Preparation and finalisation of draft CZMP’, and is valued at $24,000 ($12,000 Council, $12,000 state government). In consideration of the current draft CZMP BBE timeframes, it is unlikely that Milestone 3, in its current form, will be completed by 31 December 2015. Staff are seeking further information on the implications of the Minister’s advice with respect to Milestone 3 of the CZMP grant and may lodge a variation so that the CBA workshop, as per the staff recommendation, is part funded by the grant.

As a result of the Minister’s advice, however, it is highly likely that Council will need to fund the ‘Preparation and finalisation of draft CZMP’ without support from the state government.

Costs to implement the management study shortlisted management options

Chapter 11 of the management study details the costs associated with the short listed management options under consideration.

Appendix L of the management study provides an economic assessment or cost benefit analysis (CBA) of the various management options under consideration for Belongil Beach, noting that OEH advice, at Attachment 4, provides conflicting CBA results.

The management study examined potential funding sources and prepared ‘speculative’ funding models for the various management options under consideration. These models are presented at Chapter 11 of the report.

Further investigation of funding models and sources will be required as per advice received from land owners / state agencies. Much of this may best be undertaken in latter stages of preparing the draft CZMP BBE or as part of implementing a certified CZMP BBE. The development of funding models may also be facilitated by the NSW state government Stage Two coastal reforms, which include review and an examination of coastal management funding measures.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

A draft CZMP is to be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Coastal Protection Act 1979 (CP Act), as well as the statutory Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (OEH, 2013).

Section 2.2.3 of the Guidelines provides information on the management study process, extracted below.

The CP Act and statutory Guidelines are currently the subject of a review and reform process; with announcements expected in late 2015.

Part 4A section 55(C) of the CP Act concerns the preparation of coastal zone management plans, as follows:

55C Matters to be dealt with in coastal zone management plans

(1) A coastal zone management plan must make provision for:

(a) protecting and preserving beach environments and beach amenity, and

(b) emergency actions carried out during periods of beach erosion, including the carrying out of related works, such as works for the protection of property affected or likely to be affected by beach erosion, where beach erosion occurs through storm activity or an extreme or irregular event, and

(c) ensuring continuing and undiminished public access to beaches, headlands and waterways, particularly where public access is threatened or affected by accretion, and

(d) where the plan relates to a part of the coastline, the management of risks arising from coastal hazards, and

(e) where the plan relates to an estuary, the management of estuary health and any risks to the estuary arising from coastal hazards, and

(f) the impacts from climate change on risks arising from coastal hazards and on estuary health, as appropriate, and

(g) where the plan proposes the construction of coastal protection works (other than emergency coastal protection works) that are to be funded by the council or a private landowner or both, the proposed arrangements for the adequate maintenance of the works and for managing associated impacts of such works (such as changed or increased beach erosion elsewhere or a restriction of public access to beaches or headlands).

(2) A coastal zone management plan must not include the following:

(a) matters dealt with in any plan made under the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 in relation to the response to emergencies,

(b) proposed actions or activities to be carried out by any public authority or relating to any land or other assets owned or managed by a public authority, unless the public authority has agreed to the inclusion of those proposed actions or activities in the plan.

(3) Despite subsection (1), the Minister may give a direction under section 55B that a council make a coastal zone management plan that makes provision for only one or more of the matters referred to in that subsection as specified in the direction.

Section 55M of the CP Act also calls up a requirement to adequately provide for the management of off site impacts associated with granting of development consent for coastal protection works.

55M Granting of development consent relating to coastal protection works

(1) Consent must not be granted under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to development for the purpose of coastal protection works, unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the works will not over the life of the works:

(i) unreasonably limit or be likely to unreasonably limit public access to or the use of a beach or headland, or

(ii) pose or be likely to pose a threat to public safety, and

(b) satisfactory arrangements have been made (by conditions imposed on the consent) for the following for the life of the works:

(i) the restoration of a beach, or land adjacent to the beach, if any increased erosion of the beach or adjacent land is caused by the presence of the works,

(ii) the maintenance of the works.

(2) The arrangements referred to in subsection (1) (b) are to secure adequate funding for the carrying out of any such restoration and maintenance, including by either or both of the following:

(a) by legally binding obligations (including by way of financial assurance or bond) of all or any of the following:

(i) the owner or owners from time to time of the land protected by the works,

(ii) if the coastal protection works are constructed by or on behalf of landowners or by landowners jointly with a council or public authority—the council or public authority,

Note. Section 80A (6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides that a development consent may be granted subject to a condition, or a consent authority may enter into an agreement with an applicant, that the applicant must provide security for the payment of the cost of making good any damage caused to any property of the consent authority as a consequence of the doing of anything to which the consent relates.

(b) by payment to the relevant council of an annual charge for coastal protection services (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993).

(3) The funding obligations referred to in subsection (2) (a) are to include the percentage share of the total funding of each landowner, council or public authority concerned.

Chapter 14 of the management study, Attachment 1, assesses the various management options under consideration in terms of compliance with relevant statutory provisions.

In advice received 19 October 2015, the Minister for Planning reminded Council of obligations under section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993, as reproduced below.

733 Exemption from liability—flood liable land, land subject to risk of bush fire and land in coastal zone

(1) A council does not incur any liability in respect of:

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding.

(2) A council does not incur any liability in respect of:

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land in the coastal zone being affected by a coastline hazard (as described in a manual referred to in subsection (5) (b)) or the nature or extent of any such hazard, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being so affected.

(2A) A council does not incur any liability in respect of:

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being subject to the risk of bush fire or the nature or extent of any such risk, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being subject to the risk of bush fire.

(3) Without limiting subsections (1), (2) and (2A), those subsections apply to:

(a) the preparation or making of an environmental planning instrument, including a planning proposal for the proposed environmental planning instrument, or a development control plan, or the granting or refusal of consent to a development application, or the determination of an application for a complying development certificate, under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

(b) the preparation or making of a coastal zone management plan, or the giving of an order, under the Coastal Protection Act 1979, and

(c) the imposition of any condition in relation to an application referred to in paragraph (a), and

(d) advice furnished in a certificate under section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

(e) the carrying out of flood mitigation works, and

(f) the carrying out of coastal management works, and

(f1) the carrying out of bush fire hazard reduction works, and

(f2) anything done or omitted to be done regarding beach erosion or shoreline recession on Crown land, land within a reserve as defined in Part 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1989 or land owned or controlled by a council or a public authority, and

(f3) the failure to upgrade flood mitigation works or coastal management works in response to projected or actual impacts of climate change, and

(f4) the failure to undertake action to enforce the removal of illegal or unauthorised structures that results in erosion of a beach or land adjacent to a beach, and

(f5) the provision of information relating to climate change or sea level rise, and

(f6) anything done or omitted to be done regarding the negligent placement or maintenance by a landowner of temporary coastal protection works, and

(g) any other thing done or omitted to be done in the exercise of a council’s functions under this or any other Act.

(4) Without limiting any other circumstances in which a council may have acted in good faith, a council is, unless the contrary is proved, taken to have acted in good faith for the purposes of this section if the advice was furnished, or the thing was done or omitted to be done, substantially in accordance with the principles contained in the relevant manual most recently notified under subsection (5) at that time.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the Minister for Planning may, from time to time, give notification in the Gazette of the publication of:

(a) a manual relating to the management of flood liable land, or

(b) a manual relating to the management of the coastline, or

(c) a manual relating to the management of land subject to the risk of bush fire.

The notification must specify where and when copies of the manual may be inspected.

(6) A copy of the manual must be available for public inspection, free of charge, at the office of the council during ordinary office hours.

(7) This section applies to and in respect of:

(a) the Crown, a statutory body representing the Crown and a public or local authority constituted by or under any Act, and

(b) a councillor or employee of a council or any such body or authority, and

(c) a public servant, and

(d) a person acting under the direction of a council or of the Crown or any such body or authority, and

(e) Water NSW, but only with respect to the exercise of its functions in the Sydney catchment area (within the meaning of the Water NSW Act 2014),

in the same way as it applies to and in respect of a council.

(8) In this section:

coastal management works includes the placement and maintenance of temporary coastal protection works.

coastal zone has the same meaning as in the Coastal Protection Act 1979, and includes land previously in the coastal zone under that Act and land that adjoins the tidal waters of the Hawkesbury River, Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay, and their tributaries.

manual includes guidelines.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.12

Report No. 13.12 PLANNING - Rural Land Use Strategy - Public Exhibition Community Consultation

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Sharyn French, Manager Environmental and Economic Planning

File No: I2015/1306

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

It is expected that the draft Rural Land Use Strategy will be publicly exhibited early 2016. This report details the community consultation events that will be held during the public exhibition stage.

It is proposed that in addition to staff being available to attend to public enquiries via the web, email, phone, and front counter that staff set up shop in key rural locations. Additionally it is proposed that the Stakeholder Focus Group workshop, as discussed in report No. 13.9 to 29 October meeting, allow for presentations from key stakeholders on each of the four rural themes: community; environment; economy and supporting infrastructure, and be open to the public.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt the Rural Land Use Strategy Community Consultation Plan as outlined in this report.

Report

At its 29 October 2015 meeting, Council considered a report on the Rural Land Use Strategy Site Suitability Criteria and Mapping Methodology and resolved:

Resolution 15-569

…

2. That Council commit to achieving the revised milestone deadlines identified in this

report to ensure adoption of the Rural Land Use Strategy by end of July 2016.

This report detailed the use of a Stakeholder Focus Group at two key stages in the development of the Strategy to provide robust review and input into its development:

· Stakeholder Focus Group Workshop No. 1 - after adoption of Stage 3 – Draft Policy Directions Paper on 19 November 2015; and

· Stakeholder Focus Group Workshop No. 2 - during Stage 4 public exhibition of Draft Rural Land Use Strategy (March – April 2016)

Planning for the Stakeholder Focus Group Workshop No. 1 is well underway with a workshop date being set and invitations and agenda sent by the time this report is reported to Council.

It is proposed that the Stakeholder Focus Group Workshop No. 2 be a community forum open to the public that provides presentations centred on the Strategy’s four key rural themes: community; environment; economy; and supporting infrastructure. The presentations will be provided by staff and from key invited speakers to inform participants on the following matters:

1. Staff presentation on the draft Rural Land Use Strategy and new initiatives being proposed;

2. Rural environment - such as ways to bring biodiversity back via local cabinet timber and selective forestry management;

3. Rural Community - such as intentional housing and possible best practice cluster housing in rural areas;

4. Rural economy - such as small acreage farming/land ownership challenges and possibilities;

5. Rural servicing and infrastructure

The presentations would then be followed by participants joining breakout groups to provide feedback on the draft Strategy and to identify challenges and opportunities to achieve the draft Strategy’s actions.

In order to meet the timeframe for delivery of the Rural Land Use Strategy as resolved at the 29 October 2015 meeting, the following community consultation plan is proposed in Table 1.

Table 1: Rural Land Use Strategy Public Exhibition Community Consultation Plan

Activity		Target Audience	When
1.	Public Notice of exhibition period	Everyone	At commencement and during exhibition
2.	Media Release	Everyone	At commencement and during exhibition
3.	Prepare publicity material including plain English fact sheets and FAQs	Everyone	Prior to exhibition
4.	Use Bang the Table web platform to host the public exhibition material and provide interactive polls and question and answer forums	Everyone	Prior to exhibition
5.	Newspaper Ads advising of exhibition and how to ‘have your say’	Everyone	Placed in local papers during the exhibition period
6.	Council’s E-News and Facebook page	Everyone	At commencement and during exhibition
7.	A5 flyers and posters for community notice boards and the like	Everyone	At commencement and during exhibition
8.	Continue state agency consultation	State Government	At commencement and during exhibition
9.	Information Stalls in key rural localities, including Main Arm; Billinudgel; Federal; Bangalow; Mullumbimby	Everyone	During exhibition
10.	Rural school newsletter notices	Rural Families	At commencement and during exhibition
11.	Notification letters to local planning consultants	Planning Consultants	At commencement of exhibition
12.	Copies of the draft Rural Land Use Strategy and feedback forms placed in the Richmond Tweed mobile library and other Community Access Points (CAPs)	Everyone	At commencement of exhibition
13.	Rate notice flyer	Rate Payers	Depending on timing of the exhibition and rate notice cycle
14.	Stakeholder Focus Group and Community Forum	Stakeholder Focus Group members and open to everyone	During exhibition

Financial Implications

Costs to deliver the community consultation plan are provided for in the existing Land and Natural Environment Budget.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Nil

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.13

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 13.13 Update on Proposed Road and Bridge Names

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Mary Kerr, Traffic and Transport Assistant

File No: I2015/1249

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Council on the outcome of Submissions to NSW Land and Property Information (LPI) from Council, regarding road name proposals.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That as per Table 1 in this report (I2015/1249) Council accept the NSW Land and Property Information (LPI) objection to names as listed, and endorse that the Alternative names be subject to further community consultation (28 days) and if accepted, be submitted to the LPI for concurrence.

2. That if submissions are received on any of the names, those be provided to the LPI and then reported back to Council.

3. That the names proposed for Lanes 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Mullumbimby be submitted to the LPI for concurrence, and if gained, for gazettal.

4. The matters regarding Shady Lane, Brunswick Heads be noted and progressed including endorsement of Eucalyptus Lane to be lodged for LPI approval and gazettal.

Attachments:

1 Map of Proposed Lane Names, E2013/61533

2 Map of Shady Lane (Eucalyptus), E2014/80611

Report

The following road name proposals have been submitted to NSW Land and Property Information (LPI) and Geographical Names Board (GNB) for concurrence, following Council approval:

Lloyd Poynting Bridge, Billinudgel

Arakwal Court, Byron Bay

Staceys Way, Ocean Shores

Coolalie Place, Lilli Pilli

Hinterland Way (rename of existing Pacific Highway)

Wiley Road (Local Road D, Bangalow)

Lincoln Road (Local Road E, Bangalow)

McKenzies Lane, Myocum

Smokey Valley Way, Ocean Shores

The following road names have been submitted for Gazettal:

McKenzies Lane, Myocum

Arakwal Court, Byron Bay

Staceys Way, Tyagarah

Coolalie Place, Lilli Pilli

Hinterland Way, Ewingsdale

Wiley Road, Bangalow

Smokey Valley Way, Ocean Shores

North Head Road, New Brighton

In the case of Lloyd Poynting Bridge, LPI advised that bridge naming is not covered by the legislation but rather by RMS conventions, which have been followed. Notification of Council’s intention to name the Bridge have been forwarded and acknowledged by GNB. Bridge name signs are to be ordered for installation.

As per Table 1, Council approved (as per 13-538 copied further below) that consultation or lodgement of Resolved Names proceed. This has occurred with LPI objecting on the grounds that they “duplicate with names already in use” within the Shire or in some circumstances in the same town or postcode.

Therefore, it is recommended that Council approves consultation proceed with the Alternative names as listed in Table 1. These alternative names listed are consistent with ‘Council’s Street Name Register’ and are not duplicated. (See Attachment 1 ‘Map of Proposed Names’ E2013/61533).

Table 1: names objected to and alternatives proposed

Town	Resolved Names: Objected to by LPI	Alternative names: Proposed / Consult
Brunswick Heads
	Booyun Lane	Sharpcott Lane / Residents
	Fingal Lane	Slessor Lane / Residents
	Minyon Lane	Nelson Lane / Residents
	Mullumbimbi Lane	Gali Lane / Aboriginal Land Council
	Nana Lane	Whittall Lane / Residents
	Short Lane	Ring Lane / Residents
	Teven Lane	Galleon Lane / Residents
Byron Bay
	Byron Lane	Williams Lane / Residents
	Jonson Lane	Keesing Lane / Residents
	Lawson Lane	Lateen Lane / Residents
Main Arm
	Durrumbul Hall Lane	Harpoon Lane / Residents
Bangalow
	Lincoln Road	Arrow Head Lane (requested by RMS following extensive community consultation)

Shady Lane and Eucalyptus Lane, Brunswick Heads

As pictured two proposals have been tabled. The currently signed ‘No Name Lane’ as shown by the pink line (marked F) has been resolved via Part 1(b) of Resolution 13-538 to proceed as Eucalyptus Lane. This will proceed and apply to the length of this no through road accessed off the Old Pacific Highway (South) and is used for access to private properties.

One owner of these same properties would like the unconstructed lane (as shown by the yellow line, which is upon another’s property) to be named Shady Lane. As such the naming of Shady Lane is a matter between private properties or if they wish to formalise the access becomes a planning matter (e.g. dedication of right of way). These options are to be explored with the relevant property owners.

Subject to agreement property addressing may also change for the land parcels highlighted.

Proposed Lanes in Mullumbimby:

As a result of consultation, the following Lane names have been proposed by residents (see Attachment 1):

Lane 1 (between Tincogan Street and Mill Street): - Riley Lane

Lane 2 (between Tincogon Street and Tyagarah Street):- Murphys Lane

Lane 7 (between Dalley Street and Gordon Street): - Cenotaph Lane

Lane 9 (between Station Street and McGougans Lane): - Bridgland Lane

Lane 10 (between Poinciana Street and Lane 11): - Davidson Lane

Lane 11 (between Prince Street and Queen Street): - Gardner Lane

Lane 12 (between Prince Street and Morrison Ave): - Torrens Lane

Lane 13 (between King Street and end): - Hollingsworth Lane

Lane 14 (between Argyle Street and New City Road): - Harkness Lane

Lane 15 (between Lane 14 and James Street): - Ward Lane

Justification of Names Recommended

All the proposed names are consistent with the GNB / LPI criteria, i.e. no duplication, no living person. They are listed in Council’s ‘Street Name Register’ and adopted by Resolution 13-538:

13-538 Resolved (part):

1. That as detailed in this Council report (#E2013/62798) consultation be undertaken in accordance with state requirements, including where relevant the writing to affected property owners, in regard to the proposed names detailed and as listed at:

a) Table 1: Requests received - names suggested:

i) footbridge, Pacific Highway, Billinudgel - Lloyd Poynting

ii) lane off Gulgan Road, Mullumbimby - McKenzies Lane

iii) cul-de-sac St Finbarr’s Primary School - Arakwal Court

iv) Tyagarah Airfield access road - Stacey’s Way

v) Lane 2, Mullumbimby – Murphy’s Lane

vi) unnamed lane off Foxs Lane, Gulgan - Foxs Lane

vii) STP Access Road, Ocean Shores - Smokey Valley Way

viii) Short Street, New Brighton - Mangrove Street

ix) unnamed road, New Brighton - North Head Road

x) Fletcher Lane, Byron Bay - Byron Lane

xi) road reserve entry to Orara Court, Lilli Pilli - Coolalie Place

b) Table 2: Proposal to name unnamed roads/lanes:

Current	Proposal	From
Lane	Lawson Lane	Jonson St - Fletcher St, Byron Bay
Lane	Byron Lane	Byron St - Fletcher St, Byron Bay
Lane 6	Jonson Lane	Kingsley St - Marvell St, Byron Bay
Unknown	Carlyle Lane	Cowper St - Massinger St, Byron Bay
Unknown	Durrumbul Hall Lane	Access to community hall - Coopers Lane
Unnamed	Eucalyptus Lane	Old Pacific Highway (South) – End, Brunswick Heads
Lane 8	Mullumbimbi Lane	Byron St - The Terrace, Brunswick Heads
Lane 7	Fingal Lane	Tweed St - Park St, Brunswick Heads
Lane 3	Booyun Lane	Byron St - Park St, Brunswick Heads
Lane 4 (east)	Nana Lane	Nana St - Tweed St, Brunswick Heads
Lane 4 (west)	Short Lane	Byron St - Nana St, Brunswick Heads
Lane 5	Teven Lane	Byron St - Tweed St, Brunswick Heads
Lane 6	Minyon Lane	Byron St - Tweed St, Brunswick Heads
Lane 1	Seek submissions	Tyagarah St - Burringbar St, Mullumbimby
Lane 7	Seek submissions	Gordon St - Dalley St, Mullumbimby
Lane 9	Seek submissions	McGougans Lane - Station St, Mullumbimby
Lane 10	Seek submissions	Poinciana St - Lane 11, Mullumbimby
Current	Proposal	From
Lane 11	Seek submissions	Prince St - Queen St, Mullumbimby
Lane 12	Seek submissions	Prince St - Morrison Avenue, Mullumbimby
Lane 13	Seek submissions	King St - End, Mullumbimby
Lane 14	Seek submissions	Argyle St - New City Road, Mullumbimby
Lane 15	Seek submissions	Lane 14 - James St, Mullumbimby

2. That in regard to the submissions to be sought for the naming of the laneways in Mullumbimby, a report be provided back to Council detailing the reasons for either supporting or objecting the names proposed.

3. That with exception of Part 2, and after completion of Part 1 and in regard to each specific naming proposal, staff do one of the following:

a) if no submission is received, gain gazettal of the names proposed, after which a report is provided back to Council for confirmation; or

b) if submissions are received, provide a report back to Council on the submissions for further consideration.

Also, each of the above proposals have been identified by local residents as having significance, being names of pioneer or founding families to the area or contributors to local history, with the exception being Lane 7, for which the local RSL proposed “Cenotaph Lane.”

To resolve differing and contradictory responses from residents, the above proposed names have been selected arbitrarily where one, two or more residents endorsed the name and where the name was consistent with the conventions and criteria.

Financial Implications

Advertising is required and is expected to be a considerable cost given the amount of detail. Additional costs, assuming all locations are to be signed, will be sign production and installation.

It is therefore considered a budget of up to $5,000 will be adequate for completion of all advertising and signage requirements.

Council allocates an annual traffic facilities budget, plus has a local roads budget used for signage and maintenance where required. It is considered both are appropriate for this purpose, noting the costs will be incurred over time as each item is progressed, which is likely to take between three to six months at best and very much dependent upon consultation.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Both Council’s Policy and Street Name Register are available on the following web links:

http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/files/publications/Tourist_Street_Name_Community_Facility_and_Service_Signs_Policy.pdf

http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/files/publications/Street_Name_Register.pdf

Council is able to name roads in accordance with the authority provided in Part 10, Division 4, Section 162 of the Roads Act 1993.

The procedure of naming roads, is dictated by Sections 7 to 10 within Part 2, Division 7 of the Roads Regulation 2008, which is available in detail at:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/subordleg+156+2008+cd+0+N

In summary however, the regulation requires compliance with the following process:

Step 1: as recommended, proposed names be advertised and consulted upon*

Step 2: report back any submissions, with those that receive none proceed to Step 3

Step 3: publish in Government Gazette and local newspaper, plus inform authorities*

Step 4: name is adopted if no objections are received from the listed authorities*

*NB: consultation in Step 1 includes to ‘serve notice’ on the ‘authorities’ referred to in Step 3 and 4 and include Australia Post, the Registrar-General, the Surveyor-General, the Chief Executive of the Ambulance Service of NSW, New South Wales Fire Brigades, the NSW Rural Fire Service, the NSW Police Force, the State Emergency Service, the New South Wales Volunteer Rescue Association Incorporated and, in the case of a classified road, the RMS.

Additional consideration is the Australian-New Zealand Standard 4819:2011, in particular Section 4 ‘Road Definition and Naming’ and is noted within this report where relevant.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.14

Report No. 13.14 Request to Purchase Strip of Council Operational Land at Matong Drive, Ocean Shores

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Deanna Savage, Administration Officer Infrastructure Services

File No: I2015/1100

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Projects and Commercial Opportunities

Summary:

Council has received a formal request to purchase a portion of Council's operational land (Lot 944 DP 241810) at Ocean Shores.

The subject land is a strip of land approximately 600mm wide, located immediately to the rear of numbers 41 and 43 Matong Drive.

This report recommends Council takes the necessary steps to progress the disposal of the subject land.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council endorse the application to purchase a strip of Council’s operational land (Lot 944 DP 241810) at Ocean Shores, at the rear of numbers 41 and 43 Matong Drive (Attachment 3 S2015/2924), as per Figure 1 of this report.

2. That Council ascertain market value by retaining a suitably qualified valuer and delegate to the General Manager the authority to enter into a contract for sale of the strip of Council operational land (Lot 944 DP 241810) at Ocean Shores for a value no less than the highest value placed on the subject strip of Council’s operational land by the independent valuer.

3. Without limiting the delegation to the General Manager to negotiate a contract suitable to the Council, terms and conditions of the contract will include requirements for:

i. the applicant to pay all costs associated with the purchase of strip of Council’s operational land, including but not limited to:

a) Council application fees

b) Council’s surveyor's fees and survey, valuation and legal costs

c) All registration fees

d) Legal costs

ii The additional strip to then be consolidated into corresponding Property parcel numbers (43 Matong Drive PN 51360 and 41 Matong Drive PN 51340)

iii An easement over portions of the lot for the purposes of providing Stormwater Discharge and Asset Protection Zone for Bushfire protection for the proposed community title subdivision and residential development (as per ii above) in favour of Council in accordance with the requirements of Council Policy No 4.20.

4. That Council authorise the affixing of the Council seal to and the signing of all documents necessary to affect the sale and transfer of the strip of Council operational land (Lot 944 DP 241810) at Ocean Shores.

Attachments:

1 Letter from Callum Sked - formal request to purchase a portion of Council owned land , E2013/40016

2 Letter from Planit re10.2014.743.1 seeking Agreement with Council that appropriate conditions of purchase be included on the Development Consent for 2 Kulgan Court Ocean Shores, S2015/1224

3 Letter from Callum Sked - Formal request to purchase a portion of Council owned land , S2015/2924

4 Response to Planit regarding proposal to purchase Council land for purpose of DA 10.2014.743.1 dated 20 February 2015, E2015/8660

Report

Land information

Description: Lot 944 DP 241810 P/N119840

Approx 600mm wide strip land immediately to the rear of numbers 41 and 43 Matong Drive, Ocean Shores.

Owner: Byron Shire Council

Classification: Operational Land

LEP Zone: R2 Low Density Residential

Background

Historically the land in question was used as Restricted Vehicular Access to the old alignment of the proposed motorway. Adjoining Lot 893 DP 241810 and Lot 892 DP 241810 are zoned low density residential and current access for emergency vehicles is through adjoining Lot 1 DP 1191443, which is a Byron Shire Council owned Public Reserve.

Figure 1: Aerial view of strip lot 944 DP 241810, highlighted in red

In 2003 Council resolved, 03-93, to dispose of various strips of operational land, including Lot 944 DP 241810 and offer them for sale to adjoining owners, after an expression of interest process. This action, however, was later closed by subsequent Council resolutions.

03-93 Resolved:

1. That the General Manager be authorised to dispose of strips of operational land

Lot 606, DP 240398

Lot 977, DP 241073

Lot 691, DP 240398

Lot 692, DP 240399

Lot 794, DP 240400

Lot 795, DP 240400

Lot 945, DP 241810

Lot 944, DP 241810

for sale to adjoining landowners.

2. That the General Manager report to Council on the disposal of the strips of operational land listed above

In 2013 Council received a new inquiry from proponents to purchase the land strip, shown in Figure 1. The proposal was referred to Council’s Executive Manager Community Infrastructure who provided in principal support for the land sale. Subsequently on 27 June 2013 (Attachment 1 - E2013/40016) Council wrote to two of the proponents, Mr Sked and Mr McCasker advising of the in principal support, and any sale of Council land would ultimately require a decision from Councillors and would likely require a public consultation process.

On 2 February 2015 Council received a letter from Planit Consulting (Attachment 2 - S2015/1224) regarding a proposed development at Kulgun Court and Matong Drive, Ocean Shores (DA 10.2014.743).

Among other things, the letter put forward a proposal to purchase Council owned land adjacent to the developers' land, for the purpose of the proposed development (30 retirement-living townhouses). This letter from Planit (dated 2 February 2015) appears to be the first response to Council's 27 June 2013 letter to the proponents mentioned above, and which set out the process regarding the potential land sale.

On 20 February 2015 Council staff replied to Planit Consulting (Attachment 4 - E2015/8660) advising that until the investigation regarding the sale of the Council land was completed, it was not appropriate for Council to include consent conditions regarding purchase of its land within any approval of DA 10.2014.743, and any development consent conditions should not be seen to pre-empt the decision of the Council regarding the sale of land. It was then advised that in order to progress a report to the elected Council, their client will need to make another written response to council’s letter dated 27 June 2013 seeking to progress the proposed acquisition of the land in question.

Formal Request for Purchase

On 3 March 2015 Council received a formal request to purchase a portion of Council owned land from Mr Callum Sked (Attachment 3 - S2015/2924). The request included signatures of six landholders of the subject land parcels in the proposed development under DA 10.2014.743.

Financial Implications

The proponents have been advised the purchase price of the land would be determined by way of market valuation, and costs associated with the purchase are to be met by the purchasers, and are in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges;-

Land Sale Application Fee $350.00 (GST exclusive)

Sale Value $Market Valuation (GST inclusive)

Costs:

Survey $Costs + 15%

Subdivision $Costs + 15%

Valuation $Costs + 15%

Legal/Transfer $Costs + 15%

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The land is classified Operational and there are no limitations on Council’s capacity to sell the land.

Sale of Council land is specifically exempt from the requirement to call tenders under the Section 55 (3) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993.

Pursuant to s377 of the Local Government Act, Council must resolve to buy or sell land, as it is a non-delegable function, so a resolution of Council is required.

Pursuant to clause 400 of Local Government Regulations, the Council seal must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to the business of council and the council has resolved by resolution specifically referring to the document that the seal must be so affixed.