Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.2

Notice of Motion No. 9.2 Byron Bay Cycleway Design and Implementation

File No: I2017/552

I move that Council:

1. Contract the services of a cycleway expert in order to review the current design for on road cycleways along Bangalow road, from Suffolk Park to Byron Bay; with a recommendation on the best and most cost effective option to come from the consideration of: a single, on road cycleway on both sides of the road, a dual lane on the Eastern side of the road or a dual lane on the Western side of the road.

2. Provide costing and identify a funding source for this work and for its construction.

Attachments:

1 Bangalow Road Bikeway Plan - Browning Street to Old Bangalow Road - Sheet 2, E2017/32555 ⇨

2 Bangalow Road Bikeway Plan - Browning Street to Old Bangalow Road - Sheet 1, E2017/32556 ⇨

Signed: Cr Simon Richardson

Councillor’s supporting information:

The community is crying out for a more thorough cycle network.

A cycleway along Bangalow road/ Broken Head road, linking Suffolk Park residents and Byron Bay would be of fantastic benefit for our residents. Especially for commuting purposes, both school ages residents who would utilise a safe way to cycle to school or others wishing to to commute to work, this cycleway is long overdue and would be much used and valued.

Currently, the cycling journey between these two areas is fraught with difficulties, some sides have no discernible path, the actual crossing near the golf course is so poorly designed it has resulted in kids not using it and therefore either not cycling at all, or doing so dangerously.

Currently, the width of road used for on road car parking indicates suitability for catering for a dual lane cycleway on either side of the road. However, upon closer inspection, one side may have less constraints- of an engineering, construction or budgetary nature. Thus, it would be prudent to consider each option and have expert opinion provide advice as to the most practical, cost effective or effective alignment. It could also happen that a hybrid design considering both sides may also be the route recommended.

The images below show the ease by which on road cycleways path could be achieved on either side, and the great need for it.

The dangerous design of the only pedestrian/cycling crossing along this road. Problems include a narrow refuge in the middle-hardly capable of safely supporting one bike, and the angled crossing-rather than a 45degree angle allowing for the cyclist to see traffic easily, its angle means it is difficult to turn one’s her in order to watch for cars when arriving at this point.

A portion of the Western side shows the unnecessarily width car lane, with no cycleway provided and no footpath or of road provision for movement.

The width on the Western side, more than enough for a dual lane cycleway.

A portion of the Eastern side, with re-lining, enough room for either an on road cycleway of better formalisation of on an footpath version.

A section of the Western side, near the roadhouse-note the wide on road area and the complete lack of footpath, or off road option.

Note also the area on the Eastern side with enough width for vehicle parking

Staff comments by Evan Elford, Team Leader Infrastructure, Infrastructure Services:

(Management Comments must not include formatted recommendations – resolution 11-979)

Part 1 of Recommendation

Council currently has a funding application lodged with RMS for cycleway work along Broken Head Road. This application is for a 2.5 – 3.0m wide shared path along the eastern side of the road (off-road). Advice on the success or otherwise for grant funding is pending. It would seem inappropriate to engage experts and consider alternative route options until the results of our application are known.

Within the draft 2017/2018 budget there is $60,000 for the provision of a Shire wide Bike Plan ($45,000 is reliant on RMS funding). This is in the Local Roads and Drainage capital works program.

There is also the following proposal in the Capital Works program for 2017/18 for the Broken Head Road – Off Road Shared path with a budget of $292,600.

Part 2 of Recommendation

If grant funding is successful for this project, additional funding is available from Section 94.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

As in above comments re Recommendation parts 1, 3 and 4.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes - CI1.1 Provide a network of accessible cycleways and walkways that link with public transport.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.4

Notice of Motion No. 9.4 Lowering Flood Levels in North Byron Floodplain

File No: I2017/605

I move:

1. That Council investigate the potential to lower the flood levels in the Marshall’s Creek floodplain by reinstating floodwater outlets with suitable environmentally friendly structures along the foreshore north of the Brunswick River and provide a report to council by the end of 2017.

2. That Council doubles the effort with staff, and funding from all available resources to speed up the flood mitigation works, gutters, drain and channel cleaning, increasing pipe sizes where necessary, road culverts, gutters and causeways and to review the program annually.

Signed: Cr Alan Hunter

Councillor’s supporting information:

The recent flood event in the shire has again given reason to question if Council is doing enough to manage this ongoing issue. As we develop further areas into more residences, roads, public spaces and sport fields we encroach into areas less suitable than those areas first chosen, so our technology and management practices need to keep pace.

There is significant reason to believe we can reduce the negative impacts of these major rain events if we were focussed so.

Too many of our citizens were negatively impacted by this recent flood. Homes, businesses and community infrastructure in areas of our shire have been seriously affected and it is without doubt, Council has been asleep at the wheel in preparation for such events.

It is the elected council that has ultimate responsibility. It is our responsibility not staff. The issue needs to be addressed in 2 ways:

1. The bigger picture; The North Byron floodplain is not unlike a big dam. A large catchment area with a now, quite restricted outlet or spillway, backing up into homes and shops.

· There have been a number of natural spill ways closed off over the years for one reason or another, some developer initiated, impacting on the flow of flood waters

· Population pressure will continue to place demand on extending the residential area boundaries

· Pressure will continue to be placed on council to build structures to protect developed areas and foreshores within the flood zone

2. The smaller picture; A continuing clogging of the internal arteries that distribute the first storm water into the channels and drains into the rivers and creeks, clogged with green waste and silted up gutters and pipes.

Council has a number of flood studies that have in part addressed issues and practices that have impacted on flooding but little has been done to progress the lessen from past floods.

There has been a concentration on how development should occur, often in the floodplain, to minimise the impacts of flooding, not necessarily managing these events.

It is now time for Councillors to man up and deliver on our community expectation. To make decisions. To make good.

Staff comments by James Flockton, Flood and Drainage Engineer, Infrastructure Services:

(Management Comments must not include formatted recommendations – resolution 11-979)

Item one:

The Marshall Creek Floodplain Management Plan (adopted by Council November 1997) investigated a flood mitigation option of creating floodwater outlets north of Brunswick Heads. The following text is an extract from the document:

10.4 Ocean Outlets

Three sites have been identified for assessment for the construction of flood outlets through the frontal dune to the Pacific Ocean. The sites are located at:

· Holiday Village" between New Brighton at South Golden Beach;

· Ocean Shores North, north of the "Fern Beach" subdivision; and

· Wooyung, some 3.5 km north of South Golden Beach.

The proposed outlets comprise the excavation of 75 m wide slots through the dune with variable bed levels. The outlets at "Holiday Village" and Ocean Shores North are to be some 1.7 m above high tide level, while the outlet at Wooyung is proposed to be tidal. The proposed combinations of flood outlets above was defined by the Floodplain Management Committee after the Value Management Workshop (Reference 13) was completed.

The coastal dynamic processes are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The impact of these processes on the performance of the ocean outlets is outlined below.

As noted in Chapter 4, the ocean water levels can be seen as comprising of a series of components principally:

· tidal variations;

· storm surge;

· coastal wind set-up;

· nearshore wave set-up; and

· possible addition to the above by "Greenhouse" changes to ocean static levels .

The various components of the "Steady" ocean water levels are indicated on Figure 6.

It is estimated that wave setup on the open beaches at the identified outlet sites resulting from 5 m high offshore waves would effectively raise the ocean water level on the beach by 0.8 m. By comparison, these waves would pass through the Brunswick River entrance with minimal obstruction and dissipate as they travelled up the main river channel.

As a result, there would be a difference in water level of 0.8 m between the beach and the river. This means that any outlets must be located where the flood level in Marshalls Creek is at least 0.8 m higher than the ocean water level at the entrance to the Brunswick River in order that floodwaters can discharge to the ocean. If this condition is not satisfied, seawater from the ocean will flow through the opening and increase flooding along Marshalls Creek.

The identified outlet sites satisfy the water level differential constraint. However, the Wooyung outlet in the early stages of a flood event would tend to admit water from the ocean into the Marshalls Creek area. This would be the direct opposite of the proposed function of the outlet, ie to discharge floodwaters to the ocean.

The outlets at "Holiday Village" and Ocean Shores North would discharge floodwaters when the level of the floodwaters in Marshalls Creek exceeded the water level on the beach and exceeded the level of any constructed weirs at the outlets. This would depend on the magnitude of the creek flood, tidal phase and ocean storm conditions.

The ocean outlets would need to be located at a level which prevented ocean storm waves from passing through the outlets and discharging seawater into the Marshalls Creek system.

This occurred in May 1975 when the ocean waves broke through the frontal dune at "Sheltering Palms", the southern end of New Brighton and north of New Brighton.

The dune north of New Brighton had been overtopped in October 1972 and had not built up to an adequate height. Earthmoving machinery was used to repair the break in the dune following the 1974 event. The coastal processes have continued the replenishment of the dune. The location of the break-through is still evident in recent aerial photography, some 20 years after the event.

The analysis of ocean storm water levels outlined in Chapter 4 recommends a minimum crest level for the outlets at RL 4.0 m AHD. This level is 1.2 m above the 1% AEP flood level in Marshalls Creek at the "Holiday Village" site.

There are conflicting requirements for the dune heights. Prevention of ocean break through into the Marshalls Creek floodplain requires the dunes to be kept high. However, allowance for (or dependence on) a flood breakout through the dunes to reduce flood levels requires the dunes to be kept low such that a natural break can occur.

It would be possible to adjust the dune height by earthmoving machinery by:

· maintaining the dune height to prevent ocean inundation;

· maintaining a stockpile of material at the break-out point;

· on receipt of flood warning, cutting the beach dune such that a natural erosion process can begin; and

· refilling the low level break from the stock pile after the flood recession to accelerate the natural re-building of the dune.

It is not considered prudent to undertake the alternative procedure of keeping the dune low and building during ocean storms because of the dangers of operation of machinery near a surf zone.

The short time scale of Marshalls Creek flooding, the limited warning and the occurrence of ocean storms would require earthmoving equipment to be on virtually permanent standby to lower the outlet in advance of the creek flood and to rebuild the outlet to withstand ocean storm conditions immediately following the creek flood.

Large volumes of sand would have to be excavated, stored and returned within a short period of time. This is clearly not practical.

The estimated reduction in 1% AEP flood levels which may be achieved with the ocean outlets is 0.08 to 0.1 m at New Brighton and Ocean Shores (Ref.l6). There are 4 houses in New Brighton and 4 houses in Ocean Shores which are inundated in floodwaters less than 0.1 m deep in the 1% AEP flood. This option may prevent floodwaters entering some these houses.

Therefore, construction of the ocean outlets is considered to be relatively ineffectual, due to the small number of houses protected and impracticable due to the management and operational requirements.

Therefore at this stage the construction of outlets is not recommended.

Should Council wish to further pursue floodwater outlets north of Brunswick Heads the most appropriate method is via a Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

Such a plan will scientifically investigate the effects of such openings on flood levels and complete a cost benefit analysis of such a mitigation option.

Council is currently awaiting a grant approval from the Office of Environment and Heritage for the purposes of preparing the North Byron Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan. This is the next step following on from the North Byron Flood Study. A number of flood mitigation options will be investigated in this study, included a fresh review of the ocean outlet idea. The most cost effective options will be included in the Floodplain Management Plan for action. It is recommended that Council await the outcome of this study and plan

Item 2

Council already has two (2) adopted Floodplain Management Plans.

The plans cover Tallow Creek (Suffolk Park) and Belongil Creek (Byron Bay).

Both these plans have unfunded flood mitigation projects to the value of $12,289,500. All these works could potentially attract two thirds funding from state government, however, this funding cannot be attracted until Council can fund its one third of the costs.

Adoption of the North Byron Floodplain Management Plan will increase the amount of unfunded flood mitigation works. The total value of proposed flood mitigation works following the adoption of a third Floodplain Management Plan will likely exceed $20 million.

To deliver flood mitigation strategies/works it is important that Council continue to prioritise flood mitigation works to be included in annual budgets into the future and ensure less appropriate projects are not placed in front of flood mitigation works, despite weather conditions of the time.

The Office of Environment and Heritage are responsible for administering the NSW Government's floodplain management grants program. This program supports local government to manage flood risk. This is main funding support which is available to Councils for flood mitigation works. Their website notes the following:

On 27 October 2016, $4.59 million in funding was awarded to local councils and other authorities to undertake priority projects to assess the risks and reduce the impacts of flooding in NSW. In total, 43 projects were supported in the 2016–17 funding round. In addition a one off grant was awarded to Wagga Wagga City Council outside of the standard grant process for its Wagga Wagga Main City and North Wagga Levee Construction – Stage 2 for $2,130,007

Link to flood grant program http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/coasts/Floodgrants.htm

Councils are expected to fund maintenance works such as; gutter, drain and channel cleaning, increasing pipe sizes, road culverts and replacing causeways from general revenue funds.

Years of rate pegging and continued increases to operating and material costs has resulted in less work being achieved by Council each year. This has resulted in three situations.

· firstly Council operating in a more reactive manner instead of a programmed manner

· secondly, in order to manage risk and the community’s safety the majority of Council’s infrastructure budget has needed to be directed towards road operations and renewal

· thirdly, the degradation of all Council’s assets below desired levels. Byron Shire Council is not alone, many NSW Councils are in a similar situation.

Additionally, the community have an expectation that Council spend a proportion of its annual budget on the provision of new assets and infrastructure. This expectation is unlikely to change in the future, resulting in Council needing to continue to balance its expenditure across maintenance operations, asset renewal and provision of new assets.

Stormwater asset renewal or upgrade has generally been unfunded over the last decade, unless total asset failure occurs and Council’s drainage maintenance budget is largely insufficient to provide the desired maintenance levels.

The stormwater levy has helped provide some much needed drainage funding; however, expenditure of these funds has clear rules and is generally only used to fund resolution of smaller drainage problems occurring on private land. This money cannot be used for maintenance purposes.

The recently approved rate rise above rate pegging will help to change this situation. Council’s expenditure will be audited for the next ten years, this audit will expect to find increases in drainage funding. Therefore, additional funds must be directed towards drainage infrastructure maintenance, repair and renewal in the future. Change will be slow, but it will increase as we see the cumulative impact of higher annual rate increases.

Grant funding for maintenance works is not available unless it is linked to larger projects, such as flood mitigation projects noted above.

Other Proposed Future Actions

Staff are currently completing the following post flood works:

1. preparation of a review of rainfall volumes, river heights and flood levels in order to obtain a snap shot of how the flood behaved and the Annual Recurrence Interval of the event

2. liaison with the State Emergency Service regarding flood warnings. Council manages a flood warning system which relies upon river level gauges. The SES uses this system to make flood decisions, including whether evacuation is required and the level of flood warning to issue to the community. The flash flooding nature of the last two floods has questioned the appropriateness of Council’s flood warning system. A system which uses rainfall gauges to predict flood levels may be more appropriate and provide better warning times for the community. The cost and appropriateness of such a system are being investigated and will likely be a recommendation within the North Byron Floodplain Management Plan.

3. considering methods of communicating the above to the community

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Flood mitigation schemes are inherently expensive. Generally, Councils wishing to complete such schemes will adopt a Floodplain Management Plan and use this plan as leverage to attract 2 to 1 funding between state government and Council for the works. Without an adopted plan state government are very unlikely to fund a flood mitigation scheme because it has not been investigated appropriately and its likely success has not been proven.

Council simply does not have the budget to complete a flood mitigation scheme without the support of state government, therefore, any flood mitigation schemes for North Byron Shire will need to await the adoption of the North Byron Floodplain Management Plan.

Under the NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005 Councils are responsible for, preparation of Flood Studies, Floodplain Risk Management Studies and Plans, Asset investigation, design, design and construction, Construction and maintenance of drainage and flood mitigation work, Flood education, Emergency response and Public infrastructure, Post flood data collection and review.

The state government is responsible for support through legislation, definition of broad policy, specialised technical advice, financial assistance (OEH) and emergency management (SES).

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes, the proposed North Byron Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.5

Notice of Motion No. 9.5 Secondary dwelling conditions

File No: I2017/606

I move:

1. That Council recognises community concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing in Byron Shire and concerns that secondary dwellings, as defined and facilitated by the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, are being used for tourism purposes via short term letting, holiday letting Air Bnb and similar online platforms.

2. That Council responds to concerns and compliance issues by:

a) contacting all property owners with a secondary dwelling (granny flat) approved since the passage of Council Resolution 11-268 and seek property owners’ confirmation that they are complying with their approval and/or conditions of consent with the regard to the Environmental Planning Assessment Act and to Byron Shire Council Resolution 11-268.

b) developing a form that seeks the owners signature regarding compliance with consent and Resolution 11-268 for inclusion with the correspondence to be returned to council within 30 days.

3. That a report be received from staff informing Council as to the outcome of 2(a) and (b).

Signed: Cr Cate Coorey

Councillor’s supporting information:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 was intended to, among other things, “facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing.” The SEPP has been used extensively in Byron Shire as a means to build secondary dwellings, ostensibly for this purpose.

Council resolved to assist property owners to deliver new affordable rental housing by waiving Section 64 and 94 contributions. This was enacted via Council Resolution 11-268 under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing Policy subject to meeting the following requirements.

a) That the maximum size of the secondary dwelling or granny flat does not exceed 60sqm.

b) That the floor space ratio for the whole development of the site does not extend beyond the 0.5:1 and that 25% of the site must be covered by absorbent surfaces such as lawn or landscaping.

c) That the secondary dwelling or granny flat does not increase the overall number of bedrooms on the site to greater than 5.

d) That the applicant has applied for a secondary dwelling or granny flat and specifically advised that the development is not to be used for tourism purposes and accepts a condition of consent to the same effect.

Staff comments by Shannon Burt, Director, Sustainable Environment and Economy:

(Management Comments must not include formatted recommendations – resolution 11-979)

Task

The motion provides recognition of the current lack of affordable housing in Byron Shire, and raises concerns that secondary dwellings, as defined by State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, are being used for tourism purposes via short term letting, holiday letting Air Bnb and similar online platforms.

The motion also proposes the contacting all property owners with a secondary dwelling (granny flat) approved since the passage of Council Resolution 11-268 to seek their confirmation that they are complying with their approval and/or conditions of consent and the resolution. It also proposes that a form be developed and forwarded to property owners seeking their signature regarding compliance with the consent and the resolution.

Response

Council previously received a report at the ordinary meeting held 15 December 2016, on short term rental accommodation, link below:

http://byron.infocouncil.biz/Open/2016/12/OC_15122016_AGN_536.PDF

This report provided commentary on the ‘legal and planning avenues to ensure ‘granny flats/secondary dwellings’ built without paying Council fees and or contributions are not being used and will not be used for short term rental accommodation purposes.’

This report recognised the limitation in law as to whether Council can impose a development contribution retrospectively for a secondary dwelling where a waiver had been granted via development consent, if that secondary dwelling was found to be used for short term rental accommodation.

Council has issued some 545 secondary dwelling consents since State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 came into effect, with nearly all of these being approved from 2011 on following the contribution waiver.

It is therefore possible for staff to identify these properties and contact the landowners with respect to 2(a) and (b) above. Then prepare a report to Council on this.

As an additional part of the report, Council staff will also advise on the effectiveness of the waiver policy on providing ‘affordable housing’ in Byron Shire.

Legal Implications:

It is presumed that the contact referred to in the motion will be by mail as opposed to attendance at and entry onto/into the premises concerned.

There is a clear legislative intention to limit the circumstances in which access or entry can be made to residential premises. Properly authorised officers of Councils are provided with the power under various pieces of legislation to enter upon private land for the purpose of enforcement or investigation. In each case in legislation which Council deals with the authorised officer’s power of entry is limited with respect to “residential premises”.

The proposed contact by mail is governed by EP&A Act section 119J which provides that:

“(1) An investigation officer may, by notice in writing given to a person, require the person to furnish to the officer such information or records (or both) as the notice requires in connection with an investigation purpose.

(2) The notice must specify the manner in which information or records are required to be furnished and a reasonable time by which the information or records are required to be furnished.”

EP&A Act section 119C provides that;

“(2) A council investigation officer may exercise powers under this Division for any of the

following purposes:

(a) enabling a council to exercise its functions under this Act,”

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes - CM4 Community compliance with statutory requirements –

CM4.1 Promote community compliance with Acts, Regulations, Instruments and Council policies and standards

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.3

Report No. 13.3 Fishheads Cafe/Restaurant and Byron Bay Swimming Pool complex

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Ralph James, Legal Services Coordinator

File No: I2017/486

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

The current agreement between Crown Lands, Council and Fishheads@Byron Pty Ltd (Fishheads) for the lease and management of the Byron Bay War Memorial Pool Complex (which includes the Café) expires on 30 June 2017. There is no provision for a further term, and the agreement requires Fishheads to vacate the premises at that time.

The tenure of the land on which the Complex is located, is complex and involves four land parcels being part Crown Reserve R82000 (part Lot 10 DP 1049827), part Road Reserve and part Council owned Operational Land (part Lot 4 DP 827049 and part Lot 5 DP 827049). Rationalising these land tenure arrangements has been the subject of many reports to Council. The process is ongoing.

As Council remains in the process of resolving land tenure issues at the site a temporary extension of occupation of the premises for 12 months beyond 30 June 2017 is appropriate.

This report relates to part Road Reserve and part Council owned Operational Land (part Lot 4 DP 827049 and part Lot 5 DP 827049). A report, in relation to part Crown Reserve R82000, is included in the Reserve Trust Committee Meeting Agenda for 25 May 2017.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council, subject to Crown consent, extend the lease/management agreement over part Road Reserve and part Council owned Operational Land (part Lot 4 DP 827049 and part Lot 5 DP 827049), known as the Byron Bay Swimming Pool Complex, to Fishheads@Byron Pty Ltd for 12 months (1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018).

2. That the extension be on the same terms and conditions contained in the current lease/management agreement, but with a CPI increase (all groups Sydney June 2017) in the rent and management fee.

Report

Land Classification

The Fishheads Cafe/Restaurant (Cafe) and Byron Bay Swimming Pool Complex (Pool) are located on a mixture of Crown Reserve Land (under the Crown Lands Act), Road Reserve (under the Roads Act) and Council owned land (under the Local Government Act).

The mixture of land ownership, land classifications, and gazetted purposes means that any negotiation toward, or agreement over, the occupation of the site is subject to, and restricted by, a various legislation and public land management provisions.

Occupation history

In 2000 Council tendered the occupation and management of the Pool site, and the contract was awarded to Mark Sims and Ralph Mamone for a 4 1/2 year term. Upon acceptance of their tender offer (Tender Agreement), Council advised Messrs Sims and Mamone they could take possession of the site from 1 December 2000. However, vacant possession was delayed by 5 to 6 weeks as the then incumbent contractor did not vacate the site as required.

Messrs Sims and Mamone took vacant possession of the site on or around 8 January 2001 and operated the facility in accordance with the Tender Agreement.

Thereafter, Council has sought and received permission from Crown Lands, and in consultation with the Office of Local Government, to directly negotiate several short-term (generally 2-year terms) arrangements with Fishheads over a number of years whilst Council and Crown Lands work to resolve the complex land tenure arrangements at the site.

The tenure arrangements with Fishheads have been conducted in accordance with the ICAC Guidelines for managing risks in direct negotiations and would never have been permissible, supported, or defendable if not for the constraints of the public land management options available to Council because of the land tenure complexities.

These circumstances have resulted in Messrs Sims and Mamone (and later Fishheads) occupying the site continuously, but under several separately negotiated Deeds of Agreement, since January 2001.

Council, in consultation Office of Local Government and with authorisation from with Crown Lands have directly negotiated several Deeds of Agreement with Fishheads on substantially the same terms and conditions,as set below:

· 2- year Deed of Agreement from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011

· 2-year Deed of Agreement (1 year from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 + 1 year option exercised for 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013)

· 2 year Deed of Agreement from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015

· 2 year Deed of Agreement from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2017

As Council remains in the process of resolving land tenure issues at the site a temporary extension of occupation of the premises for 12 months beyond 30 June 2017 is appropriate.

Financial Implications

The proposed agreement extension will increase the current rent and management fees by the CPI. The increase will be calculated after the June quarter 2017 CPI figures are released by the ABS.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The ability to negotiate a longer period of tenure and direct dealings

On 30 October 2014, Fishheads attended a Public Access session at the Ordinary Council meeting and proposed that Fishheads, Crown Lands, and Council enter into a 20 year commercial lease arrangement based on the provisions of a draft Crown Lands Policy called “BUSINESS DIRECTIVES (2007 - 2011) COMMERCIAL TENURE OF CROWN LANDS” that Fishhead’s relied on to support their proposal for a ‘direct dealing’ arrangement between the parties – rather than Council calling a public competitive tender process.

Council, subsequently made enquiries with the Office of Local Government (OLG) and Crown Lands about Council’s ability to ‘directly deal’ with Fishheads for a long term tenure arrangement.

The OLG provided verbal advice, consistent with previous correspondence over a number of years, that the site was to be offered for future tenure via a competitive public process once the land tenure rationalisation was finalised. Crown Lands verbally advised, consistent with previous correspondence over a number of years, that the site was to be offered for future tenure by public tender in accordance with their Policies and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) guide lines.

In a subsequent meeting held on 29 May 2015 between Crown Lands, Fishheads and Council, Crown Lands advised Fishheads that the draft Crown Lands Policy called “BUSINESS DIRECTIVES (2007 - 2011) COMMERCIAL TENURE OF CROWN LANDS” relied upon by Fishheads in their proposal was never adopted and was no longer available on their website.

Crown Lands advised Fishheads that the current guiding policy for any ‘direct dealing’ is that called “UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS” published by the NSW State Government that sets out the criteria and process for any unique proposals received and that the Fishheads proposal for a 20 year commercial lease tenure did not meet or address the criteria.

ICAC guidelines

ICAC guidelines define direct negotiations as exclusive negotiations between an agency and a proponent without first undergoing a genuine competitive process.

Varying or extending existing contracts and agreements by negotiation with the incumbent is also considered direct negotiations.

Where there is a close relationship between an agency and an incumbent there is a risk that the agency and/or its staff and/or officials will develop either an overly close relationship or dependency. This form of ‘capture’ can deter the agency from testing or retesting the market, which in turn may lead to poor value for money. ‘Capture’ tends to involve subtle influence and is often established over time or as a result of small favours of acts of friendship. A public official who over identifies with an incumbent may not even be aware of the fact and as such would unlikely contemplate or recognise any type of bias.

‘Captured agencies can be susceptible to offers or suggestions made with the intention of avoiding competition or persuading the agency to depart from its usual procedures. Where the agency allows itself to be persuaded by such special offers, it can lose effective control of the process and sacrifice value for money.

ICAC guidelines recommend that as a general rule direction negotiations should be avoided. In the case of proposed variations or extensions to existing contracts or agreements, it is recommended that any proposed changes or variations greater than 10% be supported by applying the principals of probity and accountability, value for money, and be supported by a business case.

Ultimately, an open competitive selection process such as a tender or expression of interest process enables Council to demonstrate accountability and transparency and makes it difficult for private interests to influence, or be seen as influencing the outcome or variation of contracts and agreements.

Obtaining best value for public money is a fundamental principle of public sector work. When it is known that there are other proponents who could feasibly compete for a contract, agreeing to direct negotiations with a single proponent increases the risk that the agency may not obtain best value for money. When a proponent does not have to compete for contracts there is a higher risk that the proponent may unjustifiably increase profit margins, exaggerate expenses or otherwise boost returns on the contract.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.6

Report No. 13.6 Council Investments April 2017

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/564

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position for the month of April 2017 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 30 April 2017 be noted.

Attachments:

1 Letter sent to Westpac Bank concerning Adani Carmichael Mine, E2017/30986 ⇨

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of April 2017, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. The average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of April 2017 was 1.75%. Council’s performance to 30 April 2017 is 2.68%. Council’s 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 and purchasing floating rate notes with attractive interest rates.

The table below identifies the investments held by Council as at 30 April 2017:

Schedule of Investments held as at 30 April 2017

Purch Date	Principal ($)	Description	CP*	Rating	Maturity Date	Ethical ADI	Type	Interest Rate Per Annum	Current Value
20/06/12	500,000	Heritage Bank Ltd Bonds	N	BBB+	20/06/17	Y	B	7.25%	520,000.00
24/03/17	1,000,000	NAB Social Bond (Gender Equality)	N	AA-	24/03/22	N	B	3.44%	1,000,000.00
28/10/16	650,000	Teachers Mutual Bank	N	BBB+	28/10/19	Y	FRN	3.17%	650,000.00
31/03/17	1,000,000	CBA Climate Bond	N	AA-	31/3/22	N	FRN	3.25%	1,000,000.00
18/04/17	2,000,000	NAB	P	AA-	23/08/17	N	TD	2.53%	2,000,000.00
22/02/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/07/17	N	TD	2.56%	2,000,000.00
07/04/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	08/08/17	N	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
04/04/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/07/17	N	TD	2.53%	1,000,000.00
04/01/17	3,000,000	ME Bank	P	BBB	04/05/17		TD	2.75%	3,000,000.00
06/03/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	30/08/17	N	TD	2.58%	2,000,000.00
22/02/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/07/17	N	TD	2.57%	2,000,000.00
28/11/16	2,000,000	AMP Bank	P	A	29/05/17	N	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
06/04/17	2,000,000	Bank of Queensland	P	A2	08/08/17	Y	TD	2.50%	2,000,000.00
01/02/17	2,000,000	Police Credit Union	P	NR	02/08/17	U	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
05/04/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	15/08/17	Y	TD	2.50%	2,000,000.00
01/12/16	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	P	A2	01/06/17	Y	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
01/02/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	A2	10/05/17	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
07/04/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	07/07/17	Y	TD	2.45%	2,000,000.00
08/03/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	08/08/17	Y	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
28/02/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	A2	21/06/17	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
04/01/17	3,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	A2	04/07/17	Y	TD	2.75%	3,000,000.00
04/01/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	P	NR	04/07/17	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
08/03/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	07/07/17	N	TD	2.56%	2,000,000.00
16/03/17	2,000,000	AMP Bank	N	A	18/09/17	N	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
10/03/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	09/06/17	N	TD	2.52%	2,000,000.00
27/04/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	30/08/17	Y	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
04/04/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	A2	27/09/17	Y	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
04/01/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	A2	04/07/17	Y	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
16/12/16	1,500,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	P	A2	28/06/17	Y	TD	2.80%	1,500,000.00
12/12/16	1,000,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	N	A2	13/06/17	Y	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
16/12/16	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	05/07/17	U	TD	2.87%	1,000,000.00
20/01/17	1,000,000	AMP Bank	N	A	19/7/17	N	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
20/01/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	A2	26/7/17	Y	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
03/02/17	1,000,000	Mystate Bank	N	NR	09/08/17	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
14/02/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	17/05/17	Y	TD	2.60%	2,000,000.00
16/02/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	A	15/08/17	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
21/02/17	1,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	A2	24/05/17	Y	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
01/03/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	N	NR	06/09/17	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
03/03/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	N	NR	06/09/17	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
03/03/17	2,000,000	Holiday Coast Credit Union	N	NR	13/06/17	Y	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
06/03/17	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	P	NR	23/08/17	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
07/03/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	A2	19/07/17	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
07/03/17	1,000,000	Regional Australia Bank	P	NR	28/06/17	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
23/03/17	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	27/09/17	U	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
03/04/17	1,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	A2	26/07/17	Y	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
03/04/17	2,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	04/10/17	U	TD	2.80%	2,000,000.00
03/04/17	1,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	A2	13/09/17	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
N/A	2,053,334	CBA Business Online Saver	N	A	N/A	N	CALL	1.40%	2,053,334.04
Total	75,703,334						AVG	2.68%	75,723,334.04

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.	Ethical ADI
	Y = No investment in Fossil Fuels
	N = Investment in Fossil Fuels
	U = Unknown Status

Note 3.	Type	Description
	B	Bonds	Principal can vary based on valuation, interest payable via a fixed interest, payable usually each quarter.
	FRN	Floating Rate Note	Principal can vary based on valuation, interest payable via a floating interest rate that varies each quarter.
	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.

Environmental and Socially Responsible Investing

An additional column has been added to the schedule of Investments above, to identify if the financial institution holding the Council investment, has been assessed as an “Ethical” institution. This information has been sourced through www.marketforces.org.au and identifies financial institutions that either invest in fossil fuel related industries or do not. The graph below highlights the percentage of each classification across Councils total investment portfolio.

On 31 March 2017 but settled early April 2017, Council purchased $1,000,000 parcel of a Climate Bond issued by the Commonwealth Bank. This investment allows the investment proceeds to fund eligible projects in renewable generation, energy efficient buildings and low carbon transport. The eligible projects comply with the Climate Bond Standards, are eligible for certification and as such have been nominated for this climate bond. This is a Floating Rate Note (FRN) which means the interest rate will reset each quarter for the life of this 5 year investment. This investment aligns with Council resolution 15-515, and was purchased due to the purpose of the investment and its favourable rate of return.

On 28 April 2017 Council sold its share in the Westpac Climate Bond. This action with part of Council resolution 17-150 part 2 where Council resolved:

That Council, divests all funds currently held with Westpac at the first opportunity that would not lead to any financial disadvantage to ratepayers and refrain from any future investments with Westpac and other financial institutions and their subsidiaries until they publicly rule out any financing of Adani’s Carmichael mine.

This bond was sold for $1,010,870.00, realising a capital gain of $10,870.00. Council has also written to Westpac as requested in the resolution but is yet to receive a response even though Westpac has been reported in the media as ruling out funding for the Adani Carmichael mine. A copy of the letter sent to Westpac is included at Attachment 2 for the information of Councillors.

For the month of April 2017, as indicated in the table below, there is a dissection of the investment portfolio by investment type:

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 30 April 2017

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
70,500,000.00	Term Deposits	70,500,000.00	0.00
1,650,000.00	Floating Rate Note	1,650,000.00	0.00
2,053,334.04	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,053,334.04	0.00
1,500,000.00	Bonds	1,520,000.00	20,000.00
75,703,334.04		75,723,334.04	20,000.00

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 month of April 2017 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 1 to 30 April 2017

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Opening Balance at 31 March 2017	76,335,501.29
Add: New Investments Purchased	19,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	1,400,000.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	2,252.75
Less: Investments Matured	20,000,000.00
Less: Investments Sold	1,014,420.00
Less: Call Account Redemption	0.00
Add: Fair Value Movement for period	0.00
Closing Balance at 30 April 2017	75,723,334.04

Investments Maturities and Returns – 1 to 30 April 2017

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	03/04/17	119	2.71%	17,670.68
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	03/04/17	90	2.65%	13,068.49
1,000,000.00	NAB	TD	04/04/17	90	2.64%	6,509.59
1,000,000.00	Bank of Queensland	TD	04/04/17	182	2.65%	13,213.70
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	05/04/17	121	2.75%	18,232.88
2,000,000.00	Bank of Queensland	TD	06/04/17	90	2.50%	12,328.77
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	07/04/17	126	2.71%	18,710.14
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	07/04/17	121	2.75%	18,232.88
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	12/04/17	90	2.61%	12,871.23
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	18/04/17	102	2.63%	14,699.18
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	27/4/17	90	2.65%	13,068.49
20,000,000.00						158,606.03

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 April 2017 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 30 April 2017

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	70,500,000.00	70,500,000.00	0.00
Floating Rate Note	1,650,000.00	1,650,000.00	0.00
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,053,334.04	2,053,334.04	0.00
Bonds	1,500,000.00	1,520,000.00	20,000.00
Total Investment Portfolio	75,703,334.04	75,723,334.04	20,000.00

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	3,159,588.58	3,159,588.58	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	3,159,588.58	3,159,588.58	0.00

Total Cash Position	78,862,922.62	78,882,922.58	20,000.00

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.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.7

Report No. 13.7 Budget Review 1 January - 31 March 2017

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/565

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 2016/2017 financial year, reviewed as at 31 March 2017.

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 Council authorise the itemised budget variations as shown in Attachment 2 (#E2017/31291) which includes the following results in the 31 March 2017 Quarterly Review of the 2016/2017 Budget:

a) General Fund – $3,300 increase in the Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result

b) General Fund - $1,628,300 increase in reserves

c) Water Fund - $870,600 increase in reserves

d) Sewerage Fund - $2,810,300 increase in reserves

2. That Council adopt the revised General Fund Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result of $1,145,200 for the 2016/2017 financial year as at 31 March 2017.

Attachments:

1 Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2017/31290 ⇨

2 March 2017 Quarterly Budget Review, E2017/31291 ⇨

3 Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) Quarterly Review Statement, E2017/31292 ⇨

Report

Council adopted the 2016/2017 budget on 29 June 2016 via Resolution 16-348. It also considered and adopted the budget carryovers from the 2015/2016 financial year, to be incorporated into the 2016/2017 budget at its Ordinary Meeting held on 25 August 2016 via Resolution 16-446. Since that date, Council has reviewed the budget taking into consideration the 2015/2016 Financial Statement results and progress through the first three quarters of the 2016/2017 financial year. This report considers the March 2017 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 29 June 2016 plus the adopted carryover budgets from 2015/2016 followed by the resolutions between July and September, the September review, resolutions between October and December, the December review, resolutions between January and March and the revote (or adjustment for this review) and then the revised position projected for 30 June 2017 as at 31 March 2017.

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 2017 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 59 to 74 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.

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 31 March 2017 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 January to March 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 2016/2017 financial year projected to 30 June 2017 but revised as at 31 March 2017.

2016/2017 Budget Review Statement as at 31 March 2017	Original Estimate (Including Carryovers) 1/7/2016	Adjustments to March 2017 including Resolutions*	Proposed March 2017 Review Revotes	Revised Estimate 30/6/2017 at 31/03/2017
Operating Revenue	75,503,200	1,461,600	910,200	77,875,000
Operating Expenditure	76,715,900	2,157,600	179,700	79,053,200
Operating Result – Surplus/Deficit	(1,212,700)	(696,000)	730,500	(1,178,200)
Add: Capital Revenue	19,784,900	(7,259,700)	(2,050,000)	10,475,200
Change in Net Assets	18,572,200	(7,955,700)	(1,319,500)	9,297,000
Add: Non Cash Expenses	12,515,100	0	0	12,515,100
Add: Non-Operating Funds Employed	1,673,000	0	0	1,673,000
Subtract: Funds Deployed for Non-Operating Purposes	(60,072,800)	5,787,600	6,632,000	(47,653,200)
Cash Surplus/(Deficit)	(27,312,500)	(2,168,100)	5,312,500	(24,168,000)
Restricted Funds – Increase / (Decrease)	(27,350,100)	(2,127,200)	5,309,200	(24,168,000)
Forecast Result for the Year – Surplus/(Deficit) – Unrestricted Cash Result	37,600	(40,900)	3,300	0

GENERAL FUND

In terms of the General Fund projected Unrestricted Cash Result the following table provides a reconciliation of the estimated position as at 31 March 2017:

Opening Balance – 1 July 2016	$1,145,200
Plus original budget movement and carryovers	$37,600
Council Resolutions July – September Quarter	0
September Review – increase/(decrease)	0
Council Resolutions October – December Quarter	0
December Review – increase/(decrease)	(40,900)
Council Resolutions January – March Quarter	0
March Review – increase/(decrease)	3,300
Forecast Unrestricted Cash Result – Surplus/(Deficit) – 30 June 2017	$0
Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result Closing Balance – 30 June 2017	$1,145,200

The General Fund financial position overall has increased by $3,300 as a result of this budget review. The proposed budget changes are detailed in Attachment 1 and summarised further in this report below.

Council Resolutions

There were no Council resolutions during the January to March 2017 quarter that impacted the overall 2016/2017 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) $
General Manager	1,500	1,500	0
Corporate & Community Services	57,700	22,300	35,400
Infrastructure Services	(2,194,100)	(2,166,800)	(27,300)
Sustainable Environment & Economy	252,700	257,500	(4,800)
Total Budget Movements	(1,882,200)	(1,885,500)	3,300

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 Directorate and are included in the overall budget adjustments table above:

General Manager

· In the People & Culture Budget Program various changes to budget items are required to reflect revised actual/projected expenditure. These movements have no overall impact on the budget result.

Corporate and Community Services

· In the Councillor Services Budget Program a decrease in expenditure of $22,800 is attributable to the final election expenses being under budget.

· In the Information Services Budget Program it is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $45,000 to cover the costs of the implementation of online purchase requisitions. This cost is distributed across other programs through support service costs.

· In the Governance Services Budget Program it is proposed to decrease the Strategic Procurement Roadmap budget by $45,000 to assist with the funding of the online purchase requisitions (in Information Services Budget Program above), and an increase in the Internal Audit budget to reflect the actual cost of the additional internal audits conducted. These costs are distributed across other programs through support service costs.

· In the Community Development Budget Program, It is proposed to increase operating expenditure due to additional costs for the Disability Inclusion Planning ($14,000) offset by savings recognised against the positive ageing Strategy ($5,000), International Day for People with a Disability ($1,000), Disability and Access Project ($3,000) and mobility Maps ($1,000). It is proposed to increase income and expenditure at the Ocean Shores Community Centre to reflect actuals ($40,000) and decrease expenditure for the Periwinkle Pre-school lease ($17,000). This building was sold and Council no longer receives rent for this building.

· In the Library Services Budget Program, it is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $10,000 to fund the Richmond Tweed Regional Library (RTRL) Governance Model Development.

Infrastructure Services

· In the Asset Management Planning Budget Program it is proposed to increase capital expenditure by $35,000 due to an additional $100,000 required for Lot 12 Bayshore Drive Byron Bay Remediation and a reduction in Lot 22 Mullumbimby South ($10,000), the Depot Relocation ($5,000) and Surplus Property Sales ($50,000). These adjustments are funded through the Property Development Reserve.

· In the Depot Services and Fleet Management Budget Program it is proposed to increase operating income by $25,000 to reflect actual income received from internal plant hire and increase expenditure by $20,000 for additional Depot training room costs and $27,000 for additional fleet management costs for the installation of GPS tracking. The movements in this Budget Program have no impact on the Budget result as funding is provided by the Plant Reserve.

· In the Local Roads and Drainage Budget Program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 15 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included in the second page of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Local Roads and Drainage.

· In the Roads and Maritime Services Budget Program (RMS) it is proposed to decrease capital expenditure by $21,000 as the scale of works for Ewingsdale Road have been reduced to provide RMS funding for the actual costs of reseal works at Tweed Valley Way (In the Local Roads & Drainage program).

· In the Open Space and Recreation Budget Program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 17 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included in the third page of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Open Space and Recreation.

· In the Quarry Budget Program it is proposed to decrease income by $33,700 and increase expenditure by $14,200 to reflect the actuals. This is funded through the Quarry reserve.

· In the Waste & Recycling Budget Program it is proposed to increase the operating income budget due to an increase in income for Domestic Waste Management Charges ($115,000), Commercial - Annual Charges ($22,000) and Sale of Scrap Metal Income ($60,000 ) as the actual income received has exceeded the original budget. It is proposed to reduce capital expenditure for the Development of New Landfill Capacity ($13,400) and New Landfill ($10,000) as the strategic direction for Council's waste disposal no longer involves progression of the Myocum Quarry Landfill project as well as the Resource Recovery Centre Upgrade ($150,000) as Council have submitted a grant application to enhance the delivery of this project. The decision of the grant funding won’t be announced until May or June 2017. Scope and delivery of the project is dependent on the result of the grant application.

· In the Cavanbah Centre Budget Program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 20 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included in the third page of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Cavanbah Centre.

· In the Holiday Park Budget Programs it is proposed to reduce capital expenditure at First Sun by $260,000 as the current capital program is behind schedule due to unforeseen delays with the Safari Tents and $540,000 at Suffolk Beachfront as the Cabins budget is subject to land reclassification finalisation and also requires a business case review.

· In the Facilities Management Budget Program it is proposed to decrease the Special rate funded community building maintenance budget by $557,200 and move to 2017/18 as they will not be expended this financial year. It is proposed to decrease capital expenditure by $267,400 due to the Byron Bay Library project being complete ($35,400) with the Suffolk Park Community hall upgrade ($100,000) and the Public Toilet Maintenance ($132,000) being moved to the 2017/18 budget.

Sustainable Environment and Economy

· In the Development & Certification Budget Program it is proposed to increase operating income by $30,000 as there has been a steady and significant increase in compliance certificate inspections.

· In the Planning Policy and Natural Environment Budget Program, it is proposed to increase income by $20,000 due to a $15,000 grant received from the Office of Environment and Heritage for the Shire Wide Flying Fox Management Plan and $5,000 received from the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF). It is proposed to decrease operating expenditure due to a reduction against planning studies ($7,500), an increase for the Shirewide Flying Fox Management Plan ($22,500), an increase for the revolving energy fund that relates to the supply and installation of a lighting upgrade to the Depot ($27,900 funded from the Revolving Energy reserve) and decreases against Community Infrastructure Maintenance Program ($13,300), CZMP for Byron Bay Embayment ($16,900) and the Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy ($20,000) that will remain unexpended this financial year and are all funded through the Environmental Levy.

· In the Economic Development Budget Program, it is proposed to increase operating income by $215,000 due to the Conferencing Byron project ($210,000) and the Back to Business project ($5,000). Operating expenditure increased due to Conferencing Byron ($240,000), Back to business ($5,000) and the Byron Placemaking Seed Fund ($10,000).

WATER FUND

After completion of the 2015/2016 Financial Statements the Water Fund as at 30 June 2016 has a capital works reserve of $2,723,000 and held $10,549,100 in section 64 developer contributions.

The estimated Water Fund reserve balances as at 30 June 2017, and forecast in this Quarter Budget Review, are derived as follows:

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2016	$2,723,000
Plus original budget reserve movement	1,553,000
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	(346,800)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(53,700)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(289,700)
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(250,000)
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	356,600
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	969,400
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$3,692,400

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2016	$10,549,100
Plus original budget reserve movement	(7,794,000)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	(383,100)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,270,000
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(1,740,900)
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	514,000
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	(8,134,000)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$2,415,100

Movements for Water Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated increase to reserves (including S64 Contributions) overall of $870,600 from the 31 March 2017 Quarter Budget Review.

SEWERAGE FUND

After completion of the 2015/2016 Financial Statements the Sewer Fund has a capital works reserves of $5,153,600 and plant reserve of $827,800. It also held $8,760,300 in section 64 developer contributions.

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$5,153,600
Plus original budget reserve movement	814,200
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	(96,900)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,071,600
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(427,100)
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,678,500
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	3,040,300
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$8,193,900

Plant Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2016	$827,800
Plus original budget reserve movement	0
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	0
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	0
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$827,800

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2016	$8,760,300
Plus original budget reserve movement	(2,785,400)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	(503,200)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,074,700
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(2,449,800)
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,131,800
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	(3,531,900)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$5,228,400

Movements for the Sewerage Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated overall increase to reserves (including S64 Contributions) of $2,810,300 from the 31 March 2017 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 general revenue, but can also be susceptible to large fluctuations.

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

a fund basis as at 31 March 2017.

Total Legal Income & Expenditure as at 31 March 2017

Program	2016/2017 Budget ($)	Actual ($)	Percentage To Revised Budget
Income
Legal Expenses Recovered	0	0	0%
Total Income	0	0	0%

Expenditure
General Legal Expenses	200,000	60,314	30.1%
Total Expenditure General Fund	200,000	60,314	30.1%

Note: The above table does not include costs incurred by Council in proceedings after 31 March 2017 or billed after this date along with legal costs incurred with the Byron Bay Bypass project that have currently been charged to the project.

Financial Implications

The 31 March 2017 Quarter Budget Review of the 2016/2017 Budget has increased the overall budget result by $3,300. As a result the estimated unrestricted cash balance attributable to the General Fund decreased to an estimated $1,145,200 at 30 June 2017.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with Regulation 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 Council is satisfactory for the 2016/2017 financial year, having consideration of the original estimate of income and expenditure at the 31 March 2017 Quarter Budget Review.

This opinion is based on the estimated General Fund Unrestricted Cash Result position and that the current indicative budget position for 2016/2017, whilst now a projected balanced result still provides that the General Fund Unrestricted Cash Balance will remain above Council’s adopted benchmark of $1,000,000. Notwithstanding this, Council will need to continue to carefully monitor the 2016/2017 budget over the remainder of the financial year especially in the Local Roads & Drainage Budget Programs and Open Space and Recreation Budget Programs that are under pressure given recent weather events and expenditure to date.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.9

Report No. 13.9 Request for Section 356 Donation from Byron Bay Community Association

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Joanne McMurtry, Community Project Officer

File No: I2017/586

Theme: Society and Culture

Community Development

Summary:

A request for a financial donation has been received from Byron Bay Community Association to assist in purchasing 20 seats in the ‘Comfy Bums for the Byron Theatre” (seats) fundraising appeal. An update on Section 356 funds for the 2016/17 financial year is provided. Council has sufficient unallocated funds in the Section 356 budget to meet this request.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a $5,000 donation be made to the Byron Bay Community Association to assist with the purchase of 20 seats in the ‘Comfy Bums for the Byron Theatre” (seats) fundraising appeal from unspent funds in the Section 356 budget for the 2016/17 financial year.

Attachments:

1 Byron Bay Community Association Submission for Section 356 donation, E2017/30507 ⇨

2 Comfy Bums for the Byron Theatre - attachment to Section 356 donation request from Byron Bay Community Association, E2017/30509 ⇨

Report

A request for a financial donation has been received from Byron Bay Community Association to assist in purchasing 20 seats in the ‘Comfy Bums for the Byron Theatre” (seats) fundraising appeal. The Byron Community Centre theatre space caters for live performances, conferences, workshops and exhibitions.

Attached are two documents which detail the request and the ‘Comfy Bums for the Byron Theatre’ promotion.

Council could make the donation from unallocated 2016/17 Section 356 funds. Following is an update on Section 356 funds for the 2016/17 financial year.

Section 356 unspent funds for 2016/17 financial year – update

Council called for submissions in July / August 2016 to the Policy 3.13 Donations to Community Organisations, Other Groups and Persons, Policy 14/002 Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions and the Policy 12/011 Donations to Community Groups – reimbursement of Council application fees. Several donations were approved and advertised as per resolution 16-443 made at the Ordinary meeting on 25 August 2016.

References:

The following Policies referred to in this report are available to be viewed on Council’s Web Page at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/policies

§ Policy 3.13 Donations to Community Organisations, Other Groups and Persons

§ Policy 14/002 Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions

§ Policy 12/011 Donations to Community Groups – reimbursement of Council application fees

Council’s adopted 2016/17 Budget has the following unallocated amounts remaining following the implementation of resolution 16-443 which can be made under Section 356 of the LG Act 1993.

$1,326 General S356 Donations

In accordance with Policy 3.13 Donations to Community Organisations, Other Groups and Persons

$5,055 Assistance for festivals and community events

In accordance with Policy 14/002Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions – donations itemised in this report.

$2,000 Reimbursement of Council application fees

In accordance with Policy 12/011 Donations to Community Groups – reimbursement of Council application fees

Resolution 16-443 (in part) states:

[Re: Policy 14/002 Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions]

c) The remaining $5,055 and any moneys not expended from the above donations, be advertised as ‘Round 2’ under Policy 14/002 early in 2017.

2. That funds available for Section 356 donations under Policy 12/011 Donations to Community Groups – reimbursement of Council application fees of $2,000 be advertised again at the same time as Round 2 of remaining funds under Policy 14/002 as described in 1c above.

6. That the remaining moneys not expended from the Section 356 donations budget be held in reserve for Council’s consideration on any possible donations for unanticipated projects with valuable community benefit that may occur throughout the financial year.

Following the advertising and process conducted in July/ August 2016, staff identified that a review of the Section 356 policies and procedures was overdue and have been conducting a review of the existing policies. The review will ensure that the Section 356 donations budget has an equitable and transparent application, assessment and acquittal process that aligns with Council’s Community Strategic Plan. This work is nearly completed with a report to be provided to Council for endorsement. It is expected that the next round of Community Donations funding will be based on the new policy and procedures once they are in place.

Due to this review, advertising a second round of Section 356 funds has not occurred. Therefore, the balances reported above remain unspent in the current financial year.

Request from Byron Bay Community Association

Below is an assessment of the request before Council from the Byron Bay Community Association according to the existing policies in place.

Policy 3.13 Donations to Community Organisations, Other Groups and Persons

This policy applies to the request as follows:

· To assist community organisations in the provision of services and facilities for the benefit of residents

· The recipient organisation is not-for-profit and provides a community service within the Byron LGA

· The request will benefit a large number of beneficiaries.

Policy 12/011 Donations to Community Groups – reimbursement of Council application fees

This policy could apply if Council agrees the request fits with the following objective and policy statement:

· To provide assistance to community groups for lodgement of Council required applications associated with development and alterations of community facilities.

· Council will assist community groups by reimbursing application fees paid to Council for lodgement of applications associated with development or alterations of community facilities.

· The proposed development is to provide a substantial and appropriate benefit to the community and will be available for community use.

· Community groups who may apply will include church groups, charitable bodies, service clubs, sporting bodies and other similar community orientate organisations.

Policy 14/002Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions

This policy does not apply as the policy states funds are available ‘to provide appropriate levels of assistance to community organisations through the use of Council’s works resources’.

As a second round of Section 356 community donations will not be run prior to the end of the financial year 2016/17, it is recommended that the $5,000 donation be made to the Byron Bay Community Association to assist with the purchase of 20 seats in the ‘Comfy Bums for the Byron Theatre” (seats) fundraising appeal.

Financial Implications

It is recommended that the funds described in the report come from:

$1,326 from unallocated S356 Donations in accordance with Policy 3.13 Donations to Community Organisations, Other Groups and Persons

$3,674 from community events S356 donations in accordance with Policy 14/002Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Section 356 of the Local Government Act states:-

356 Can a council financially assist others?

(1) A council may, in accordance with a resolution of the council, contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons for the purpose of exercising its functions.

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

(3) However, public notice is not required if:

(a) the financial assistance is part of a specific program, and

(b) the program’s details have been included in the council’s draft management plan for the year in which the financial assistance is proposed to be given, and

(c) the program’s proposed budget for that year does not exceed 5 per cent of the council’s proposed income from the ordinary rates levied for that year, and

(d) the program applies uniformly to all persons within the council’s area or to a significant group of persons within the area.

(4) Public notice is also not required if the financial assistance is part of a program of graffiti removal work.

377 General power of the council to delegate

(1) A council may, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council, other than the following:

(q) a decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.12

Report No. 13.12 PLANNING - 10.2016.575.1 deferred - additional information with regard to resolution 17-079 to be provided to Council

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Rob Van Iersel, Consultant Planner

Chris Larkin, Major Projects Planner

File No: I2017/419

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Summary:

Council resolved at the Ordinary meeting held 23 March 2017 the following:

17-079 Resolved that the matter of development application 10.2016.575.1 for a Rural Industry (Micro Distillery) and Industrial Retail Outlet be deferred and considered by the next two Council meetings in order for Councillors to receive information concerning:

- distilleries as an emerging industry and its role in sustainable agriculture;

- road impacts;

- greater detail of the production, distribution and sales of the ready-to-drink component and its potential impact on the road and local community; and

- impacts on local water sources. (Coorey/Richardson)

This report presents to Council a response to the matters contained in the resolution.

Following the 23 March Council meeting, the applicants have amended the development proposal to remove the ready-to-drink component, thereby clarifying total production levels and associated traffic movements.

The recommended conditions of approval have been updated to reflect this amendment, to clarify the approved production limits and to include a condition requiring that any lighting (security or otherwise) be designed and placed to ensure that it does not result in amenity impacts for neighbours.

Based on the information provided in this report, and on the updated conditions, it is recommended that DA 10.2016.575.1 be approved.

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:

1. That Council note the report.

2. That, pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2016.575.1 for a Rural Industry (Micro Distillery) and Industrial Retail Outlet, be granted consent subject to the following conditions listed in Attachment 2 #E2017/26541.

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans 10.2016.575.1, E2017/31375 ⇨

2 Updated conditions 10.2016.575.1 , E2017/26541 ⇨

Report

Council considered Report 13.9 PLANNING – 10.2016.575.1 – Agricultural Produce Industry (Micro Distillery) and Industrial Retail Outlet at 469 Middle Pocket Road, Middle Pocket at the Ordinary Meeting 23 March 2017. This report presents to Council a response to the matters raised in the resolution. These matters are discussed below:

Distilleries as an emerging industry and its role in sustainable agriculture

According to the Australian Distillers Association (est. 2004), the Australian distilling industry is one of the fastest growing and most diverse in the world. In June 2016, the Good Food Guide estimated that there are more than 50 small-scale distilleries across Australia, producing a variety of specialist spirits, such as whiskey, gin, vodka and the like.

Distilleries are directly linked to agriculture as they rely on a variety of agricultural products, in this case primarily molasses, citrus and botanicals. Given the prevailing economic factors around “conventional agriculture”, such as multi-national retailers, producers and distributers, farm production generally needs to be based on large production volumes at very low margins (for the farmer). Many contemporary agricultural practices, particularly those based on ‘niche markets’, look to change this scenario to small production volumes based on higher margins for the producers.

Distilleries work on this “small scale / high margins” approach. As such, they have a place in providing greater diversity across the agricultural sector, which is part of ensuring the sustainability of agriculture in the Shire. In the case of the proposed distillery at Middle Pocket, the proponents intend to grow sugar cane, various types of citrus and “botanicals”, such as elderflower, lemon grass and various herbs.

Given the size and nature of the site, it is unlikely that any of these agricultural products could provide a viable farm income on their own. They can, however, be successfully grown on the site as inputs to the distillery. The basic process starts with fermentation, which is the addition of yeast to molasses and water to produce alcohol. The yeast consumes the sugars in the molasses to produce the alcohol. Alcohol has a lower boiling point than water, so the mixture is heated to above the alcohol boiling point, with the ‘steam’ then condensed to capture the 100% pure alcohol. Water and various flavours (botanicals) can then be added to produce the end products.

In the Middle Pocket case, cane grown on-site can be used to produce cane juice to be used in place of the molasses. More likely, the cane will be sold to a mill, and molasses purchased from that mill. In the short-term, prior to the establishment of cane on the site, molasses will be purchased. In addition to the use of agricultural products, the by-product of the process provides a liquid fertiliser that will be used on the site as well as sold locally. This will assist local production by providing a local fertiliser alternative.

Road impacts

The production output from the proposed distillery is presented in the table below. The table describes the total maximum alcohol produced for each stage and how this translates into the number of cases and the number of pallets to be dispatched from the site.

The cases and the pallets will contain 700ml bottles of the final spirits, each at a 40% alcohol content. The figures in this table do not include ready-to-drink volumes, as this component of the project has now been deleted (see below).

*Description*	*Daily Output – Pure Alcohol*	*Equivalent cases (i.e. 700ml @ 40% alc)*	*No of Pallets per Day*	*No of Pallets per Week (6 operating days)*
Stage 1	200L	60	0.75	4.5
Stage 1 + Stage 2	1,000L	300	4.00	24.0

The pallets will be dispatched by a combination of Medium Rigid Vehicle and a courier van (i.e. Light Rigid Vehicle). An MRV is a two-axle truck with a maximum length of 12.5m and a mass limit of 9.0 tonnes. It has unrestricted access to the NSW road system. An LRV is essentially like a courier van. A standard MRV will carry 12 pallets of product (2 rows of 6), while an LRV can carry 8 pallets (2 rows of 4).

The traffic generation estimates submitted with the development application suggested that the “dispatched goods” component would be a maximum of 1 MRV per fortnight plus 3 LRVs per week. Each fortnight, therefore, this would provide the capacity for 60 pallets. The proposed production will maximise at 48 pallets per fortnight, so the traffic estimate for the “dispatched good” component of the operation is purposely high.

The traffic estimates for the remaining components were provided in the application, and expressed as a daily number of trips. Overall, the development would generate 10 vehicle trips and 3 peak hour trips per day for stage 1 and 11 vehicle trips and 4 peak hour trips for stage 1 and 2 combined. These figures comprise car and truck movements inclusive of traffic generated by the industrial retail outlet (tasting facility).

In the previous report to Council, the Development Engineer noted:

Approximately 13 residences currently gain access off Middle Pocket Road for the last 1.1km, generating 117 vehicle trips per day and 11 peak hour trips. The proposed development when complete will therefore add a further 11 trips to traffic along Middle Pocket Road on average. The increase is below the 150 vehicle trip threshold in accordance with Council’s Development and Design Manual D1 – Table T 1.27. The capacity of Middle pocket Road is therefore considered to be acceptable for the additional traffic generated by the proposed distillery.

Condition of Middle Pocket Road

It is acknowledged that the condition of Middle Pocket Road varies at different points, however, it is deemed to be in reasonable condition. Notwithstanding the above, it is recommended that appropriate embellishment to road signage occur on the approaches to the culvert adjacent to 303 Middle Pocket Road. Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended to ensure the signage complies with the applicable Australian Standard.

In terms of the road impact assessment it is considered the last kilometre is where the greater impact is on the local road network. Further to the east the condition of Middle Pocket Road improves, whilst any nexus to upgrade the road is diminished due to other land owners and farmers adding to the overall traffic on the road. That is traffic generated by the distillery becomes a smaller percentage to the traffic on the eastern section of Middle Pocket Road. In the event that the road needs to be upgraded this will be the general responsibility of Council as the road authority. It is also noted the property historically was used for dairy farming which would have added traffic to the road in terms of milk being collected on a daily basis, plus other traffic associated with regular farming activities.

It is considered, on the basis of this information that the proposed development is unlikely to generate deleterious impacts on the road network or road users in the locality. .

Greater detail of the production, distribution and sales of the ready-to-drink component and its potential impact on the road and local community

Following the Council meeting, the applicants have formally amended their proposal to remove the ready-to-drink component from the development application. A condition of consent is recommended in this regard.

Impacts on local water sources

The proponents currently hold two water extraction licences – to extract 14ML per year from the creek; and to extract 38ML per year from on-site bores. Information provided by the applicants indicates that the maximum water usage at full production (i.e. Stage 2) would be between 1.4ML and 2.1ML per annum, which equates to approximately 4% of the total water allocation under the licenses. During Stage 1 production, the water usage is estimated at between 0.28ML and 0.42ML per annum. Roof water is also proposed to be harvested, which will further reduce the impacts on local water sources. The issuing of the Water Extraction license is a matter that has been considered by Department of Primary Industries (Water)

Other general information

It is understood that comparisons have been made with this proposal eventually being at a scale similar to or greater than other more recognised brands of spirits and alcohol including the Bombay Gin Distillery in England and the Bacardi Distillery. In this regard the proposal in terms of construction and site area is by far, much more modest than the English Distillery mentioned above. (see plan below)

Site Plan of the Bombay Gin Distillery at Laverstoke, Hampshire England

(Source: www.ribaj.com/products/bombay-sapphire-distillery-laverstoke-hampshire)

The following aerial photograph is provided of the Bacardi Distillery in Puerto Rico which appears to be a substantially large factory complex which would dominate the proposed Gin Distillery at Middle Pocket Road, Middle Pocket.

Bacardi Factory – Puerto Rico

(Source: Google Images)

Although specific alcohol volume figures could not be verified for either of the two distilleries referenced being the Bombay Gin Distillery in England and the Barcardi Distillery in Puerto Rico, it is reasonable to conclude that the Middle Pocket proposal is of a much smaller scale in size and production

Further, in considering the above, the important factor to contemplate is not necessarily the alcohol produced but the number of vehicle movements generated. The Middle Pocket proposal will only generate a further 11 trips per day on average following completion of the development at Stage 2 which has been considered acceptable. As the development is at a “start up” stage it is difficult to comprehend that this distillery would ever generate impacts on the road network similar to the traffic movements that the above international distilleries would. In terms of further comparison with other development permissible on the property, the proposed distillery is of a bulk and scale not dissimilar to a large farm shed and a dwelling house. Farm sheds up to 200 m² can be constructed as exempt development, whilst a second dwelling house is also permissible on the land as a dual occupancy which would generate on average 9 vehicle trips per day.

In relation to the Brook Farm Distillery at St Helena, the development application (DA10.2015.666.1) indicated the distillery will produce initially 1000 litres of spirit per quarter based on one production run every three months. The application also indicates tasting once a month for trade purposes only for up to 10 people. No specific conditions of consent have been imposed in relation to alcohol volumes, truck movements or visitor numbers, however hours of operation have been limited and no retail sales are permitted. The distillery is located in close proximity to the old Pacific Highway and vehicles can access the Pacific Motorway to head either south or north at Ewingsdale. The distillery is a farm shed with an area of approximately 342 m² sited within a macadamia plantation. Associated car parking and loading bays are in proximity the distillery. The building is of similar scale to the current proposal at Middle Pocket. The will distillery operate in accordance with any liquor licence issued by Liquor and Gaming.

Brookfarm Distillery as approved under DA10.2015.666.1

Another local example is Husk Plantation Distillery at Tumbulgum in Tweed Shire. This new distillery will eventually produce 150,000 litres per annum or around 3000 Litres per week. The development also has a tourism component. The distillery operates in accordance with the liquor licence issued by Liquor and Gaming. Details on the proposal can be found on the Tweed Shire Council web site: http://s1.tweed.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=559843.

Other than visitor numbers to this distillery, product transport to and from the distillery including gas supplies and bagasse removal are less than 5 trips per week. The following summary of the Husk Plantation Distillery is provided.

Recommended Conditions of Approval

Following the Council meeting, the applicants have amended the proposal to remove the ready-to-drink component. The recommended conditions have been updated to reflect this change.

The suggested changes to the recommended conditions include:

· Amend Conditions No.1 to include the following sentence

The production and sale of “ready-to-drink” products (i.e. pre-mixed drink products) are not approved within this development consent.”

· Amend Condition No. 5 to clarify production levels for both stages, in terms of total litres of 100% alcohol produced per day and total numbers of pallets produced per day and per week (with pallets containing cases of 700ml bottles of spirits at 40% alcohol). The wording above, relating to the ready-to-drink component is also added to this conditions to confirm that this is not part of the approved production limits. The condition to read:

5. Limitation on expansion or intensification of use of distillery

To protect the amenity of the neighbourhood, the development must be operated strictly in accordance with the development conditions imposed upon this consent.

The production of distilled alcohol produced by the approved distillery is limited to:

Stage 1:

· 200L pure alcohol per day;

· 60 equivalent cases per day, based on 700ml bottles at 40% alcohol);

· 0.75 pallets per day; and

· 4.5 pallets per week.

Stage 2:

· 1,000L pure alcohol per day;

· 3000 equivalent cases per day, based on 700ml bottles at 40% alcohol);

· 4 pallets per day; and

· 24 pallets per week.

The production and sale of “ready-to-drink” products (i.e. pre-mixed drink products) are not approved within this development consent.

Any intensification or expansion of the development will require further environmental assessment and Council approval.

· New Condition No. 47 added relating to lighting, requiring that any lighting at the site must be designed, constructed, located and maintains so as not to cause nuisance to the occupants of nearby properties or passing traffic. The condition to read:

47. Lighting

Lighting used to illuminate any areas of the premises (i.e. security or flood lighting) must be designed, constructed, located and maintained so as not to cause nuisance to the occupants of nearby properties or passing traffic. All lighting must be angled or shielded in such a manner so that light does not directly illuminate any nearby premises or roadways and does not cause extraneous light to be directed or reflected upwards.

· Amend Condition No.55 in relation to the hours of operation for the distillery, changing the morning commencement from 8am to 7am, so that the condition reflects the provisions of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. The condition is further amended to specify that no work is to occur at the distillery on Sundays, which reflects the applicant’s proposal to operate six days per week only.

55. Hours of Operation

The following hours of operation apply to the each part of the development:

(a) Distillery

Hours of operation for the distillery are limited to Monday to Saturday 7am to 6pm, with no work on Sundays.

(b) Industrial Retail Outlet/ Tasting

Hours of operation for the Industrial Retail Outlet are limited to 10am to 5pm for a maximum of two (2) days per week.

The updated conditions are appended to this report (#E2017/26541).

Conclusion

DA 10.2016.575.1 was recommended for approval at the meeting of 23 March 2017. The additional information provided in this report does not lead to a change in that recommendation.

Financial Implications

No significant financial implications.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

As per comments in the report.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.14

Report No. 13.14 Council Part Road Reserve Closure adjoining Lot 1 DP 569047 100 Coolamon Scenic Drive Ewingsdale NSW 2479

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Deanna Savage, Administration Officer Infrastructure Services

File No: I2017/584

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Asset Management

Summary: That Council endorse the closure of road reserve adjoining Lot 1 DP 569047 100 Coolamon Scenic Drive Ewingsdale, as per figure 1 of this report, and move forward by submitting an application with Crown.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council endorse the closure of road reserve adjoining Lot 1 DP 569047 100 Coolamon Scenic Drive Ewingsdale, as per figure 1 of this report, and move forward by submitting an application with Crown.

2. That Council accept market valuation obtained and delegate to the General Manager the authority to enter into a contract for sale of the closed part of the road with the owner of Lot 1 DP 569047.

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 part road closure, including but not limited to:

a) Council / Crown application fees

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

c) All registration fees

d) Legal costs

ii The allotment created by the part road closure to be consolidated into the existing Parcel No 13330 Lot 1 DP 569047

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 part closed road.

Attachments:

1 Confidential - VA840RC, Current Market Valuation - Boundary Adjustment 100 Coolamon Scenic Drive Lot 1 DP 569047 Rob Houlden Valuers Australia for Ron Fidler leasing agreement and closure and sale of Part Council Road Reserve, E2016/86923

2 Chris Lonergan - Town Planner - 10.2014.337.1 - Notice of Determination - Approval, A2015/21286 ⇨

3 Road Lease to Ron Fidler for encroachment to adjoining property 100 Coolamon Scenic Drive Ewingsdale., E2017/3855 ⇨

Report

A request was made by Mr Ron Fidler for the closure and purchase of part Council road reserve adjoining his property Lot 1 DP 569047 as per red outline on Figure 1 below.

Figure 1

The neighbour adjoining Mr Fidlers property at 126 Coolamon Scenic Drive, Mr DC and Mrs DV Gately were also interested in closing and purchasing part road reserve however they pulled out and no longer want to move forward with any part of this closure.

Mr Fidler has an approved Development Application 10.2014.337.1. It was approved with Consent Conditions, (as per attachment 2) No 9 being

9) Relocation of water tanks

The rainwater storage tanks located on the road reserve outside the western lot boundary are to be located within the Lot.

To resolve and adhere to this condition Council moved forward and gave in principle support for the closure and potential sale to Mr Fidler. In the interim a leasing agreement was put in place (view Attachment 3 ) with an agreed rental as per Confidential Attachment 1 – Valuation, paid on a monthly basis.

The Closure was advertised on 6 October 2016 calling for any submissions from adjoining land owners and from any Authorities with Assets in the area. No submissions were received;

If Council approves the closure in accordance with the recommendations of this report, no further action would be required – unless something arises that has not already been given consideration.

The final step before the application can be lodged with Crown is for a Council resolution in favour of the closure and subsequent sale. Once the application has been lodged with Crown there should be a 90 day turn around (if all the paperwork is correct) to finalise the closure.

Financial Implications

The Applicant is liable for all of Council’s costs arising from the road closure and if successful, subsequent sale of land including but not limited to:-

a) Council / Crown application fees

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

c) All registration fees

d) Legal costs

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Relevant sections of the Roads Act are:

ROADS ACT 1993 - SECT 34

Applications for closing of public road

34 Applications for closing of public road

(1) An application for the closing of a public road (other than a freeway) may be made:

(a) in the case of a Crown road, by any person, and

(b) in the case of any other public road, by the roads authority for the road or by any other public authority.

ROADS ACT 1993 - SECT 35

Publication of proposal to close public road

35 Publication of proposal to close public road

(1) The Minister (or, in the case of the proposed closing of a freeway, RMS) must cause notice of the proposed closing of a public road to be published in a local newspaper.

(2) The notice:

(a) must identify the road that is proposed to be closed, and

(b) must state that any person is entitled to make submissions to the Minister (or, in the case of the proposed closing of a freeway, to RMS) with respect to the closing of the road, and

(c) must indicate the manner in which, and the period (being at least 28 days) within which, any such submission should be made.

ROADS ACT 1993 - SECT 36

Public submissions

36 Public submissions

Any person may make submissions to the Minister (or, in the case of the proposed closing of a freeway, to RMS) with respect to the closing of the road.

ROADS ACT 1993 - SECT 37

Decision on proposal

37 Decision on proposal

(1) After considering any submissions that have been duly made with respect to the proposal, the Minister (or, in the case of the proposed closing of a freeway, RMS) may, by notice published in the Gazette, close the public road concerned.

(2) However, a public road may not be closed:

(a) in the case of a classified road-unless RMS consents to the closure of the road, or

(b) in the case of a road owned by a council-unless the council consents to the closure of the road, or

ROADS ACT 1993 - SECT 43

Disposal of land comprising former public road owned by council

43 Disposal of land comprising former public road owned by council

(1) This section applies to land vested in a council and forming part of a former public road.

(2) Land to which this section applies is operational land for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1993 unless, before the land becomes vested in the council, the council resolves that it is to be community land, in which case the land is community land.

(3) If the land is disposed of by sale, the proceeds of sale (less the costs of the sale) are to be paid to the council.

(4) Money received by a council from the proceeds of sale of the land is not to be used by the council except for acquiring land for public roads or for carrying out road work on public roads.

DA No.	10.2016.113.1
Development	Subdivision
Property:	93 St Helena Road McLeods Shoot
Lot and DP:	Lot 44 DP 1214537
Zoning:	7(d) Scenic Escarpment
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 11(1) Minimum Lot size
Justification	No additional lots or dwelling entitlements will be created within the 7(d) zone; the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the 7(d) zone; The proposal raises no issues of state or regional planning significance; and there is considered to be no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance
Extent of variation	17%
Concurrence	Department of Planning
Determined Date	15/2/17

DA No.	10.2015.795.1
Development	Staged consent for subdivision of land
Property:	35 Bayside Way Brunswick Heads
Lot and DP:	Lot 100 DP 1070724
Zoning:	7(b) Coastal Habitat
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 11(1) Minimum lot size of 40ha
Justification	The proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the 7(b) zone; The area of 7(b) zoned land is already significantly less than the minimum lot size and the area of this land containing coastal habitat vegetation is not being further fragmented; The proposal raises no issues of state or regional planning significance; and there is considered to be no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance
Extent of variation	95%
Concurrence	Department of Planning
Determined Date	23/2/17