VISION Respecting the Past, Creating our Future.
CORE PRINCIPLES Light Regional Council is guided by a focus on ‘Core Principles’ of Growth; Reform; Innovation and Discipline.
AGENDA PAPERS
for the meeting of
LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL
in the COUNCIL CHAMBER 93 Main Street, Kapunda
TUESDAY, 28 JULY 2020 at 5:00pm
Principal Office: 93 Main Street Branch Office: 12 Hanson Street Kapunda 5373 Freeling 5372 Telephone: 8525 3200 Facsimile: 8566 3262
o
NOTICE OF MEETING ^ A Lic HT
REGIONAL COUNCIL
Mayor and Councillors,
Notice is herebygiven pursuant to the provisions of Section 83 (3) of the Local Government Act, 1999, that the next Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held in the Council Chamber, 93 Main Street, Kapunda on Tuesdav, 28 July 2020 at 5:000m
A copy of the Agenda for the above meeting is supplied as prescribed by Section 83 (3) of the said Act.
,
, 7/7 , . ^I^ , .
. TABLE OF CONTENTS for the meeting of LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL
TUESDAY, 28 JULY 2020
Petitions, Deputations, Presentations: 7.2.1 Presentation by Chief Executive Officer – ‘July 2020 – Pre-COVID-19’ ..... 3
Reports for Information: 11.1 Roseworthy Township Expansion - Progress Update ...... 6 11.2 Council ‘In-kind’ Support of Community-Managed Events ...... 17 11.3 Community Grants Program – Delay in Opening of Round One 2020/2021 ...... 18 11.4 University of Adelaide Student Project ...... 20 11.5 Story Trail at “The Pines” Conservation Reserve ...... 20 11.6 Legatus Board, Special Meeting Minutes July 2020...... 22 11.7 Monthly Financial Report – June 2020 ...... 22
Reports for Decision and Procedural Matters:
12.2.1 Loan Borrowings as at 30 June 2020 ...... 23 12.4.1 Execution – Capital Road Works Funding Deed ...... 29 12.4.2 Adoption of Community Land Management Plan - Fiedler Road Ward Belt ...... 32 12.4.3 Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program Funding ...... 38 13.1.1 Boundary Proposals - Update ...... 43 13.2.1 Legatus Group Executive Committee Nomination ...... 47 13.2.2 Local Government Finance Authority (LGFA) of South Australia, Annual General Meeting (AGM) and Appointment of Council Representative .... 48 13.2.3 Local Government Reform Bill 2020 ...... 51 13.3.1 Genetically Modified Crops Moratorium ...... 76 13.3.2 Kapunda Country Chic Craft Incorporated ...... 90 13.5.1 Final Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan 2020-2030 for adoption ...... 94 14.3.1 Genetically Modified Crops – Notice of Motion by Cr Simon Zeller ...... 100 15.1 Roseworthy Township Expansion (RTE) -Kingford Regional Industrial Estate (KRIE) Water Scheme ...... 101
AGENDA MONTHLY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 28 JULY 2020, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, 93 MAIN STREET, KAPUNDA, COMMENCING AT 5:00PM
1. PRESENT 2. OPENING 3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE 4. MINUTES 4.1 Confirmation of Council Minutes 5. COMMUNICATIONS 5.1 Mayor’s Communications 5.2 Elected Members’ Reports 5.3 Schedule of Meetings Attended 5.4 Delegate / Representative Reports 5.5 Requested Documents/Correspondence to be Tabled 6. PETITIONS 7. DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 7.1 Public Communications 7.2 Representations 7.3 Youth Forum 8. ADJOURNED BUSINESS 9. BUSINESS ARISING 10. MINUTES - COMMITTEE MEETINGS 10.1 Infrastructure Committee 10.2 Strategy Committee 10.3 Economic Development Panel 10.4 Audit Committee 10.5 Other 11. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION 12. STATUTORY REPORTS FOR DECISION 12.1 Chief Executive Officer 12.2 General Managers, Business & Finance, and Governance 12.3 General Manager, Strategy & Development 12.4 General Manager, Infrastructure & Environment 12.5 General Manager, Economic Development
13. POLICY REPORTS FOR DECISION 13.1 Chief Executive Officer 13.2 General Managers, Business & Finance, and Governance 13.3 General Manager, Strategy & Development 13.4 General Manager, Infrastructure & Environment 13.5 General Manager, Economic Development 14. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 14.1 Questions Without Notice 14.2 Questions On Notice 14.3 Notice Of Motion 14.4 Motions Without Notice 15. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS 16. NEXT MEETING The next ordinary meeting of Light Regional Council will be held on Tuesday, 25 August 2020, commencing at 5:00pm in the Council Chamber, 93 Main Street, Kapunda. 17. CLOSURE Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/2
4. MINUTES
4.1 CONFIRMATION OF COUNCIL MINUTES
4.1.1 Minutes of the meeting of Council held Tuesday, 23 June 2020. 4.1.2 Confidential minutes of the meeting of Council held Tuesday, 23 June 2020. 4.1.3 Minutes of the special meeting of Council held Tuesday, 21 July 2020.
Recommendation 1. That the minutes of the meeting of Council held Tuesday, 23 June 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record of that meeting subject to the following corrections, highlighted in red, being made to Item 13.2.2 Adoption of 2020/2021 Annual Business Plan, Budget and 2021/2030 Long Term Financial Plan and Declaration of Rates for 2020/2021 and Schedule of Fees and Charges 2020/2021:-
5. Declaration of General Rates
i. on all rateable land attributed Land Use Category (a) – Residential, and Land Use Category 9(i) - Other, a rate of 0.44794 cents in the dollar of the capital value of the land; 10. Regional Landscape Levy
That Council, for the financial year ending 30 June 2021 in exercise of the powers contained in Part 5 of the rate Landscape South Australian Act 2019, and Section 154 of the Local Government Act 1999, and in order to reimburse the Council for the amount contributed to the Northern & Yorke Landscape Board, being $342,802 declare a separate rate of 0. 00009140 cents in the dollar of the Capital Value of land, in respect of all rateable land in the Council’s area and in the area of that Board, the Capital Value of such land totalling $3,3,747,905,296.
2. That the confidential minutes of the meeting of Council held Tuesday, 23 June 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record of that meeting. 3. That the minutes of the special meeting of Council held Tuesday, 21 July 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record of that meeting.
5. COMMUNICATIONS
5.1 MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS
5.2 ELECTED MEMBERS’ REPORTS
5.3 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS ATTENDED Elected members are reminded to submit their list of meetings and activities to the Minute taker should they wish to have these recorded in the minutes.
5.4 DELEGATE / REPRESENTATIVE REPORTS
5.5 REQUESTED DOCUMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE TO BE TABLED
6. PETITIONS
Nil
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/3
7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS (Including Public Forums)
Nil
7.2 PRESENTATIONS 7.2.1 Presentation by Chief Executive Officer – ‘July 2020 – Pre-COVID-19’ The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Brian Carr will provide the Council with a Presentation entitled July 2020 – Pre- COVID-19 and will receive questions from Elected Members.
7.3 YOUTH FORUM
Nil
8. ADJOURNED BUSINESS
9. BUSINESS ARISING (excluding Confidential Items)
Arising from Meeting of Tuesday 23 August 2016 12.4 GENERAL MANAGER, STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT 12.4.3 Amended Mining Proposal / 294 At the January 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting Cr Response Document for Extractive Kennelly requested an update on the KARA Minerals Lease Application over Resources mining proposal. Mineral Claim (Kara Resources - Lot 2 Nain Road, Greenock) Staff have contacted Mr James Rowe acting on behalf of Kara Resources, who has advised that the assessment process with the Department for Energy and Mining (DEM) has taken longer than expected, however the application is still active. The Applicant has advised that they will contact DEM representatives to obtain an update on the assessment timeframe. Once the Applicant receives a response from DEM, they will advise Council accordingly.
As additional updates are provided Council will be advised accordingly. Ongoing Arising from Meeting of Tuesday, 23 July 2019 14.3 NOTICE OF MOTION 14.3.1 Reducing waste to landfill in Light 252 KESAB review of waste collection has been Regional Council - Notice of Motion completed with the next steps to analyse the data and by Cr Deane Rohrlach, Dutton Ward develop a program to address deficiencies Ongoing Arising from Meeting of Tuesday, 24 September 2019 13.5 GENERAL MANAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 13.5.1 Adelaide Wine Capital Cycle Trail – 310 Discussions with other partner Councils, the SRBA Project Update and RDA BGLAP are occurring, such that a revised project funding strategy can be considered. Ongoing 13.5.2 Naming Rights Agreements at 310 Further discussions took place on 18.6.20 with the Freeling Agriculture, Recreation & proposed Naming Rights partner. Further follow-up Multi-Use (FARM) Centre discussions to take place by community representative.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/4
Ongoing Arising from Meeting of Tuesday, 10 December 2019 13.5 GENERAL MANAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 13.5.3 Five (5) Shillings Estate Activation – 362 Supplementary Deed has been Executed and Builders Progress Report MOU’s entered into. The final Condition precedent to the Supplementary Deed, being the Mortgage over the balance of the subject land, is being finalised before the Infrastructure & Environment Department commence infrastructure works on Stage 1C. Ongoing Arising from Meeting of Tuesday, 28 January 2020 14.4 MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 14.4.1 Suicide Prevention Networks – 3 Council is awaiting further advice from SA Health Motion without Notice Ongoing Arising from Meeting of Tuesday, 25 February 2020 14.4 MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 14.4.1 Kapunda Country Chic Craft 22 Agenda Incorporated – Motion without Notice Arising from Special Meeting of Tuesday, 28 April 2020 13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 13.1.1 Boundary Proposals - Update 75 Agenda 13.3 GENERAL MANAGER, STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT 13.3.2 Event Sponsorship Program (ESP) - 81 Applicant notified. Awaiting decision from committee Round Two Funding Submissions for in relation to Council’s offer to contribute funding 2019/2020 towards a collaborative event, to be held once COVID-19 social distancing restrictions allow larger social gatherings. Ongoing 13.4 GENERAL MANAGER, INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT 13.4.1 Community Land Management 81 Ward Belt Aquifer Recharge Site – public Plans – Kapunda Mine Historic Site consultation closed 12 June 2020 with no responses. and Ward Belt Aquifer Recharge Site Refer agenda.
Kapunda Mine Historic Site public consultation on hold due to COVID-19 restrictions to allow for an indepth community consultation process to take place. Alternative method of consultation to be discussed to allow the CLMP to be released. Ongoing Arising from Meeting of Tuesday, 26 May 2020
12.2 GENERAL MANAGERS, BUSINESS & FINANCE and GOVERNANCE 12.2.1 Draft 2020/2021 Annual Business 95 Annual Business Plan, Budget and Long-Term Plan, Budget and Long-Term Financial Plan 2021 to 2030 adopted at the 23 June Financial Plan (2021 to 2030) 2020 ordinary council meeting. Completed 12.4 GENERAL MANAGER, INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT 12.4.1 Kapunda Tourist Park – Grounds 97 Valuations currently being sought Lease Proposal Ongoing 13.3 GENERAL MANAGER, STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT 13.3.1 Land Activation - Oldham Street, 99 Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) currently Kapunda – Governance and Market being called. Approach Ongoing 13.5 GENERAL MANAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/5
13.5.2 Proposed Freeling Childcare Centre 91 Community Land Revocation process commenced. – Implementing EDP9.5.3/2020 (May Developer notified of resolution of Council. 2020) Engagement with Freeling Bowling Club commenced. Ongoing. 14.3 NOTICE OF MOTION 14.3.1 Moppa Road – Cr Deane Rohrlach, 86 Ongoing Dutton Ward 14.3.2 Roseworthy Township Expansion 101 Agenda Project – Cr Simon Zeller, Mudla Wirra Ward Arising from Meeting of Tuesday, 23 June 2020 12.2 GENERAL MANAGERS, BUSINESS & FINANCE and GOVERNANCE 12.2.1 2019/2020 Annual Business Plan 111 Annual Business Plan updated. Annual Objectives Review May Completed 2020. 12.3 GENERAL MANAGER, STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT 12.3.1 Council Assessment Panel – 112 Appointment of Independent Member and Independent Deputy Member 13.2 GENERAL MANAGERS, BUSINESS & FINANCE and GOVERNANCE 13.2.1 Legatus Charter Amendment 113 Legatus Group advised of Council support. Completed 13.2.2 Adoption of 2020/2021 Annual 113 Annual Business Plan, Budget and Long-Term Business Plan, Budget and Financial Plan 2021 to 2030 adopted at the 23 June 2021/2030 Long Term Financial Plan 2020 ordinary council meeting. Rates declared and and Declaration of Rates for schedule of Fees and Charges adopted. Notices to be 2020/2021 and Schedule of Fees published. and Charges 2020/2021 Completed 13.3 GENERAL MANAGER, STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT 13.3.1 Renewal of Shared Services 118 Agreement with The Barossa Council – Community Transport and Home Assist Services 13.3.2 Renewal of Shared Services 118 Agreement with The Barossa Council – Volunteering Barossa & Light 14.3 NOTICE OF MOTION 14.3.1 Roseworthy Township Expansion – 119 Agenda Notice of Motion by Cr Peter Kennelly 14.4 MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE That Council write to the Minister requesting 119 Letter to Minister sent 26 June 2020 and response that the Minister retains and ensures easily received 3 July 2020 advising that the State accessible public bus services to the government will no longer be proceeding with the residents of Hewett, Gawler Belt and proposed changes to bus routes. Roseworthy areas. Completed
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/6
10. MINUTES – COMMITTEE MEETINGS
10.1 INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Nil
10.2 STRATEGY COMMITTEE
Nil
10.3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PANEL
Nil
10.4 AUDIT COMMITTEE
Nil
11. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
Item No. and Subject
11.1 Roseworthy Township Expansion - Progress Update File: 67550 Author: Simon Sherriff, Manager Strategic Projects Report Presenter: Simon Sherriff, Manager Strategic Projects
Site Activity & Land Division Applications In what is an exciting milestone for the entire region, civil construction teams mobilised to site on 18th June 2020 to commence construction of the Roseworthy Township Expansion (RTE), approximately 10 years after the RTE was first formally recognised as a residential and employment lands growth area by the State Government in the 2010 release of “The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide”. This commencement of construction is part of the “St Yves1” Land Division (“Yves” pronounced as “eaves”), being progressed by the Land Vision Group (LVG). The St Yves estate will ultimately include the Activity Centre for the RTE. Light Regional Council Mayor Bill O’Brien joined LVG’s Managing Director, Mr Joe Oppedisano for a “sod turning2” ceremony on 7 July 2020. The Hickinbotham Group are also progressing development options with partner landholders to the south of the LVG/St Yves development, with the Land Division application for the Quindoo/Wilson land approved by Council’s Assessment Panel earlier in July 2020. Other Hickinbotham land divisions are under assessment by Council’s Planning Team. The following map shows (in red) where lots and road reserves are currently proposed, while the table below summarises key statistics to-date (which includes some masterplan-derived information, and as such, should be seen as indicative only):
Land Division Land Division Lots in Indicative Indicative % open Name Number stages average lot range of lot space for proposed size (sq.m) sizes stages to-date for stages (sq.m) for proposed proposed stages to-date to-date
1 https://www.styves.com.au/ 2 https://www.styves.com.au/news-and-events/st-yves-hosts-sod-turning-ceremony
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/7
proposed to-date St Yves (LVG) 313/D021/2018 45 465 375-800 7.1* 313/D032/2019 46 369-774
Quindoo/Wilson 313/D038/2019 368 965 625-1680 12.5 (Hickinbotham) Daking 313/D037/2019 197 700 590-1014 18 (Hickinbotham) Marker 313/D026/2018 49 700 435-975 40* (Hickinbotham) TOTALS 705 650 n/a n/a * NOTE: These “% open space” figures for the St Yves (LVG) and Marker (Hickinbotham) land division applications are for early stages only. These figures do not reflect the final “% open space” figure for each estate, which are required to be at least 12.5%. If the current trend of lot sizes were to continue, it is estimated that in the order of 3000 residential lots would ultimately be realised in the RTE Suburban Neighbourhood Zone (SNZ). Assuming an average of 3 residents per household (many young families expected to move in to the RTE, similar to Hewett which has 3.15 persons/dwelling), this would translate to a population increase of around 9,000. The impact of these numbers on the previous economic modelling of the RTE is outlined later in this report. The speed of the development of the RTE SNZ is driven by market forces. The extenuating circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 Pandemic is obviously a factor here, in the short-term at least. At this stage, it is very difficult to predict the impact of the pandemic on the local “greenfield” housing market, with the SA branch of the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA SA)3 lobbying State and Federal Governments for support, including seeking extension of the already-announced Federal Government HomeBuilder Program4. For its part, Council maintains a dialogue with each RTE developer to enable swift progress wherever appropriate. Council notes that St Yves lots are currently being marketed as being able to access the HomeBuilder Grants, which, if successful, would see construction of these homes underway within 3 months of a home building contract being executed (for which the current HomeBuilder deadline is 31 December 2020). In terms of the proposed school for the RTE at St Yves, the following summary has been copied from the Trinity College website: “The St Yves estate will include residential and commercial developments and is located just off the Horrocks Highway, south of the Roseworthy township. Our Reception to Year 10 School will form part of the estate’s main hub, alongside the 8,000 sqm retail precinct. While dependent on land sales, School construction could start as early as 2022, with primary school year students commencing from 2023.” (Reference: https://www.trinity.sa.edu.au/schools/roseworthy , accessed 14 July 2020) With regards to development of the RTE Urban Employment Zone, there are no applications pending at this stage.
3 https://www.udiasa.com.au/policy-advocacy/covid-19-update/ 4 https://treasury.gov.au/coronavirus/homebuilder
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/8
Source: https://location.sa.gov.au/viewer/ (accessed 3:30pm Adelaide Time, 17th June 2020) NOTE: The Hickinbotham/Quindoo/Wilson site has a revised plan of division that is less dense than is shown in this image Governance In mid-2018, as Council’s focus began to transition from strategic planning, towards on-ground implementation and regulatory planning, Council established an RTE Infrastructure Taskforce, to enable a coordinated approach to Council’s role in the various streams of infrastructure delivery for the RTE. This Taskforce make-up is summarised by the figure below:
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/9
The purpose of the RTE Infrastructure Taskforce is to negotiate and resolve infrastructure issues as they arise (without compromising the regulatory planning process, which will assess Land Divisions and Development Applications). It is noted that most growth Councils have similar teams of staff that focus on growth matters to facilitate timely and orderly development of rezoned land. The RTE Taskforce has met with other growth Council teams to learn how they operate to adopt a best-practice industry approach. The scope of the RTE Infrastructure Taskforce’s work includes the following streams of infrastructure: Roads, Potable water supply, Sewer, Power, Stormwater, Non-potable water supply, Gas, and Social Infrastructure. Where appropriate, the RTE Infrastructure Taskforce will also seek to facilitate the realisation of opportunities that may arise from taking a broader precinct-wide or regional view (e.g. considering neighbouring industrial estates also). Given that there are 10 separate landholders in the RTE, with a broad spectrum of experience in the land development industry, and variable potential development timelines in mind, a coordinated approach to governance by Council is especially critical. In terms of road infrastructure, the figure below summarises the governance framework given effect by the Deed of Variation to the Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion (Road Deed of Variation).
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/10
Council’s RTE Infrastructure Taskforce proactively seeks to deliver its functions in an integrated, pragmatic and best-practice manner. Governance structure is one aspect of this way of working, but is further supported via the following initiatives: • Knowledge-sharing meetings, site visits and ongoing dialogue with colleagues from other “greenfield” growth Councils, including District Council of Mount Barker, City of Playford, City of Salisbury and Town of Gawler. • Membership and engagement with industry bodies such as UDIA SA5 , the Smart Cities Council of Australia and New Zealand6, and Water Sensitive South Australia7. • Formalised engagement meetings with RTE Landholders and Developers (collectively) – Two held so far (June 2019 and May 2020) • Standardisation of advice to ensure consistency, via internal process discipline and the creation and distribution to RTE developers of such documents as the “RTE SNZ: Infrastructure Statement of Requirements (SoRs)”. The RTE SNZ SoRs seeks to enable a “One RTE; Multiple Estates” approach. This will see developers able to offer market differences from other RTE developers, while maintaining consistency on critical matters/items. The need for this document was identified soon after the RTE Infrastructure Deeds were executed, as it was recognised that there would likely be a need to create a single document that progressively summarised the suite of RTE SNZ-consistent matters required at the planning approval and detailed design stages. It was also recognised that this suite of RTE-consistent matters would expand as time went by and more Development Applications were considered by Council. As such, this document has been formatted to enable regular update of each “SoR”, or addition of new SoRs. This document DOES NOT replace or override the other documents referred to in the figure below, rather, it seeks to complement them by providing RTE-specific clarification to precisely outline matters that need to be consistent across the various estates that will create the RTE SNZ. Current SoRs covered by this document are:
5 https://www.udiasa.com.au/ 6 https://anz.smartcitiescouncil.com/ 7 https://www.watersensitivesa.com/
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/11
• Typical Reserve and Carriageway Widths • Local Access Road Characteristics • Kerb Types • Open Space Irrigation Systems • Pavement & pipe design and construction for local reactive soils • Minimum grades on stormwater infrastructure • Demonstration of meeting Stormwater Deed • Landscaping Species Selection • Public lighting & Smart Cities • Marketing Signage
Figure from “RTE SNZ: Infrastructure Statement of Requirements (SoRs)” Precinct-wide Infrastructure Road Infrastructure As a key enabling step for the RTE development to occur in accordance with State Government and Council requirements, all RTE Landholders have executed identical and individual agreements with Council to ensure appropriate collector/arterial road infrastructure is delivered. There are 2 separate agreements per landholder, as follows: • Final Road Infrastructure Deed - Roseworthy Township Expansion • Deed of Variation to the Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion With regard to the proposed “Marker” land division, Zarmen Pty Ltd (via the Hickinbotham Group) has requested endorsement of a New Component under the relevant clause of the ‘Deed of Variation to the Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion’ (Road Deed of Variation).
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/12
This New Component proposal (installation of a roundabout along Horrocks Highway in place of two separate intersection treatments) is also included in Development Application (DA) 313/D026/2018 for land division and this land division application has been placed in abeyance pending resolution of the matter. The New Component request has not yet been considered nor determined by the Council and no decision has been made on the request by Zarmen Pty Ltd. Also, the above Land Division DA has not been considered or determined by Council’s Assessment Panel due to the consideration of the New Component under the provisions of the RTE Road Deed. As a part of the assessment of the land division DA, Council receives formal advice from State Government Departments with respect to pertinent matters. In this way, Council received advice regarding the DA and the New Component from the Department of Planning, Transport & Infrastructure (DPTI). This is the same advice as has been previously distributed to RTE Landowners. While landowner consultation on the New Component under the Road Deed of Variation was occurring in March 2020, Council wrote to the Minister for Transport to: • Convey the history of the determination of the RTE interventions as they appear in the Development Plan (Concept Plan Map Lig/13 – Roseworthy Township Expansion) and the Deeds; • Advise that a New Component proposal had been received from Zarmen Pty Ltd and was being considered under the process established under the Road Deed of Variation; • Advise of Council’s concerns that change proposals might either be put forward by the DPTI in contrast to its previously stated requirements or otherwise contemplated by the DPTI in an uncoordinated manner; and • Seek from DPTI: o Updated requirements for the Horrocks Highway speed environment between the existing Roseworthy township and the Thiele Highway junction; o An outline updating access design requirements for intersection connections between Horrocks Highway and the Roseworthy Township Expansion for the identified section; o Updated costing for such upgrades, noting that Council is not intending to renegotiate its Deeds with RTE Landowners but may be able to use this data in seeking future grant funding opportunities. A response from the Minister has been received recently and provided to RTE Landowners for their information. In his response, the Minister/ DPTI: • Has advised that the DPTI (Transport Division) is supportive of a lower speed environment (e.g. a future posted 80 km/h) in vicinity of the new intersections associated with the developments within the RTE on Horrocks Highway; • Prefers to retain the current intersection types in the Development Plan unless a developer proposes to change or provide a variation to the treatment type at their cost; and • Prefers the approach whereby changes to intersection designs are driven by developers; with their access requirements investigated and assessed on their merits to ensure that road safety and arterial road function considerations are managed, and appropriate access is provided to adjacent developments. Accordingly, in such instances the process outlined in the Road Deed of Variation must be followed with respect to the consideration of any such proposed changes. The pending Zarmen Pty Ltd request for endorsement of its proposed New Component will be considered by Council in due course. Council will allow oral presentations from interested parties with respect to proposed New Components in order to hear their views with respect to these matters PRIOR to Council making its ‘New Component Determination’ per the Road Deed of Variation.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/13
Road Infrastructure Complaint The Road Deed of Variation (DOV) provides a process for dealing with any complaint. On 28 April 2020 Council received a complaint under the relevant clause of the DOV with respect to the Independent Case Manager (ICM) and the request by Zarmen Pty Ltd mentioned above. Council is presently investigating the matters raised in the complaint and will provide a report to Council on these matters. This report is expected for consideration by the Council at its Ordinary Meeting in August 2020. Social Infrastructure As a key enabling step for the RTE development to occur in accordance with State Government and Council requirements, all RTE Landholders have executed identical and individual agreements with Council to ensure appropriate social infrastructure is delivered. These separate agreements per landholder are titled “Interim Social Infrastructure Deed - Roseworthy Township Expansion”, noting that the term “interim” is merely a syntax reflecting the finalisation process – this is the final RTE Social Infrastructure Deed. The RTE Social Infrastructure Deed includes provision for the following social infrastructure items: • Community Meeting/Sports Clubrooms • Sports Oval, including parking, fencing, lighting, hard courts, playground, cricket nets • Sales Office/Council Outreach • Shared Use Path to Gawler via Railway Reserve Discussions are progressing with LVG, Trinity College and One Rail Australia (previously Genesee & Wyoming Australia – holder of State Government lease on railway reserve) about various elements of the RTE Social Infrastructure Deed. Stormwater Infrastructure As a key enabling step for the RTE development to occur in accordance with State Government and Council requirements, all RTE Landholders have executed identical and individual agreements with Council to ensure appropriate stormwater management across the precinct. These separate agreements per landholder are titled “Final Stormwater Infrastructure Deed - Roseworthy Township Expansion”. Recent webinars with landholders from both RTE and the Kingsford Regional Industrial Estate (KRIE) focussed on introducing the proposition for an “RTE-KRIE Water Scheme”, which has since been sent to landholders in a formal manner, for consideration. This proposition foreshadowed Council Management’s intent to table a co-investment proposal with Council’s Elected Members, which will be the subject of a separate Council report, in confidence. Utility Infrastructure The establishment of the RTE Infrastructure Taskforce has enabled a proactive and positive relationship to be established and maintained with the relevant utility authorities, including: • SA Water – mains water and sewer • APA Group – Natural Gas • SA Power Networks – Electricity • Department of Health and EPA – future connection of existing Roseworthy township Community Wastewater Management Scheme (CWMS) to the new sewer scheme for RTE Individual developers are leading engagement with regard to future owner connection to the National Broadband Network. Activity Centre As highlighted above with regard to the RTE Social Infrastructure Deed, there is provision for a “Sales Office/Council Outreach” as part of the RTE. Also, the St Yves developer, LVG, has recently publicly stated their interest in potentially exploring the provision of a Council library in the Activity Centre (The Barossa Leader, 15th July 2020, page 8): “…the $500 million plus 800-home St Yves development will house a new $30 million Trinity College campus which will form part of the estate’s main hub, alongside 8000sqm of retail including a supermarket, medical centre and community projects, potentially including a council library”.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/14
In due course, it is likely that Council will be presented with a report for consideration regarding the proposed nature of Council’s presence in the RTE Activity Centre. Media Engagement Council released a media statement in February 2019 on the RTE, which included a series of “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) that are still relevant: https://www.light.sa.gov.au/yourcouncil/latest-news/roseworthy-expansion-gathers-momentum Council will continue to partner with the likes of RDA BGLAP and Tourism Barossa to promote the advantages of visiting, living, working and doing business in Light Regional Council. Costs and Benefits to Council and its Ratepayers DPA Phase Economic study and Model During the Development Plan Amendment (DPA) phase of the RTE, Council undertook financial modelling using the Economic Impacts Scenario Assessment Model prepared by Deloitte Access Economics for the Local Government Association (LGA). Financial modelling was undertaken from two perspectives: • Council’s Perspective • Developer’s Perspective The purpose of the financial modelling during the DPA phase was to inform the Council of the range of financial scenario outcomes that the proposed development may have on the Council’s financial sustainability, in terms of its operating statement (an indicator of service provision) and the impacts to Council and Developers based on proposed capital contributions to build and facilitate the development. The DPA phase financial modelling was reviewed by John Comrie of Deloitte Access Economics, who was also Council’s Chair of its Audit Committee at the time, and David Hope of Skilmar Systems who has an experienced understanding of Local Government operations. Professor Jon Kellet of the University of Adelaide was engaged to prepare a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis of the collective Developer’s perspective, to assess the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project and likely Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The DPA phase financial modelling concluded that the Developers should have capacity to fund the majority of the external infrastructure works required to support the (at that time, concept) RTE development. The modelling also indicated that the most sensitive variables for Council’s operational sustainability were the size of any up-front capital contributions towards external infrastructure to support the RTE development and the level of increase in operational expenses required to provide services for the RTE. The financial modelling underpinned the assumption, in line with Council’s current policy position, that RTE does not include any Council capital contributions, and that any investment by Council is recoverable from Developers. This policy position is reflected in the Infrastructure Deeds executed between Council and Developers/Landowners. Updated Economic Impacts Assessment model The DPA rezoning process for RTE resulted in not all of the land being rezoned, which was the subject of the concept planning. This was primarily due to some landowners not wishing to participate in negotiating or executing Infrastructure Deeds with Council, which was a critical requirement of the Minister for Planning in considering which parcels of land would be approved as rezoned. Thus, the DPA phase financial modelling required an update to reflect the actual land rezoned. Now that Council has received a number of Development applications for subdivision of RTE land, as well as preliminary master-planning details for some development sites, it has enabled updated modelling from Council’s perspective, once again using Deloitte Access Economics’ Economic Impacts Scenario Assessment Model. Model outcomes for the RTE development once it is fully developed (i.e. all infrastructure is built, all sub- divided lots released and developed to their expected potential) are reported as follows:
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/15
• Annual RTE Rate Revenue = $5.8m (in real terms, i.e. current $ without inflation), made up of: o $4.9m from 3,015 new residential assessments o $0.1m from 15 new commercial assessments o $0.8m from 118 new industrial assessments • $80m in new infrastructure assets vested to Council, having an estimated annual depreciation expense of $1.2m • Annual RTE Operating Expenses ranging between $3.9m and $5.6m, in accordance with the Skilmar Systems report “Roseworthy Township Expansion – Preliminary Review and Analysis” [August 2016] So, the financial sustainability of the RTE Development will depend on: • Council’s discipline in containing increases to its operational expenses to ensure they are kept within the mid to low range of that estimated in the Skilmar Systems report. This challenge can be controlled to some extent through good planning and enforcing Council’s “RTE SNZ: Infrastructure Statement of Requirements (SoRs)”. • The speed at which the development proceeds – the quicker the development, the more favourable/sustainable model outcome results. This is somewhat due to a short time lag between rating revenue received and Council taking over operation and maintenance of assets (Developers have an obligation to maintain newly constructed assets for a short period of time). Positive results are expected for the RTE development if the above measures are managed appropriately, particularly in the early years of the development. Various model scenarios indicate that the Council has some capacity to facilitate better, and more sustainable infrastructure outcomes involving stormwater management and smart city developments. These model scenario’s will be reported to Council as part of any business cases proposed for Council capital investment. Some of the key assumptions that underpin the revisited RTE financial model are as follows: • Approximately 3015 allotments created of average size 650m2, estimated by assuming that the density of developments where no DA’s/Masterplans have been submitted equals the average density of DA’s/Masterplans received to date. Number of lots shown in DA’s/Masterplans received from Developers to-date is 1415 (this number differs from the figure in the table at the beginning of this report, which only provides the number of lots currently the subject of a land division application. This higher figure is derived by Council from supporting information supplied by developers to-date). • Value and useful life of assets constructed and vested to Council calculated using audited unit rates and quantities, together with estimates from: o Length and type of roads shown in DA’s/Masterplans received to-date o Infrastructure reports and costings prepared by Engineering Consultants during the Development Plan Amendment (DPA) and Infrastructure Deed preparation process • Rate revenue based on current rate/$ and an average Capital Value for new rateable residential assessments of $363k/assessment (based on the current average Capital Value of 650m2 developed sites in the suburbs of Angle Vale, Blakeview, Freeling, Hewett and Virginia) • Increase in Council expenses as reported in Skilmar Systems report “Roseworthy Township Expansion – Preliminary Review and Analysis” [August 2016] • Council expenses increase 1 year after lots released for development, to acknowledge the 12 months defects liability and up to 3 years maintenance periods typically associated with greenfields developments • The model uses nominal values, which do not account for inflation (i.e. the model assumes the same capital value of an allotment ($363k) in year 1 as many years’ time). As Council’s LTFP is modelled in real values (i.e. includes the effect of inflation), the RTE financial model report should not be directly compared with Council’s current LTFP. Separate rates raised, and costs to-date
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/16
A separate rate was raised during the 2014/15 financial year, based on an estimate, to cover costs arising for the Roseworthy Township Expansion DPA process; the amount raised over two financial years totalled approximately $318K. This DPA ended up costing approximately $320K, hence the Separate Rate estimate essentially covered the costs of the DPA, including the Final Stormwater and Road Deeds (and part of the Deed of Variation to the Final Road Deed). Since this, Council has invested in aspects of the project that have a broader reach than the Roseworthy Township Expansion itself, such as regional stormwater investigations. Further, Council has contributed to funding the completion of the Deed of Variation to the Road Deed, which has secured an arrangement wherein $20M will be funded by the Developers to provide the necessary upgrades with no contribution from the Council. Council has also funded operational tasks in support of the executed Deeds. In total, Council has contributed an estimated $200K in total from general rate revenue over several financial years in support of these outcomes, which it is noted will be recouped in the early years of the delivery of the growth at Roseworthy as illustrated in the independent economic model prepared. And as demonstrated by the 2014/15 example, Council can declare a separate rate on rateable land within a part of the area of the Council, for a specified purpose. This purpose can include “planning, carrying out, making available, supporting, maintaining or improving an activity that is, or is intended to be, of particular benefit to the land, or the occupiers of the land, within that part of the Council area, or to visitors to that part of the Council area” (as per Local Government Act 1999). A separate rate may be based on the value of subject land; or, may be a proportional measure or other proportional basis related to the relevant land or the area, or to the estimated benefit to the occupiers of the land in the part of the area subject to the rate. Alternatively, the separate rate might take the form of a fixed charge. A differential separate rate can be applied. The separate rate raised can be in respect of a particular activity despite the fact that the activity is not to be directly undertaken or provided by the council. The land to which a separate rate applies must be identified and each ratepayer concerned needs to be provided with notice to that effect which identifies the purpose of the rate, its amount and the time of its application. A separate rate may be declared for a specified period (e.g. the time taken to carry out a capital project); further, it may be declared for a period exceeding one year. Except where a separate rate is declared for more than one year, a separate rate must not be declared more than one month before the commencement of the financial year to which the rate relates. So therefore, the declaration of a “new” separate rate is not necessarily tied to the annual declaration of rates and changes made with the adoption of the Council’s Annual Business Plan and Budget. Options for future cost recovery, if sought If Council were to contemplate recovery of previous or future RTE costs/investments, the options would appear to include: 1. A “new” Separate Rate (as per Local Government Act 1999, see above) 2. Recovery from developers via new agreement or amendment to existing agreement (e.g. as is contemplated by the existing RTE Stormwater Infrastructure Deed and associated Land Management Agreements) 3. Accommodating these costs in Council’s annual budget/LTFP, as an investment in LRC’s growth strategy (subject to modelling demonstrating suitable Return On/Of Investment). It is noted that LRC has negotiated a zero contribution towards transport infrastructure for the RTE. This can be compared to the following neighbouring Council examples whereby the Council was required to contribute: • Adelaide Plains Council (APC) for the Liberty and Eden greenfields developments at Two Wells – refer https://lgasa-web.squiz.cloud/?a=499506. APC have allowed for up to $500K contribution towards infrastructure costs for a roundabout at Old Port Wakefield Road and Two Wells Road, excluding any ‘planning’ costs incurred throughout the rezoning phase of the development. • Town of Gawler’s East Link Road incurred a $2.4m Council contribution for facilitating the Gawler East developments, also excluding any costs incurred during the planning/rezoning phase – refer https://infrastructuremagazine.com.au/2018/11/26/sa-gawler-east-link-road-construction-begins/
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/17
11.2 Council ‘In-kind’ Support of Community-Managed Events File: 24651 Author: Lorinda Bayley, Community Development Officer Report Presenter: Lorinda Bayley, Community Development Officer
This report is provided to inform the Elected Body about the costs associated with the in-kind support of community-managed events. Council’s Event Sponsorship Program provides financial support for events that deliver benefits to the residential and business community within the region. Groups can apply for up to $1000 for events defined as ‘community’ (typically attract local people and serve to enrich the lives of residents) and up to $5000 for events defined as ‘regional’ (attract both residents as well as a significant number of people from outside of the region). In addition to the provision of financial support, Council provides a range of in-kind support services for community and regional events. To date, provision of in-kind support has been independent to the financial support allocated through Council’s Event Sponsorship Program. An Event Management Policy was developed to help guide decision-making regarding which events Council will be able to support through the provision of its ‘in-house’ resources. The Policy includes a set of principles which distinguish which events will be prioritised for support, as it is not financially practical or possible for Council to be involved or invest in all events. A budget of $10,301 was allocated towards the ‘internal support of community events’ during 2019/2020. While the allocation increases in line with the annual CPI increase, the amount may need to be reviewed in relation to actual costs of the provision of in-kind supports such as: • Cost of road closures (including Council staff wages for installation and removal of signage for smaller scale road closures or speed reductions, engagement of external Traffic Management Services contractor for larger scale closures of State-managed roads, and publishing of road closure notices in local papers); • Cost of waste removal (cost per event waste bin $10); • ‘Other’ event-related in-kind costs (use of Council’s plant and equipment (eg) water trailer, community bus).
In order to compare the change in cost of in-kind support for events, a cost estimate was determined for support provided during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 financial years In-kind support type 2018-2019 2019-2020 Community Bus use $75 $230 Event waste bins (approx. 90 per year @ $10) $900 $900 Council installation/removal of road signage $967 $1038 Advertising (road closure public notices 8-9 $4590 $4085 per year, on average $510 per notice) Hire of Traffic Management Service Provider 2018 event $4075 (Road closure – Thiele Hwy for 2019 moved to Kapunda Xmas event) Trotting Track $6532 $10 328 It is noted that the amounts for 2019-2020 do not fully reflect the expected annual in-kind costs, as all gatherings scheduled after 16 March 2020 were required to be cancelled or postponed in line with the Directions made under the Emergency Management Act 2004. In total eleven events were cancelled during the period March to May 2020; including two regional events, three memorial events, one community event, two fun runs, and a mural launch.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/18
All events cancelled due to COVID-19 would have required some level of in-kind support from Council, including event waste bins, installation and removal of road closure and/or speed reduction signage, and advertising of road closure public notices. It is estimated the cost of this support would have been an additional $2350, exceeding the allocated budget by almost $3000. It is anticipated that that an increased level of support from Council, both financial and in-kind, will be sought by individuals, community groups and organisations that hold future events in the region, especially as fundraising opportunities and attracting sponsorship or business support has been restricted in recent months.
To this end, further discussion is encouraged to determine the level of in-kind support that can be extended for community-managed events, proportional to the level to which the event meets the aims within Council’s Grant Funding Policy. It may be relevant to review the total amount that can be allocated under the Event Sponsorship Program when there is a corresponding significant level of in- kind support for the sponsored event.
References:
Council Policies
9.01 Grant Funding Policy 9.06 Event Management Policy
11.3 Community Grants Program – Delay in Opening of Round One 2020/2021 File: 23413 Author: Lorinda Bayley, Community Development Officer Report Presenter: Lorinda Bayley, Community Development Officer
This report is provided to update the Elected Body about the decision to delay the opening of Council’s Community Grants Program due to the current COVID-19 restrictions. Background Council’s Community Grants Program usually invites applications during two distinct rounds per financial year, over a period of six weeks. Generally Round One opens early July until mid-August, with allocations made by the Elected Body at the September Council meeting. Round Two generally opens early February until mid-March, with allocations made by the Elected Body at the April Council meeting. Issue The requirements within the Non-Essential Business (and Other Gatherings) Closure Direction 2020, and the Emergency Management (Non-Essential Business and Other Activities No 4) (COVID-19) Direction 2020 led to the postponement of a number of scheduled community-led and/or Council-led events, programs and activities across the region from mid-March 2020. Many local clubs and groups had to suspend their usual activities, and the number of enquiries received by Community Development in relation to events or grants has reduced in recent months. Council staff have noted that the Community Development Grants Program was under-subscribed during Round Two 2019/2020, and that there were no eligible Event Sponsorship applications received during Round Two 2019/2020 due to the cancellation of public events and gatherings due to COVID- 19 density requirements for public gatherings.
South Australia has seen the gradual easing of restrictions to Step 3 Recovery level on 29 June, permitting larger public gatherings. The requirements to hold Defined Public Activities are outlined within the Emergency Management (Public Activities No 4) (COVID-19) Direction 2020, dated 9 July 2020. Defined public activities include:
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/19
• onsite purchase and consumption of food or beverages (whether occurring in an indoor or outdoor area)
• sport (including sports training), fitness or recreation activities
• indoor public meetings
• ceremonies
• provision of public entertainment
• provision of recreational transport
• the operation of a nightclub
• the operation of relevant licensed premises Individuals wanting to hold a Defined Public Activity must complete an online COVID-Safe Plan, or a COVID Management Plan for their activity, and are required to meet a range of obligations and recommendations which include density and physical distancing, hygiene and contact tracing measures. A COVID Management Plan is required for those gatherings and activities in excess of 1000 persons, or where alcohol and dancing is involved; deemed as ‘higher risk’ of transmission. Event Organisers must submit their COVID Management Plan directly to SA Health for approval. A COVID Management Plan template was released on 10 July via the State Government COVID-19 Recovery website https://www.covid-19.sa.gov.au/recovery/create-a-covid-management-plan. However, feedback received from other councils and event organisers suggests there is still a lot of uncertainty around how the COVID Management obligations can be met for larger events, especially those held at outdoor venues. SA Health representatives attended a Local Government Events Network meeting on 23 July and provided responses in relation to the requirements for the approval of a COVID Management Plan. There are three (3) principles within a COVID Management Plan aimed at reducing the risk of transmission in a public place/event: 1. Density: The maximum number of people (excluding staff or people undertaking official duties) in any single room or enclosed area must not exceed 1 person per 2 square metres. 2. Distancing: Endeavour to ensure social groups and individuals maintain a distance of 1.5 metres apart. 3. Contact Tracing: Contact tracing records containing the full name, contact number and/or email address must be gathered and retained for each patron/attendee in the event of a positive COVID- 19 test result. Event organisers must clearly demonstrate in their COVID Management Plan how they will manage density, physical distancing, and contact tracing at their event. The responsibility for the implementation of a COVID Management Plan belongs to the venue owner or event coordinator. SA Health have suggested that the Plan for an event must be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to an event and contain comprehensive details or the Plan approval could be delayed. Council staff have issued several updates in recent weeks to organisers of annual local events on the new State legislative requirements for activities and events. It is noted that a number of annual events for 2020 have been postponed or cancelled, such as the Kapunda Show, the Red Hot Summer concert at Seppeltsfield, and two community Christmas events. Many local groups and clubs are only just starting to recommence their programs and activities. Council staff have recently amended Council’s website, and all documents relating to events, such as the Event Application, Event Management Handbook, Event Sponsorship Program Application, and the Sponsorships, Grants and Incentive Schemes Handbook to incorporate the additional legislative requirements surrounding public gatherings. State restriction levels can change rapidly based on the prevailing circumstances. Event organisers will be required to provide Council with a copy of an approved event-specific COVID-Safe Plan or COVID Management Plan before an Event Permit can be issued. To this end, the opening of Round One 2020/2021 of Council’s Community Grants Program has been delayed until a later date. It is assumed that access to grant funding would be of more benefit to local groups, organisations and event organisers when they are better equipped to activate projects and/or
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/20
events. It is noted that Council may also need to reconsider the 2021 Australia Day Awards for 2021 for Community Event of the Year and Community Project of the Year. Council staff will provide a further update in due course.
11.4 University of Adelaide Student Project File: 1552 Author: Craig Doyle, General Manager – Strategy & Development Report Presenter: Craig Doyle, General Manager – Strategy & Development
Council has been contacted by Associate Professor Doug Bardsley about the potential for Council to work with a Masters student from the University of Adelaide. It is understood that Ms. Amelia Rungkat, a student from the Department of Geography, would like to work with Council on a research project aimed at exploring landholders’ perceptions of climate change impacts and adaptation options across the Light Regional Council area. Ms. Rungkat has a background in Geography and Psychology and would work with her supervisor (Associate Professor Bardsley) to undertake her research from August 2020 to June 2021. Ms. Rungkat would use her knowledge to try to identify how people are feeling about climate change and what they will do or would like Council to do to assist them to adapt. It is expected that Ms. Rungkat may require some assistance from Council to develop an appropriate survey that would be useful for decision-makers, to advertise the research and then to present the findings to interested landholders on completion. Whilst unbudgeted, it is expected that the costs attached to this initiative can be covered through existing budget allocations. Council’s management considers that this could be a good opportunity to gain a further understanding of community views in this important area and provides advice of this for the Council’s consideration accordingly.
11.5 Story Trail at “The Pines” Conservation Reserve File: 21878 Authors: Rebecca Wild, Customer Experience Officer Pepper Mickan, Library Services Manager Report Presenter: Pepper Mickan, Library Services Manager
During the month of July, members of the community and visitors to the region can participate in a Story Trail at The Pines Reserve, located 7km from the Kapunda town centre. The trail was developed by staff from the Library Services team in collaboration with The Pines committee, local author Rosanne Hawke and her publisher Wombat Books, and supported by Council’s Horticulture team. The trail consists of 15 corflute signs featuring the pages from “Mustara”, a children’s book written by Rosanne Hawke, illustrated by Robert Ingpen and published by Wombat Books. With families looking for COVID safe activities to participate in during the school holidays or on weekends, this initiative encourages the community to get active and explore at their own leisure and pace. An audio recording of “Mustara” has also been completed by Rosanne in collaboration with the library team. This was released at a similar time and is available on the library website https://library.light.sa.gov.au/mustara/
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/21
The Story Trail was promoted locally with an article in The Barossa Leader newspaper and through Council’s library website, newsletter and Facebook page. It gained state-wide and national exposure through social media, including the Adelady and Australian Library and Information Association pages. A short video of the trail was uploaded to the Light Regional Council Library Service Facebook page to introduce the trail to those who were unsure of what to expect. This video has been viewed more than 630 times (as at 22 July 2020). The initiative has received positive feedback from community and visitors, along with enquiries from other libraries across the state asking how they could go about implementing the idea in their regions.
The Library Service team will continue to build on this idea with staff members already contacting a second author, Kristen Weindenbach, who wrote ‘The King of the Outback’ – a children’s story about Sir Sidney Kidman. She has granted permission for her book to be used for the next trail, which is a fantastic opportunity to promote the Light Region to existing and future residents and visitors. The temporary nature of the story trail signs means they can be reused and moved to different sites around the region. If Elected Members would like additional information on the initiative or have ideas they would like to share, please contact Council’s Library Services Manager.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/22
11.6 Legatus Board, Special Meeting Minutes July 2020. File: 1875 Author: Richard Michael, General Manager, Governance Report Presenter: Richard Michael, General Manager, Governance
The unconfirmed minutes of the 3 July 2020 Legatus Special meeting have been received from Mr Simon Millcock, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Group. Mayor O’Brien attended the meeting on Council’s behalf and may wish to elaborate further on the meeting’s proceedings. Points of interest emanating from the meeting included: 1. The progress of the Legatus Group 2020/2021 Business Plan and Budget consultation was noted at the meeting with 14 of the 15 constituent councils having approved the draft document. The meeting was updated as to the Barossa Council’s concerns, and further noted that their commitment could not be provided until the Council had considered the item at its July 2020 council meeting. The meeting resolved that the Legatus Group can operate after 1 July 2020 without the adoption of a budget due to references made in the Legatus Group Charter in regard to ongoing operations.
2. The Legatus CEO advised the board members that there had been some success in obtaining grants for (1) “Inclusive and accessible tourism experiences for the Yorke Peninsula” and (2) stage 2 of the “Yorke Mid North Coastal Management Action Plan”. Updates were also provided regarding Drought Futures Funding in particular the Smart Irrigation Scheduling, Temperature Sensor System and Stormwater Harvesting Projects; the Open Your World - Community Wellbeing and Resilience Grants program; and the State Wellbeing Grant.
11.7 Monthly Financial Report – June 2020
Appendix: 11.7A Monthly Financial Report June 2020 Author: Luke Culhane, Finance Manager Report Presenter: June Austin, General Manager, Business and Finance
Council has adopted a Budget which forecasts an Operating Surplus of $885 (a break-even budget) for the 2019-20 Financial Year. Following the adoption of the Fourth Quarter Budget Update the forecast is now a Surplus of $0.435m. The traditional financial table, Statement of Accrued Budget Position for the Year to Date to 30 June 2020, incorporates Council’s anticipated full year’s rates revenue of $21.049m (Rates $19.249m plus Seppeltsfield Separate Rate $1.8m). The traditional financial table for the 12 months to 30 June 2020, reports a favourable variance against budget of $0.689m. A second financial table, Statement of Budget Position for the Year to Date to 30 June 2020 (Rates Received) illustrates the financial position of Council considering only the rates revenue that has actually been received for the reporting period. Rates outstanding total $1.880m. Quarter 4 rate payments were due for payment on 5 June 2020. At 30 June 2020, $1.01m outstanding relates to 2019-20 rates and $0.87m remains outstanding from previous years. For the same period last year, rates outstanding were $1.637m. The Monthly Financial Report for the month of June 2020 is contained at Appendix 11.7A.
Recommendation That the reports for information be received and the contents therein be noted by Council.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/23
12. STATUTORY REPORTS FOR DECISION Statutory Reports for Decision encompass items that form a compliance or accountability function which is necessarily tied to the legislative guidelines under which Council operates.
Recommendation 1 That the Agenda and reports presented under Item 12. – Statutory Reports for Decision of this ordinary meeting of the Light Regional Council held Tuesday, 28 July 2020 be received.
(Items for withdrawal / discussion / consensus)
Recommendation 2 That the reports of the meeting of the Light Regional Council held Tuesday, 28 July 2020 and the associated recommendations as set out below under Item 12. Statutory Reports for Decision be adopted.
(Please go directly to Item 13 following this resolution)
Item No: Report Heading Page Withdraw (Index of Statutory Reports for Decision)
12.2.1 Loan Borrowings as at 30 June 2020 ...... 23 12.4.1 Execution – Capital Road Works Funding Deed ...... 29 12.4.2 Adoption of Community Land Management Plan - Fiedler Road Ward Belt ...... 32 12.4.3 Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program Funding ...... 38
12.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Nil
12.2 GENERAL MANAGERS, BUSINESS & FINANCE and GOVERNANCE
12.2.1 Loan Borrowings as at 30 June 2020
Author: Luke Culhane, Finance Manager Report Presenter: June Austin, General Manager Business and Finance Executive Summary Report highlights Council’s Treasury Management Policy stipulates that surplus cash funds are utilised to manage daily cash flow based on operational needs. There are no cash funds set aside for specific purposes.
Total borrowings at 30 June 2020 were $25.787m ($27.328m at 30 June 2019) comprised of $10.262m of fixed rate interest loans ($10.873m at 30 June 2019) and $15.525m of variable interest rate loans ($16.455m at 30 June 2019). Of total borrowings, $2.076m (8% of total borrowings) is funded by general rates revenue with the remaining $23.711m (92% of total borrowings) funded by external third parties.
Treasury management ratios have been met for the 2019-20 financial year. Outstanding fixed rate borrowings represent 40% of the Council’s loans portfolio at 30 June 2020; outstanding variable rate borrowings represent 60% of the Council’s loans portfolio at 30 June 2020; and total principal repayments (maturing loans) represent 14% of fixed interest rate borrowings.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/24
Budget Impact
The budget impacts arising from this report relate to the Council’s ability to meet loan instalment payments inclusive of interest when they fall due. Instalment payments (cash flow) and interest (operating expenses) have been incorporated in the Annual Budget, which recognises the timing of cash requirements and the revenue required to manage the Council’s operations.
Recommendation That Council notes the report provided in regard to loan borrowings as at 30 June 2020.
Reasons for the decision Annual review of loan borrowings against Council’s Treasury Management Policy.
Detailed Report
Purpose This report provides a review of Council’s treasury management performance for the financial year 2019- 20 as required by Council’s Treasury Management Policy. It provides a summary of the purpose, amount, term, principal and interest repayments and estimated date of finalisation of current loans and also details undrawn loans and intended drawings-down upon them.
Background Council’s Treasury Management Policy at Clause 3.4 states: “3.4 Reporting
At least once a year Council shall receive a specific report regarding treasury management performance relative to this policy document. The report shall highlight:
• for each Council borrowing and investment - the quantum of funds, its interest rate and maturity date, and changes in the quantum since the previous report; and,
• the proportion of fixed interest rate and variable interest rate borrowings at the end date of the reporting period and an estimate of the average of these proportions across this period along with key reasons for significant variances compared with the targets specified in this policy”.
This policy provision is addressed as part of Council’s Audit Committee function.
History
The last review of the Council’s treasury management performance was at the meeting of Council held on Tuesday, 23 July 2019.
Discussion/Analysis
Borrowings
The balance of fixed rate borrowings outstanding at 30 June 2020 will be $10.262m, comprised of $4.338m of credit foncier (principal and interest) loans and $5.925m of interest only cash advances (see Table 1 for details). Outstanding fixed rate interest loans have decreased $0.611m, through loan principal repayments, over the outstanding fixed rate borrowings of $10.873m at 30 June 2019.
Outstanding variable rate borrowings at 30 June 2020 have decreased $0.93m from $16.455m at 30 June 2019 to $15.525m at 30 June 2020 (see Table 2 for details). For 2019-20, Council utilised variable interest rate cash advance loans to fund the Gawler Water Reuse Scheme investment, the
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/25
Accelerated Infrastructure Program and its day to day operations. The quantum of loan amounts used to fund day to day operations varies daily and is managed in accordance with Council’s Treasury Management Policy. To minimise financing costs, Council’s current funding strategy is to utilise surplus funds in the first instance, with short-term funding needs being met via the utilisation of cash advance facilities.
At 30 June 2020, total ratepayer funded loans comprised $2.076m (8% of total borrowings) with borrowings funded by external parties comprised $23.711m (92% of total borrowings). Borrowings funded by external parties are represented by the Kapunda Bowling Club, F.A.R.M Centre, Accelerated Infrastructure Program and the Gawler Water Reuse Scheme.
All loans to Council are provided through the Local Government Finance Authority (LGFA). The terms for LGFA credit foncier loans range from ten (10) years to twenty (20) years, with the interest rates on these loans varying between 4.00% and 5.70% per annum. The interest rate at 30 June 2020 for cash advance loans was 2.20%.
Table 1: Outstanding Fixed Rate Borrowings at 30 June 2020 ($)
Loan Date of Principal Date of Interest Balance Loan Purpose of the Loan Term Maturity / Amount Borrowing Rate Outstanding (Years) Expiry 42 11/12 Capital works 20 5,000,000 16/12/2013 16/12/2023 5.70 2,076,658 44 Kapunda Bowling Club 15 400,000 15/07/2016 15/07/2031 4.20 327,621 48 F.A.R.M. Centre 20 2,000,000 15/05/2019 15/05/2039 4.05 1,933,468 Total Principal and Interest Loans 7,400,000 4,337,747 CA43 GWRS (interest only) 5 5,924,651 19/12/2016 20/12/2021 4.00 5,924,651 Total Fixed Rate Borrowings 13,324,651 10,262,398
1. All instalments consisting of principal and interest are paid bi-annually. 2. Interest is payable quarterly on the GWRS interest only loan.
Table 2: Outstanding Variable Rate Borrowings at 30 June 2020 ($)
Cash Facility Interest Balance Loan Purpose of the Loan Advance Expiry Date Rate Utilised Limit CA41 General Council operations / AIP 3,750,000 15/03/2021 2.20 3,750,000 CA43 Gawler Water Reuse Scheme 5,075,349 15/12/2027 2.20 5,075,349 CA45 Gawler Water Reuse Scheme 300,000 15/06/2027 2.20 300,000 CA46 General Council operations / AIP 6,250,000 15/09/2027 2.20 500,000 CA47 General Council operations / AIP 5,900,000 15/04/2029 2.20 5,900,000 Total Variable Rate Borrowings 21,275,349 15,525,349
Information in accordance with Council’s Treasury Management Policy regarding interest rate exposures is presented in Table 3 below. Fixed interest rate borrowings that matured in 2019-20 total $0.610m and represent 14% of the total fixed rate borrowings as at 30 June 2020.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/26
Table 3: Borrowings Portfolio at 30 June 2020 ($)
Type of Balance % Target Target as per Treasury Management Policy Borrowing Outstanding Actual Achieved Fixed 10,262,398 40 - Fixed rate borrowings are to be not less than 30% of Yes gross debts - No more than 25% of Council fixed interest rate borrowings mature in any financial year - Debenture loan principal repayments are 31%, 31% Yes for 47% and 96% of total debenture loan principal in 2020 financial years 22/23, 35/36, 36/37 and 38/39 respectively Variable 15,525,349 60 - Variable rate borrowings are to be not less than 30% of Yes gross debts Total 25,787,747 100
Table 4 below illustrates principal repayment maturity for credit foncier debenture loans over the ten (10) year period of the current Long Term Financial Plan and reflects these amounts as a percentage of the principal balance for each corresponding period.
Table 4: Credit Foncier Debenture Borrowings Principal Repayments at 30 June 2020 ($’000)
Total Loan FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY20
42 552 584 618 322 2,077 44 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 328 48 69 72 75 78 81 85 88 92 95 99 1,933 Total 644 680 718 426 108 113 117 122 127 132 4,338 % 17 23 31 23 6 7 8 9 10 12
The following graph, Figure 1, illustrates annual balances of fixed interest rate credit foncier debenture loans for the ten (10) year period of Council’s current Long-Term Financial Plan.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/27
Figure 1: Fixed Interest Credit Foncier Debenture Loans Annual Balances
Figure 2, illustrates interest amounts due in relation to fixed interest rate debenture loans for the ten (10) year period of Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan.
Figure 2: Fixed Interest Credit Foncier Debenture Loans Annual Interest
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/28
Interest Interest paid during 2019-20 on Council’s borrowings totalled $0.861m (budget $0.922m). The variance to budget is represented by the decrease in the variable interest rate during the year from 3.35% to 2.20%.
Interest expense comprised $0.212m interest repaid on credit foncier debenture loans; $0.379m interest on loans related to the GWRS; and $0.270m interest relating to all other cash-advance funds used in funding the AIP and Council’s day to day activities.
Conclusion The Treasury Management Policy continues to guide the use of investment and borrowed funds. Treasury Management Policy targets for fixed and variable rate borrowings have been met for the 2018/2019 Financial Year.
References Legislation Sections 44, 47, 122, 134, 139 and 140 of the Local Government Act 1999.
Council Policies No 1.14, Light Regional Council Treasury Management Policy
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/29
12.3 GENERAL MANAGER, STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT
Nil
12.4 GENERAL MANAGER, INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT
12.4.1 Execution – Capital Road Works Funding Deed
Folder ID: 72622
Author: Renee Jericho, Property & Contracts Officer, Infrastructure and Environment
Report Presenter: Richard Dodson, General Manager, Infrastructure and Environment
Executive Summary Report highlights • A report to the March 2020 Infrastructure Committee identified key infrastructure upgrades and funding programs; • Staff lodged several applications for funding under the 2020/2021 Australian Government Black Spot Program; • The application for safety improvements at Roennfeldt Road, Greenock, was successful; • The funding deed requires signing and sealing by Council.
Budget Impact Estimated Cost: $400,000 Future ongoing operating costs: NIL Is this budgeted? No The Black Spot Program provides 100% funding.
Recommendation That Council, pursuant to Sections 38 and 44 of the Local Government Act 1999, authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix Council’s common seal to the Funding Deed under 2020-2021 Commonwealth Infrastructure Investment Black Spot Program for Roennfeldt Road, Greenock.
Reasons for the decision To facilitate the provision of the grant funding.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/30
Detailed Report Purpose To advise Elected Members of the need for the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix Council’s common seal to the Commonwealth Infrastructure Investment Black Spot Program funding deed.
Background The March 2020 Council Infrastructure Committee considered a report regarding funding opportunities for key infrastructure upgrades identified in Council’s various Draft Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan chapters.
The Infrastructure and Environment Department lodged several applications to gain funding to upgrade these road networks.
Council has received confirmation that the application for funding under the 2020-2021 Commonwealth Infrastructure Investment Black Spot Program for Roennfeldt Road, Greenock, has been successful.
History Item IC10.4.3/2020 Strategic Infrastructure Funding Plan 2020-2024 - Council Minutes Tuesday, 24 March 2020
Discussion/Analysis Roennfeldt Road is a rural unsealed road with a traffic volume of around 150 vehicles per day. The number of crashes is concerning given the low traffic volume. Roennfeldt Road has had three casualty crashes over a 5-year period. All three crashes relate to drivers losing control of the vehicle and hitting a roadside object (tree or embankment).
Two of the three major curves have either no or negative superelevation. The roadside vegetation prevents the driver from seeing the end of the curve when entering. The curve may be sharper than the driver anticipated and one of the curves is located on a crest. The unsealed surface can mean that traction is easily lost, and vehicles can slide on the curves. This is more of an issue when drivers are unaccustomed to driving on unsealed roads, as are many of the tourists visiting the nearby Seppeltsfield and Greenock wineries.
There are also some trees on the curves that are close to the carriageway which present a hazard. The road narrows in some places where it has been cut into the hill face, meaning the narrow portions are located where there is an embankment close to the road.
Funding will be used to reconstruct three individual curves to improve sight distance and superelevation and seal the curves. Curves will be widened to 9m to enable drivers to see through the curve and reduce the underestimation of curve radius. Delineation will include adding chevron alignment markers on substandard curves and roadside markers conforming to AS1742, as well as line-mark with edge lines and centreline. Trees within the clear zone will be removed or hazard boards and embankments reshaped to allow for driver correction.
Council has been successful in gaining $440,000 (GST inclusive) funding, 100% of the estimated costs.
Conclusion Council’s common seal is required facilitate the provision of successful grant funding.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/31
References Legislation • Local Government Act 1999
Council Policies Nil
Strategic Plan Goal 1 Objective 1.2 Resolving the asset renewal gap to attain asset sustainability for agreed service levels Goal 1 Objective 1.4 Appropriate allocation of resources to areas of priority need
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/32
12.4.2 Adoption of Community Land Management Plan - Fiedler Road Ward Belt Folder ID: 22475 - VG3151308006
Appendix: 12.4A - Proposed Community Land Management Plan
Author: Megan Renzella, Property & Facilities Manager
Report Presenter: Megan Renzella, Property & Facilities Manager
Executive Summary Report highlights • The Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme (GWRS) project has been completed on the ground and structured using a partnership approach between Light Regional Council, Bunyip Water Pty Ltd and Seppeltsfield Wines Pty Ltd. • In accordance with the approved Project Plan, to maximise the project outcomes within the available budget, the partnership approach involved the use of land owned by all parties for the construction of water infrastructure. Council land was utilised through initial leases and licenses to access the land. • Three of the sites utilised for the project affect the Council with one of those sites being within Council’s care and control and owned by the Crown. • Land owned by the Crown is considered to be Community Land. Accordingly, a Community Land Management Plan is required for the site to detail its purpose pursuant to section 196 of the Local Government Act 1999. • The Fiedler Road Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) bore located on Crown Land requires the adoption of a Community Land Management Plan and with execution of the proposed Ground Lease also requires community consultation. The intended purpose of the dedicated Crown Land is for water management. • The community consultation process relating to the new Community Land Management Plan has been completed with no responses. • The report seeks the Council’s authorisation to adopt the Community Land Management Plan and publish a notice advising of such.
Budget Impact Estimated Cost: $300 Future ongoing operating revenue: N/A Is this budgeted? Within operational budgets
Additional Comments (incl Labour Component if applicable):
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/33
Recommendation
That the Council, after undertaking a process of public consultation; 1. Acknowledge there were no objections to the proposed Community Land Management Plan for the land located at Section 882 Hundred 140700 Fiedler Road Ward Belt, CR6220/953; 2. Adopt the proposed Community Land Management Plan for the land located at Section 882 Hundred 140700 Fiedler Road Ward Belt, CR6220/953 (subject to confirmation from the Crown); and 3. Publish a notice within the South Australian Government Gazette giving effect to the resolution to adopt the Community Land Management Plan for the land located at Section 882 Hundred 140700 Fiedler Road Ward Belt, CR6220/953.
Reasons for the decision To comply with legislative processes in accordance with the Local Government Act 1999, ensure adequate opportunities are afforded to the community to provide comment on the accountability and appropriate management of land owned by the Council or within its care and control for the benefit of the community and region as a whole.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/34
Detailed Report Purpose The purpose of this report is for Council to complete the administrative process required to adopt a Community Land Management Plan.
Background As part of the Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme Project, Council required a new Community Land Management Plan for one of the sites, along with approval from the relevant Minister as the land is owned by the Crown. At the meeting of the Council held Tuesday 10 December 2019, the following recommendation was adopted;
This report relates to points 1, 2 and 3 of the above recommendation.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/35
History • Council Meeting 15 September 2009 – Item 11.2 Gawler River Stormwater Harvesting Funding Application • Council Meeting 8 December 2009 – Item 10.4.3 Gawler River Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse Scheme • Council Meeting 18 May 2010 – Item 10.4.1 National Water Commission (NWC) Funding Agreement for Managed Aquifer Recovery (MAR) and Urban Stormwater Harvesting in Greater Gawler Feasibility Study • Council Meeting 25 January 2011 – Item 11.4.1 National Water Commission (NWC) Funding Agreement for Managed Aquifer Recovery (MAR) and Urban Stormwater Harvesting in Greater Gawler Feasibility Study • Council Meeting 27 April 2011 – Item 10.4.1 Funding Agreement in relation to the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan: A Feasibility Study for the Gawler River Water Project • Council Meeting 28 June 2011 – Item 10.4.1 Governance of the Gawler River Water Project • Workshop 20 July 2011 – Gawler River Water Project • Council Meeting 27 September 2011 – Item 9.2 Governance of the Gawler River Water Project • Council Meeting 22 November 2011 – Item 10.4.6 Gawler Water Reuse Project • Council Meeting 23 October 2012 – Item 10.4.1 Gawler Water Reuse Project Funding Agreement • Council Audit Committee Meeting 20 November 2012 – Item 9.2.2 Gawler Water Reuse Project • Council Meeting 28 May 2013 – Item 10.1.1 Gawler Water Reuse Scheme • Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Regional Briefing – Hewett Centre, 12 June 2013 • Council Meeting 25 June 2013 – Item 10.4.1 Gawler Water Reuse Scheme • Special Council Meeting 6 August 2013 – Item 5.1.1 Gawler Water Reuse Scheme – Endorsement of Heads of Agreement • Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Council Briefing, 28 October 2013 • Council Meeting 17 December 2013 – Item 10.1.1 Gawler Water Reuse Scheme – Execution of Project Agreements • Workshop 13 May 2014 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Project Update, May 2014 • Council Meeting 27 May 2014 – Item 10.4.9 Gawler Water Reuse Project – Project Update and Water Supply Agreement • Council Audit Committee Meeting 9 July 2014 – Item 9.2.1 Gawler Water Reuse Scheme – Project Update • Council Economic Development Panel Meeting 15 July 2014 – Item 6.1 Presentation on the Gawler Water Reuse Scheme • Council Audit Committee Meeting 19 August 2014 – Item 8 Business Arising – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme – Project Update • Council Meeting 26 August 2015 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Project • Council Meeting 17 February 2015 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Project • Council Meeting 31 March 2015 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Project • Council Meeting 28 July 2015 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Project • Council Audit Committee Meeting 18 August 2015 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Project – Assessment of Financial Benefit • Council Meeting 22 September 2015 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme and Water Security for the Western Barossa Valley Projects • Council Meeting 8 December 2015 – Item 11.5 Gawler Water Reuse Scheme – Progress Update • Council Meeting 19 January 2016 – Item 13.4.1 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme – Project Publication • Council Audit Committee Meeting 19 April 2016 – Item 10.1 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Progress Report • Council Meeting 26 April 2016 – Item 13.4.1 – Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme – Pump Stations • Council Audit Committee Meeting 16 August 2016 – Item 10.1 – Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme Progress Report • Council Meeting 27 September 2016 – Item 10.2 (STR9.3.2/216) – Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme • Council Meeting 27 September 2016 – Item 13.3.3 – Roseworthy Township Expansion Development Plan Amendment – Infrastructure Deeds and Land Management Agreements for Execution • Council Meeting 25 October 2016 – Item 13.3.3 – Water Reuse Scheme – Status Report • Council Meeting 22 November 2016 – Item 13.1.1 – Progress Report – Water – Bunyip Water
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/36
• Council Meeting 13 December 2016 – Item 13.2.1 – Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme – Proposal to Declare a Separate Rate. • Council Meeting 26 September 2017 – Item 13.2.1 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Separate Rate. • Council Meeting 28 November 2017 – Item 13.2.3 – Gawler Water Reuse Scheme Separate Rate • Council Meeting 12 December 2017 – Item 13.5.1 – Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme (GWRS) – Roseworthy Stormwater Expansion • Council Meeting 23 January 2018 – Item 15.1 – Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme (GWRS) – Recycled Water Service Contract • Council Meeting 23 July 2019 – Item 13.5.1 – Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme (GWRS) – Separate Rate
Discussion/Analysis The legal documents have been prepared, however execution of such documents for one of the sites is pending the finalisation of the community land management plan.
Section 202 of the Local Government Act 1999 allows for the granting of a lease or license providing it follows the process identified in its public consultation policy and it is consistent with the community land management plan.
The land at Fiedler Road is classified as community land and has a dedication for the purpose of the land for Water Management. Accordingly, the Community Land Management Plan was prepared to reflect the dedication and lease and released for public consultation with submissions closing on 12 June 2020. No objections were received by the Council.
Prior to the release for public consultation of the Community Land Management Plan, as the land is owned by the Crown, the Crown Lands Department and Council were liaising to ensure permission was provided enabling the Council to enter into a lease over the land, and to confirm the dedication of the land for water management. During this process however, it is unclear if the permissions granted included approval of the draft Community Land Management Plan and clarification has been sought. (At the time of preparing this report, confirmation had yet to be provided).
Conclusion Council have prepared the Community Land Management Plan and undertaken the process of community consultation with no objections. The Council must now formally adopt the Plan and provide a notice of such resolution in the Government Gazette, (subject to final confirmation from the Crown as owner of the land).
References Legislation Local Government Act 1999 Crown Land Management Act 2009
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/37
Council Policies Public Consultation Policy
Strategic Plan Goal 1 Sustainability • Objective 1.6 Continuing commercial partnerships with third parties and other levels of government to provide outcomes for the community Goal 4 Environment • Objective 4.1 Further planning for extreme weather events in the region • Objective 4.2 Improved management of water resources
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/38
12.4.3 Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program Funding Folder ID: 1677
Author: Richard Dodson, General Manager, Infrastructure & Environment Megan Renzella, Property & Facilities Manager
Report Presenter: Richard Dodson, General Manager, Infrastructure & Environment
Executive Summary Report highlights • Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LRCI) Program funding allocated to Council; • General funding that Council directs to road or transport infrastructure; • Bringing forward works that have already been identified in the 4 Year Capital Program; • Using the LRCI funding to undertake the brought forward works; • Preparing a plan of works for the Hill Street Historic Area at Kapunda; and • Undertaking the Hill Street works in 2021/2022 & 2022/2023 with the unlocked capital renewal funding
Budget Impact Estimated Cost: $505,918 Future ongoing operating costs: included maintenance budgets Is this budgeted? N/A
Additional Comments (incl Labour Component if applicable): N/A Recommendation That Council;
1. Adopt the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program; 2. Advance the identified projects for the 2021/2022, 2022/2023 & 2023/2024 financial years as identified within Table 2 as follows; a. Playground renewal program at various sites b. Community hall renewal at Freeling Institute c. Recreation areas boardwalk and decking renewal d. Wasleys Clubrooms continuation of works 3. Acknowledge that funding allocated to future financial years of 2021/2022, 2022/2023 & 2023/2024, becomes unlocked to allow for infrastructure renewal and upgrades to be undertaken in the Hill Street historic precinct at Kapunda; and 4. Pursuant to Sections 38 and 44 of the Local Government Act 1999, authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix Council’s common seal to any legal documentation or funding deed required for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program
Reasons for the decision To ensure that funding is directed to the areas of highest priority across the land and building assets.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/39
Detailed Report Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek Elected Member’s endorsement to allocate the full amount of $505,918 provided through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program to a community building program.
Background In early 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an outbreak of a novel coronavirus a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ with it quickly spreading to many countries around the world including Australia. The resulting health emergencies and shut-down of day to day activities has also resulted in a financial crisis. In combating this financial crisis, the Australian Government has implemented a range of financial stimulus packages such as JobKeeper, JobSeeker and other incentive schemes targeted at the individual household level.
In support of this the Australian Government is also trying to get funding into the public infrastructure environment and in doing so the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program has emerged. Light Regional Council has been allocated $505,918 through this program.
While not known at the moment it is likely that other infrastructure stimulus packages will also be announced in the coming months.
History N/A
Discussion/Analysis On 22 May 2020 the Australian Government announced a new $500 million Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program (LRCI Program). This program will support local councils to deliver priority local road and community infrastructure projects across Australia, supporting jobs and the resilience of local economies to help communities bounce back from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Staff have given consideration to how Council could use the $505,918 that has been provided to it through the LRCI Program. The view is that Council, over the last 10 years, has directed a significant amount of funding towards road, transport and stormwater assets through the Accelerated Infrastructure Program, additional Roads to Recovery payments, Blackspot, Special Local Roads and others. This was recently highlighted in the June 2020 Infrastructure Committee Report IC9.5/2020 10 Year Capital Spend Review 2010 – 2020.
In addition to this the annual capital renewal spend has grown at a rate of 6.2% to better match the funding required through the Infrastructure & Asset Management Plan (IAMP) with the majority of this funding being directed to road related works. Land and building works have been a much smaller part of this program and without opportunities for regular grant funding that the road assets enjoy, much less work has been done on these assets over the last 10 years. As such, it is deemed appropriate that all the LRCI Program funds be directed into a land and building program.
The funding guidelines state that councils can bring forward future programs and utilise the funds to deliver these works. A draft program is shown in the Table 1 below:
Table 1 YEAR ACTIONS VALUE
2020/2021 Deliver the building program as per the adopted $430,000 budget
2020/2021 Bring forward the full 2021/2022 (Year 2) building $225,000 program using LRCI funds
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/40
YEAR ACTIONS VALUE
2020/2021 bring forward a portion of the 2022/2023 (Year 3) $100,000 building program using LRCI funds
2020/2021 Bring forward a portion of the 2023/2024 (Year 4) $130,000 building program using LRCI funds
2020/2021 Continue with the Wasleys Oval upgrade works using $50,918 LRCI funds
2020/2021 Finalise plans for the Kapunda historical precinct works (State heritage buildings require additional approvals where it would be difficult to plan and deliver in the same year)
2021/2022 Commence stage 1 of the Kapunda precinct works $225,000 which will focus on stormwater drainage works within the vicinity of a number of buildings and from those buildings and include some repairs.
2022/2023 Complete stage 2 of the Kapunda precinct works that $230,000 will include painting of the buildings, renewal of carpet and fittings.
2023/2024 Unallocated amount of $230,000 that will be allocated $230,000 once the revised IAMP has been presented to Council (to be informed by the condition audits recently completed).
Details of individual components of the program are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
2020-2021 Buildings & Structures
Scope/Comments
Public Toilet Renewal Davidson Reserve - full 2020-2021 replacement, includes timed locks, cleaners store, 2xaccessible facilities
Public Toilet Renewal Roseworthy Recreation Park - refurbishment, painting, upgrade doors and 2020-2021 autolocking mechanism, secure gaps, provide cleaners store Original Program adopted Public Toilet Renewal Freeling Railway Reserve by Council 2020-2021 Toilets - refurbishment, painting, upgrade doors and autolocking mechanism, secure gaps.
Recreation Facility Renewal Kapunda Pool - upgrade 2020-2021 solar heating, chlorine storage tank, fencing
Public Toilet Renewal Freeling Skate Park (in lieu of 2020-2021 Mattiske Park) - full replacement, includes timed locks, cleaners store, 2xaccessible facilities
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/41
Community Hall Renewal Greenock Institute – 2020-2021 Contribution towards upgrade of existing kitchen
Operational Site Renewal - replacement chairs, 2020-2021 chambers, meeting rooms, training rooms, Kapunda, Freeling South, Freeling Operations Centre
Operational Site Renewal Kapunda Office - part roof 2020-2021 renewal to include insulation blanket
Original Program 2020-2021 $430,000
Playgrounds Lions Playground – replacement of 2020-2021 junior play equipment, replacement slide plus shade provision over junior play equipment
Playgrounds Hewett - renewal of play equipment 2020-2021 (Osprey Pde) includes removal of unsuitable fortress and replacement with additional adult swings
Playgrounds Becker Reserve - replacement of continually damaged rubber surfacing not meeting 2020-2021 required standards and replacement with certified pine chip soft fall
Playgrounds Lions Playground Train - removal of 2020-2021 existing paint and repainting of the external surfaces. Future projects approved as part of the 4 year Community Hall Renewal Freeling Institute – upgrade program brought forward of the main hall floor, new flooring, provision of 2020-2021 supports below floor, investigation of support needed for main internal wall and rectification.
Recreational Site Renewal Davidson Reserve 2020-2021 Kapunda boardwalks x2 – renewal of the boardwalk surface planks
Recreational Site Renewal Hewett reserves decks x 3 2020-2021 – repairs and renewal as required of timber decking boards.
Continue with the Wasleys Oval upgrade works using 2020-2021 LRCI funds to provide additional toilet, flooring to meeting room and kitchen plus appliances.
Proposed program of identified projects brought forward and $505,918 funded through LRCI Federal Grant Funding Program
By bringing forward future works into the current year, unlocks necessary capital required for necessary works within the Kapunda Historic Hill Street Precinct and allows for delivery over multiple financial years. Within the current financial year however, investigative works will take place as identified within the recently completed condition audit of building assets (report yet to be provided) allowing for planning and documentation of the works proposed to take place.
Conclusion Bringing these works forward makes logical sense as Council has already identified these works and undertaken public consultation on them as part of the Annual Business Plan and Budget process and are works that the community are already expecting will be delivered.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/42
References Legislation Local Government Act 1999
Council Policies N/A
Strategic Plan 1.2 Resolving the asset renewal gap to attain asset sustainability for agreed service levels 1.3 Continued efficiency improvements in service delivery
12.5 GENERAL MANAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Nil
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/43
13. POLICY REPORTS FOR DECISION Policy Reports for Decision encompass items which define matters of Council strategy, operational policy, monitoring and supervision.
13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
13.1.1 Boundary Proposals - Update Folder ID: 1767
Appendix: 13.1A - Correspondence from the Boundaries Commission in response to LRC’s boundary submission (9.7.20) 13.1B - Mayoral Statement of 10.7.20 13.1C - ToG’s proposal of 3.12.19 13.1D - ToG’s proposal reply from the Boundaries Commission of 10.2.20 13.1E - LRC’s Stage 1 Boundaries Commission submission of 18.5.20 13.1F - LRC’s letter to the Boundaries Commission Author: Craig Doyle, GM Strategy & Development and Carrie Rainsford, Governance Support Officer
Report Presenter: Brian Carr, Chief Executive Officer
Executive Summary Report highlights • Council has received a response to its boundary submission from the South Australian Local Government Boundaries Commission (hereafter the ‘Boundaries Commission’), dated 9 July 2020 (Appendix 13.1A). • The Commission has determined that the Council’s submission does not address the concept of ‘community of interest’ or specifically identify common interests between the affected communities. • Further, the Commission has expressed that it does not believe that additional work or information from Council would assist in the progression of the proposal and has advised that a ‘general proposal’ along the lines of Council’s submission cannot be referred for consideration. • Separately, on 10 February 2020 (Appendix 13.1D) the Commission supported advancement of a Town of Gawler (ToG) proposal to a Stage 2 submission (‘general proposal’) to the Commission. The ToG proposal seeks to include several areas within the Town of Gawler including the Light Regional Council areas of Hewett, Gawler Belt and Reid. • Mayor Bill O’Brien released a Mayoral Statement on 10 July 2020 (Appendix 13.1B) following receipt of the Boundaries Commission’s response, confirming Council’s continuing commitment to residents and the region and advising that Council will consider the Commission’s decision, seek advice and decide on its next course of action. • To inform the next steps, it is proposed that Council instructs the Chief Executive Officer to arrange for a comparative analysis to be undertaken of both the Town of Gawler (ToG) and Light Regional Council’s respective boundary submissions and the responses received from the Boundaries Commission.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/44
• Following this, it is proposed that the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer request a meeting with the Chair of the Boundaries Commission, Mr Bruce Green, to discuss boundary reform and the Boundaries Commission’s application of Section 3, Part 2 of the Local Government Act, 1999 with reference to the comparative analysis of the ToG and Council’s submissions. • It is intended that a further report will then be prepared and delivered to Council’s August Ordinary Meeting, outlining further options available to Council. • Council is also advised that in January 2020 the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Brian Carr, retained legal services should Council require advice on the legal standing of boundary proposals and any representation related to this. • In response to the advice received from the Boundaries Commission, it is management’s recommendation that this matter is reviewed, and further information sought to inform any potential next steps, as outlined in this report.
Budget Impact Estimated Cost: $Undetermined
Recommendation That Council: 1. Receives the correspondence from the South Australian Local Government Boundaries Commission dated 9th July 2020. 2. Notes the Mayoral Statement of 10 July 2020 as well as the following background documents: a. Town of Gawler’s proposal of 3 December 2019. b. Town of Gawler’s proposal reply from the Boundaries Commission of 10 February 2020. c. Light Regional Council’s Stage 1 Boundaries Commission submission of 18 May 2020 d. Stage 1 Boundaries Commission submission reply of 9 July 2020 e. Light Regional Council’s letter sent to the Boundaries Commission on 30 October 2019. 3. Instructs the Chief Executive Officer to undertake, or cause to be undertaken, a comparative analysis of the proposals by the Town of Gawler and Light Regional Council and the related responses from the Boundaries Commission. 4. Notes that the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer will seek a meeting with the Chair of the Boundaries Commission, Mr Bruce Green, to discuss boundary reform to gather a greater understanding of the process being applied referencing the comparative analysis. 5. Notes that the Chief Executive Officer will prepare a report on the options available to Council relating to the Town of Gawler’s proposal to extend its boundary to include Hewett, Gawler Belt and Reid. 6. Notes that the Chief Executive Officer has engaged Griffins Lawyers on retainer effective from 23 January 2020 to provide legal services if required.
Reasons for the decision To receive and consider the correspondence from the Boundaries Commission dated 9 July 2020 and determine Councils next steps, ensuring Council continue to put first the interests and welfare of residents.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/45
Detailed Report Purpose To advise that Council has received a response to its boundary submission from the South Australian Local Government Boundaries Commission (hereafter the ‘Boundaries Commission’), dated 9 July 2020 (Appendix 13.1A) and provide an opportunity for further consideration of this matter.
Background In a letter, dated 3 December 2019 (Appendix 13.1C), the Town of Gawler submitted a Stage 1 boundary change proposal to the Boundaries Commission. The proposal identified several areas the Town of Gawler sought to have included into its boundaries. These included the Light Regional Council areas of Hewett, Gawler Belt and Reid.
Following the submission the Commission, in a letter dated 10 February 2020 (Appendix 13.1D), advised that it had considered the proposal and agreed that the Town of Gawler could proceed and refer a Stage 2 submission (‘general proposal’) to the Commission.
Light Regional Council, at its Tuesday, 28 April 2020 ordinary meeting, resolved to proceed with its own submission to the Commission for structural reform, citing that the proposal by the Town of Gawler was not in the Region’s economic interest and the following resolution was passed:
Moved Cr Grain Seconded Cr Kennelly 1. That the presentation from the Chief Executive Officer titled Boundary Proposals – “Update” be noted and supported. 2. That Light Regional Council acknowledge and appreciate the decision by The Barossa Council (18.2.20) not to undertake a formal (stage 2) general submission on boundary reform in favour of other Regional priorities at this time. 3. That Light Regional Council express its disappointment of the Town of Gawler’s decision (25.2.20) to progress its boundary reform proposals to Stage 2 despite several requests for them to withdraw or defer in the interest of progressing the Regional Vision. 4. That Light Regional Council considers the decision by the Town of Gawler to proceed to be insular and self-serving and not in the Region’s economic interests particularly given the recent adverse economic impacts to Australia and our Region due to China-US Trade Conflicts, bushfires, drought and now the emerging effects of COVID-19; demanding a positive Regional response as being articulated in the draft Regional Vision by the Councils of Adelaide Plains, Barossa and the Light Regional Council 5. Given that the Town of Gawler has decided to proceed with its flawed boundary proposals, the Chief Executive Officer of the Light Regional Council is instructed to lodge a (Stage 1) submission to the Boundaries Commission proposing “Regional Structural Reform” in support of the Regional Vision. 6. The ‘Regional Structural Reform’ proposal from Light Regional Council to divide the Local Government area under the jurisdiction of the Gawler Council between The Barossa Council, City of Playford and Light Regional Council applying the natural water courses of North and South Para and Gawler Rivers as logical boundaries (see Map – Appendix 13.1G of the Agenda Report) 7. That Light Regional Council considers the ‘Regional Structural Reform’ package by redeploying the assets and resources currently under the jurisdiction of the Town of Gawler will generate Regional opportunities, enhance efficient and effective Regional decision-making and create a more productive use of the Town of Gawler’s assets and resources in the interest of the entire Region. 8. That Light Regional Council emphasise that this proposal is to support the residents and ratepayers of the current Town of Gawler, as the Town of Gawler and its heritage will continue and remain a significant feature of the Region’s fabric; whilst its local government jurisdiction will be spread over 3 Councils; Playford, Barossa and Light Regional Council, providing efficiencies and productivity in the communities and Region’s interest. CARRIED
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/46
As a result of the resolution, a Stage 1 submission was lodged with the Commission in the proposal dated 18 May 2020 (Appendix 13.1E).
A reply to Council’s submission was received in a letter from the Commission, dated 10 July 2020 (Appendix 13.1A). In its reply the Commission has advised: • That Council’s proposal does not easily align with the section 26 principles (Local Government Act, 1999); • That it has determined that the Council’s submission does not address the concept of ‘community of interest’ or specifically identify common interests between the affected communities; • That it does not believe that additional work or information from Council would assist in the progression of the proposal and has advised that a ‘general proposal’ along the lines of Council’s submission cannot be referred to the Commission for consideration. A Mayoral Statement was issued by Mayor Bill O’Brien (Appendix 13.1B) on 13 July 2020, following the Commission’s reply and in response to The Bunyips request for comment on the matter.
History 17 September 2019 - GAP10.4 “Gawler Council Meeting - Boundary Change Proposal and Barossa Council Meeting - Boundary Reform”. 24 September 2019 - Item 14.4.1 “Boundary Re-Alignment Proposals – Motion Without Notice by Mayor Bill O’Brien”. 22 October 2019 - 13.1.1 Boundary Reform Proposals 19 November 2019 - GAP9.2.4 Local Government Boundary Re-Adjustment Update 10 December 2019 - 7.2.1 Presentation – Regional Vision, Minute Book reference 2019/363 and 364 28 January 2020 - 7.2.1 Presentation –Part 2: Local Government Act,1999 (Reform Proposals), Minute Book reference 2020/3 and Item 14.4 Motion Without Notice (also page 2020/3) 25 February 2020 - 7.2.1 Presentation – Boundary Reform and Regional Vision Update 17 March 2020 - GAP9.2.4 Local Government Boundary Re-Adjustment Update 28 April 2020 - 13.1.1 Boundary Proposals Update 12 May 2020 - AUD9.2.4/2020 Local Government Boundary Re-Adjustment Update
Discussion/Analysis An initial consideration of the different responses received from the Boundaries Commission by the Town of Gawler and Council to their respective proposals suggests that a further review (‘comparative analysis’) is warranted.
Further to this, it is also considered advisable that Council representatives (being the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer) seek a meeting with the Chair of the Boundaries Commission (Mr. Bruce Green), to discuss boundary reform, the comparative analysis and additionally to gain a greater understanding of the Commission’s process in its consideration, and subsequent advice on, submitted proposals.
It is intended that a further report will then be prepared and delivered to Council’s August Ordinary Meeting, outlining further options available to Council.
Council is also advised that in January 2020 the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Brian Carr, retained legal services should Council require advice on the legal standing of boundary proposals and any representation related to this.
Conclusion In response to the advice received from the Boundaries Commission, it is management’s recommendation that this matter is reviewed, and further information sought to inform any potential next steps, as outlined in this report.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/47
References Legislation Local Government Act, 1999, Chapter 3, Part 2
Strategic Plan Light Regional Council Strategic Plan 2017 to 2020 • Strategic Goal 1. Sustainability and • Strategic Goal 3. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.
13.2 GENERAL MANAGERS, BUSINESS & FINANCE and GOVERNANCE
13.2.1 Legatus Group Executive Committee Nomination Folder ID: 1875
Author: Richard Michael, General Manager - Governance
Report Presenter: Richard Michael, General Manager - Governance
Executive Summary Report highlights There is no detailed report to this item.
An email was received from Mr Simon Millcock, Chief Executive Officer of the Legatus Group on 1 July 2020 requesting nominations for the Legatus Group Executive Committee positions of Chair and Deputy Chairs.
The Legatus Group Charter requires that a Chair and two Deputy Chairs shall be elected at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) by and from the Board Members of the Group. The board is comprised of the 15 principal members of each of the constituent member councils. The Chair and Deputy Chairs hold office from the AGM at which they are elected until the next AGM. The current Group Chairman is Mayor Peter Mattey of the Goyder Regional Council, while Mayor Kathie Bowman (District Council of Orroroo & Carrieton) and Mayor Bill O’Brien are the two current Deputy Chairs of the Group.
The next AGM of the Legatus Group is Friday, 4 September 2020 and will be hosted by the Flinders Ranges Council, at a venue to be confirmed.
Mayor Bill O’Brien has indicated his willingness to again be considered for that role and requests that Council consider his nomination for it.
Budget Impact Nil Recommendation That the Light Regional Council advise the Chief Executive Officer of the Legatus Group that it would propose to nominate Mayor Bill O’Brien of the Light Regional Council for the position of Deputy Chair to the Legatus Board of Members.
Reasons for the decision The resolution offers council representation to the Central regional local government authority’s board of management.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/48
13.2.2 Local Government Finance Authority (LGFA) of South Australia, Annual General Meeting (AGM) and Appointment of Council Representative
Folder ID: 25065
Appendix: 13.2A LGFA Notice of 7 July 2020
Author: Terry Savage, Executive Assistant
Report Presenter: Richard Michael, General Manager - Governance
Executive Summary Report highlights • The Annual General Meeting of the LGFA will be conducted on Thursday, 29 October 2020 at a venue to be confirmed. • Nominations are being sought for two positions on the Board of Trustees of the LGFA • Nominations must be lodged no later than 21 August 2020 • At least one member of the board must be a woman and at least one member must be a man. • Council’s current Council Representative for attendance at the general meeting of the Authority is Cr Lynette Reichstein.
Budget Impact Nil
Recommendation That Council nominates ………………………….. and ……………………….., / chooses not to nominate at this time for the two positions on the Board of Trustees of the LGFA and confirms that Cr Lynette Reichstein is Council’s representative and is authorised to vote on Council’s behalf at the Thursday, 29 October 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Local Government Finance Authority.
Reasons for the decision The resolution offers an opportunity for suitably qualified persons to nominate for a position on the Board of Trustees of the LGFA.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/49
Detailed Report Purpose The purpose of this report is to advise the elected members of the date for the impending Annual General Meeting of the Local Government Finance authority of South Australia (LGFA) and of the nominations being sought for two positions on the Board of Trustees of the LGFA .
Background The Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia (LGFA) provides financial services (investment and borrowing opportunities) to South Australian Councils and Local Government Bodies. It was established under the Local Government Finance Authority Act, 1983 as a body corporate.
The LGFA is administered by a Board of Trustees, and works for the benefit of Councils and other Local Government Bodies within South Australia. It is not part of the Crown, nor is it an agency or instrumentality of the Crown.
All South Australian Councils are automatically members of the Authority, but use of the LGFA services is entirely voluntary. In accordance with the LGFA Act, the Treasurer of South Australia guarantees all of the Authority’s liabilities, including monies accepted on deposit from clients.
Members who support the Authority with deposits or who use loan facilities share in the LGFA’s success with annual distributions based on deposit and loan support / utilisation. The LGFA makes payments equivalent to Company Income Tax directly into a fund that is used exclusively for the benefit of South Australian Local Government. The funds in this account are available for local government development purposes based on recommendations by the Local Government Association of South Australia that have the support of the South Australian Minister for Local Government.
The LGFA conducts its annual general meeting each year in October coinciding with the LGA General Meeting and Expo.
History 17 November 2009 17 August 2010 19 October 2010 25 September 2012 26 August 2014 23 September 2014 27 September 2016
Discussion/Analysis The annual general meeting of the LGFA will be conducted on Thursday, 29 October 2020 at a venue to be confirmed. Cr Lynette Reichstein is Council’s current representative to the LGFA.
Section 7(1)(a) of the Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia Act 1983 regarding membership of the board provides:-
" (a) two are persons elected in accordance with the rules of the Authority;"
and Section 8(1) which provides:-
" 8. (1) Subject to this section, a representative member of the board holds office for a term of two years commencing on the first day of January in the year next succeeding the year in which he or she was elected or appointed."
In accordance with the Rules of the Authority if more than two persons are nominated an election for two representative members will again be determined by postal ballot. The successful candidates will be declared elected at the Annual General Meeting.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/50
Nominations are called to fill the two positions provided by Section 7(1)(a) currently held by Ms Annette Martin (City of Charles Sturt) and by Mr Michael Sedgman (The Rural City of Murray Bridge). Nominations must be lodged at the Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia office not later than 21 August 2020.
Section 7 (2) of the LGFA Act states:-
“At least one member of the board must be a woman and at least one member must be a man”
The current gender status is 4 men and 2 women, 1 vacancy. It has been suggested that Council may wish to consider nominating a candidate of each gender. Also, those councils nominating a Member or Officer may wish to forward separately a brief résumé of their nominee which will later be circulated to all councils with the agenda and ballot paper (if a ballot is required).
Conclusion A decision of Council is sought in regard to nominating a suitably qualified person for the two positions on the Board of Trustees of the LGFA. It is proposed to reappoint Cr Lynette Reichstein as Council’s representative to the LGFA.
References Legislation Local Government Finance Authority Act 1983
Council Policies Long Term Financial Plan (2020 to 2029) Treasury Management Policy
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/51
13.2.3 Local Government Reform Bill 2020
Folder ID: 1876
Author: Richard Michael, General Manager, Governance
Report Presenter: Richard Michael, General Manager, Governance
Executive Summary Report highlights The Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill 2020 (Reform Bill) is a Parliamentary Bill for the amendment of the Local Government Act 1999, the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999, the City of Adelaide Act 1998 and to amend various other Acts related to the review of the system of local government in South Australia. It was laid before the South Australian Parliament on 17 June 2020.
The Bill proposes many amendments, some are significant while others are more minor. This report will focus on the proposed changes to the Local Government Act 1999. The more significant of the proposed changes are discussed within the Discussion/Analysis section of this report (refer to the data table), along with commentary provided by the Local Government Association of South Australia (LGA). No commentary is provided regarding the proposed amendments to the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999.
The LGA is seeking submissions from Councils regarding the proposed changes which it would wish to receive by 9 August 2020. It will then use these council comments to further develop their position to hopefully effect change to the more contentious sections of the Bill.
Council’s additional comments are also included in the table and it is proposed that a submission will be made to the LGA taking these into account. Council’s administration considers that general support ought to be offered to the LGA concerning their policy positioning.
Budget Impact Estimated Cost: $Nil Future ongoing operating revenue: N/A Additional Comments (incl Labour Component if applicable): Nil. Recommendation
That the Council receive the report titled Local Government Reform Bill 2020 and submits a response to the Local Government Association of South Australia reflective of the commentary made within the report submitted to the Tuesday, 28 July 2020 Council meeting.
Reasons for the decision To provide Council’s views to the LGA regarding the proposed Local Government Act changes being debated through the introduction of the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill 2020 in the State Parliament.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/52
Detailed Report Purpose The purpose of this report is to advise the Council of proposed amendments being placed before the Parliament of South Australia through the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill 2020 (the “Reform Bill”). The report focuses on the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 only and does not comment on the proposals for the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 or the City of Adelaide Act 1998.
Background The Reform Bill was introduced in the House of Assembly by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government on 17 June 2020. History Item 9.2.3 of the 17 September 2019 Governance Advisory Panel meeting, LGA submission.
Discussion/Analysis The following table sets out the substantive changes proposed in the Reform Bill and provides the preliminary LGA comments on the proposed reforms. Additional comments have been provided by the General Manager, Governance on Council’s behalf.
The LGA are seeking Council input in order to finalise a position on the Bill in order that appropriate input can be made to the parliamentary process. Submissions from councils on the Bill are requested to be lodged by Friday 9 August 2020 with the LGA.
The ‘LGA Guidance’ colour coding is based upon previous consultation with member councils, decisions of LGA General Meetings and positions taken by the LGA Board.
The LGA has been advocating for sensible and effective legislative change and adopted a local government reform agenda in 2017. Council has previously provided a submission into that process (refer to ‘History’).
The LGA advises that “the Bill includes some of the reforms advocated by the LGA, particularly in relation to an improved framework for managing issues of behaviour. Unfortunately, the Bill also includes unwarranted and expensive proposals that can replace local decision making on council budgets and services with broad powers for a Minister to direct a council in these matters, such as setting a cap on council rates.”
The local government sector has a longstanding policy position to oppose rate capping in any form; Light Regional Council has supported this policy position. According to the LGA, debate on the Bill is expected to occur this month in the House of Assembly, and in the Legislative Council later in September 2020.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/53
Which section of the Act What does it do? LGA LGA Comments Light Regional Council Comments does it amend? Guidance
Generally opposed. Will depend on the detail. Generally supported.
6 New. The LGA is seeking clarification on what that means The current Section 6(b) states – “to provide and co- in practice and whether this additional principal ordinate various public services and facilities and to Principal role of council. “6(b) to make decisions about the provision of various creates grounds for council budgetary decisions to develop its community and resources in a socially public services and facilities that will benefit the be contested. just and ecologically sustainable manner; and” community in the context of the capacity and willingness of ratepayers to pay for those services and The new wording seems to pick the proposed facilities.” amendment to Section 3 Objects which at clause (f) states “to encourage local government to provide appropriate services and facilities to meet the present and future needs of local communities” by adding “and to provide for appropriate financial contributions by ratepayers to those services and facilities”.
The LGA are right to seek clarification on what the proposed change means. The amendment seems to draw the object away from the social and sustainability considerations placing more of an emphasis on the level of and willingness to pay for such services.
7 New. A number of additions in the ‘role’ and ‘functions’ Again, following on from the above comment, the sections tie into later changes relating to rate setting proposed change draws a link to an “appropriate Functions of a Council (ba) to determine the appropriate financial contribution and Ministerial directions. These preliminary financial contribution”. The writer would ask what is to be made by ratepayers to the resources of the sections related to the role and functions of council an appropriate financial contribution? What might be council. are considered to be acceptable, but the later appropriate for one council or one ratepayer may not sections on rate capping and new Ministerial ability necessarily be appropriate or reasonable for to override council policies are strongly opposed. another.
The wording deleted from Section 7(b) also provided some guidance to acceptable services and facilities
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/54
to could be provided by councils, particularly relevant in the context of using section 154 revenue powers for example.
8 (ea) Seek to collaborate, form partnerships and share The additional wording introduced by this clause is in The additions appear reasonable. resources with other councils… italics. Principles to be observed by a The new clause (ia) again seeks to align provision of council (h) seek to ensure that council resources are used A number of additions in the ‘role’ and ‘functions’ services etc with financial impact as discussed in fairly, effectively and efficiently and council services, and ‘principles’ sections tie into later changes earlier amendments. facilities and programs are provided effectively and relating to rate setting processes. efficiently. No one would argue, where able, council services and facilities ought to be provided effectively and (ia) seek to balance the provision of services facilities efficiently. and programs with the financial impact of the provision of those services, facilities and programs on ratepayers. Generally supportive of limiting the number of 11A The number of members of a council (including the This proposal needs to be tested with member elected officials to a council, however it would be Mayor) will be capped at 12. councils before the LGA forms a position. preferable that limitations are applied across the Number of elected members board and not to just the significantly large councils Remove current Representation Review clauses. During sector consultation in 2019, most councils (in South Australian terms) to retain some preferred to retain their current arrangements. New requirement to review number of wards and proportionality between the classes of councils. number of electors per ward. But no longer need to If councils have started a Representation Review review the number of members. under current Act, they can use this process for There has already been some media around the purpose of this section. issue of fair representation, principally regarding the If a council conducts a review by 2022, they can most populous councils in the State through the implement this change for 2022 council elections. This proposal is designed to be a simpler process limiting of the number of Elected Members of and respond to feedback from councils that the Council to 12 (inclusive of the Mayor). For example, If not, then must implement by the 2026 elections. current Representation Review process is overly is it appropriate for say LRC to have 11 elected complex. officials for estimated 10,500 electors, while City of Onkaparinga has 12 elected officials for an estimated 110,000 electors? Would that scenario be regarded as fair representation?
Historically there also has been media around perceived over representation for constituents in local government as compared to other levels of Government; and indeed, in comparison to the number of board members elected to publicly listed companies.
As highlighted to the LGA in September 2019 in an earlier response to the discussion paper “Reforming Local Government in South Australia, August 2019” report published by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure; the Light Regional Council suggested that perhaps there is an
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/55
alternative which could be considered by regulation in lieu of a limiting factor imposed by an amendment of the Act.
While this proposed alternative does limit the elected representation by council size, it offers an opportunity to further define council classification in accordance with the Local Government Grants Commission structure and allows (over time) as Councils grow organically, the opportunity for greater representation.
Reference is made to the following table of data.
It ought to be noted that *Roxby Downs Council has an appointed Administrator, and therefore is not included in the Council count. ^Light Regional Council is a Medium Council is this scheme. Therefore, under this proposed scheme there would be a reduction of Council Members by 2.
The scheme would reduce the current total number of elected representatives across the State by approximately 25%; but would not significantly reduce representation to the electors as most councils have relatively low rates of members to electors.
The suggestion would be that the Principal Member is a democratically elected Mayor in lieu of the Chair elected from within. Principal member voting rights may need review.
The real benefit is that there would be no need for Representation Reviews as the number of members is set by regulation; the representation issue then becomes internal where a simple boundary redrawing exercise could be undertaken where necessary (if the ward system is in play). If there is no ward system then there is no need for review, the process is simply administrative based around elector numbers.
Table - Example Council Elected Member Representation
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/56
Council Number of Council Electors Number of Proposed Upper Population Upper Elector Size Range Councils in Number of Elector (Elector) Ratio Quota Ratio range Elected Quota between Council between (perhaps linked Members Ratio Size Council Size to LGGC (b) (a) (b) Classifications)
Lower Upper (a) Small 0 3000 18 5 600
Small to 3001 10000 20 7 1429 3.3 2.4 Medium
Medium 10001 33000 19^ 9 3667 3.3 2.6
Medium to 33001 110000 9 11 10000 3.3 2.7 Large
Large 110001 370000 1 13 28462 3.4 2.8
Total 67* 513
12 If a council has area councillors but not wards, they will If a council has wards, they may still need to conduct Subject to the abovementioned example of an not need to perform a representation review. a representation review on the optimal number of alternative approach which provides a sector wide Rep review process -deleted electors in each ward. limiting factor as opposed to the upper limitation for Councils must consult with the public re the elected representation, generally agree with the representation report. The resulting report must include The Bill includes transitional provisions that will proposed amendments to Section 12. public submissions. capture reviews that have already commenced or will commence before the 2022 council elections.
44 Amendment to include Joint Planning Boards as a Councils retain the ability to make decisions about Supportive. It is also noted that the proposal seeks possible delegate. delegations and the terms and conditions of a remove sub-sections 7 and 8 which refer to the Delegations delegation. There is no requirement to make a rights of persons to view or obtain extracts of council delegation. delegations. It is noted that this data can now be obtained directly from a council website free of charge.
50 New. This proposal needs to be tested with member Generally supportive. councils before the LGA forms a position Current public consultation Introduces one Community Engagement Charter for The concept of a sector wide Charter appears sections deleted the whole local government sector. reasonable however no indication is provided on what matters might be included within in it. The
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/57
provision effectively does away with the existing This will replace many individual sections requiring The concept of a state-wide Community Council Public Consultation policy. councils to report info, consult, publish in newspapers, Engagement Charter is consistent with the LGA’s keep hard copy at principal office, etc previous local government reform submission.
The Charter will be decided by the Minister and Consolidating consultation arrangements within one Gazetted and will apply across all councils. state-wide charter could lead to savings and efficiencies by reducing duplication and allowing for Some parts will be mandatory, others will be up to more targeted and effective consultation to occur. council policy (See 50A). Local government will be consulted on the The Minister approves and varies the Charter, after development of and any variation to the Charter, via consultation with the LGA. a process facilitated by the LGA.
To be effective, it is considered that the Charter needs to: • Clarify the matters that councils must consult on, but not require councils to consult on minor or uncontroversial decisions; and • Ensure complaints about non-compliance with the Charter are dealt with in an efficient manner through an administrative process.
50A Each council must have its own policy on how to A large number of sections in the Act relating to Generally Supportive. As Council already has a implement the Community Engagement Charter. specific consultation on specific matters are deleted, Community Engagement Charter, it is anticipated as a consequence of new ss 50 and 50A. that this will need review following the implementation of a new section 50 and 50A of the Councils must consult with the community regarding Act. adoption of their Policy or if they want to vary it. This policy must be consistent with the Charter.
A failure to comply with a Community Engagement Charter or the council’s related community engagement policy still exposes the subsequent council decision to judicial review.
54 If a council member resigns to take up another position This proposal is consistent with the LGA’s previous Supportive. (eg Mayor) their position as member becomes vacant. local government reform submission. Casual vacancy Reduces duplication of expenditure on potential Councils can go to next election without filling the supplementary elections when a full general election casual vacancy if an election is to be held within the is less than one year away. The issue of next 12 months (currently 7 months) or January 1. representation (minimal term) is balanced against the cost of conducting an election.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/58
55A If a council member runs for State Parliament, they are This proposal is consistent with the LGA’s previous Supportive. automatically granted a ‘leave of absence’’. local government reform submission. Elected Members running for Parliament The leave commences at the close of nominations – During previous elections, there have been even if the member/candidate is campaigning earlier. inconsistent approaches by candidates in relation to standing down from council roles and payment of The provision applies to any council office - including allowances. These proposed provisions create a council committees and subsidiaries. level playing field for all council members.
If a candidate withdraws their nomination, - they are It appears that council members can still call automatically reinstated to their council position. themselves ‘Mayor’ or ‘Councillor’ during the leave of absence. Members will not receive remuneration/ allowances during the leave period. The LGA will seek feedback from member councils on the optimal wording for this section. In subsection 5, candidates can’t use council facilities in this leave period.
58 New sections clarifying the role of a principal member This proposal needs to be tested with member Generally supportive. of council. This includes: councils before the LGA forms a position. Role of Principal Member • “Providing leadership and guidance to the Needs to be acknowledged that some Mayors (usually called Mayor) council. Mayors are not given specific new powers. (Principal Members) may in fact be newly elected to a position on their local council, therefore may not • To lead the promotion of positive and The proposed section states general principles, have had any previous experience in a local constructive working relationships amongst setting out what the principal member’s leadership government environment. members of the council role entails. • To provide guidance to council members on the It may be appropriate to broaden the scope of elected member training options for these performance of their role; and community leaders to consider the broadening of the • To support council members understanding on principal member’s role. For example, training the separation of responsibilities between modules ought to include leadership; relationship elected representatives and employees of the building, adversity and or emotional intelligence; council.” governance, statutory and regulatory environment; and the political vs the administrative environment.
59 New. ‘Integrity’ is not defined and will have a common law Generally Supportive. definition. Role of members of council It will be a role of council members to act with integrity. The broadening of the councillor’s role from 4 to 10 The existing Act and Bill contain specific sections items, could see a review of the training required to about integrity, which are still primarily regulated by undertake the role; although it is acknowledged that ICAC, the OPI and Ombudsman. many of these matters ought to follow good administrative and decision-making processes. Training programs established for the principal member of the council could be adopted for the role of the councillor.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/59
Processes for continual learning opportunities ought to be developed in the sector in addition to the standard four module initial training period undertaken by all elected members upon their commencement in the sector.
62 The prohibitions on disclosure of confidential council This change will clarify council member Supportive. information are extended to documents that the council confidentiality obligations and make it easier to General Council Member member “knows or ought reasonably to have known is establish that a breach has occurred. Clarification of confidential documentation provision duties …required to be treated confidentially”. (upon current and former members) and the position of influence is useful.
68 (1a) If a council member fails to return their Register Consultation with member councils in 2019 showed Generally Supportive. after a defined period (in most cases 12 months) the support for clear consequences for a breach of this Council Member Register of member will be suspended. requirement. The new proposed sub-sections are quite direct Interests placing the onus upon the elected member to (1b) If a member is suspended under this section, so The proposed clause gives council CEOs a role in provide the necessary return within the stipulated are their member allowances. imposing consequences, including exercising a timeframe. degree of discretion (ie determining whether the (3a) If the member subsequently submits a return, to return is satisfactory). However, there must be clear (non-discretionary) the satisfaction of the CEO, the CEO will publish a guidelines available to the Chief Executive Officer to notice on website to this effect. The LGA will seek feedback from member councils assess the content of a return submitted under on the optimal wording for this section. proposed sub-section (3a); there can be no (3a)(b) The suspension is revoked upon publication of ambiguity in this process which might cause tension this notice. between a council member and the administration. (3b) If the failure to submit a return continues, the CEO may refer to SACAT
70 The Register will now no longer publish the home This proposal is consistent with the LGA’s previous Supportive. address of a councillor. local government reform submission. Inspection of a Register Additional information can be supressed for personal safety.
73 The Minister will declare the threshold amount for the This proposal is consistent with the LGA’s previous Supportive. purpose of this clause. local government reform submission. Register of gifts and benefits The proposed new sections 73 to 75D regarding The Minister must consult the LGA prior to making this (General and Material) Conflicts of Interest replace declaration. the current material, actual or perceived provision from sections 73 to 75B of the Act and in theory provide additional clarity around conflict of interest considerations.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/60
74-75C The three categories of Conflict of Interest are reduced The new sections are simpler and less confusing. Supportive. to two: ‘General Conflicts of Interest’ and ‘Material They should allow greater council member Conflicts of Interest Conflicts of Interest’. participation in decision-making where there is no See above comments. actual conflict, or the conflict can be managed A member of a council will not be regarded as having a appropriately. conflict of interest in a matter if the interest is held in common with a ‘substantial proportion’ of the Areas where further clarification is required include: ratepayers, electors or residents of the council area (if • circumstances where the council has that interest is equal). nominated an elected member to the Onus is on the council member to declare/decide board of another legal entity, whether they have a conflict. Failure to declare a • mechanisms for abstaining; and conflict can result in penalties. • the ‘substantial proportion’ test.
75E The Minister may publish and vary ‘Member Behaviour There will continue to be multiple (but slightly Supportive. Standards’. These Standards are not set out in the Bill. different) sources of rules that govern member Member ‘Behaviour behaviour. This includes: Although there is no indication of what might or not Standards’ They apply State-wide. • the Act, be included within a proposed Behavioural Standard. It is assumed that the basis for the proposed • in these proposed ‘Member ‘Behaviour The Minister must consult the LGA first. standard will be taken from the existing Elected Standards’; and Member Code of Conduct published by the Minister. Minister’s decision will be published in the Government • in the ‘Council Behavioural Support Gazette. Policies’ (see s75F).
This could be confusing, and it will be important for the LGA to provide support and guidance.
These standards will be reviewable by Parliament, which provides a level of oversight of the decisions made by a Minister.
75F Council may implement their own policies on how to Sector feedback indicated that dedicated meetings Supportive. support “appropriate behaviour by members of the (usually just after elections), where councillors Council Behavioural Support council”. These can’t be inconsistent with the deliberated and then agreed on behavioural Takes account of what an individual council will set Policies. Behavioural Standards. standards, led to strong improvements in meeting as appropriate behaviour in addition to the Standard culture. published by the Minister. Therefore, in practice the Council must review these within 6 months of general elected body will in part determine its own elections. The Bill will enable each council to address these behavioural expectations. issues and to approve their own policy. Council must consult the public on these. Members may face sanctions for a breach of a Council members must comply with their CBSPs. CBSP.
The Council itself can impose limited sanctions (see s262C).
A breach of the CBSP could constitute ‘misbehaviour’ (s262E), could be referred to the new
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/61
Behavioural Standards Panel and could result in more serious sanctions or penalties.
75G New. This proposal needs to be tested with member Supportive. councils before the LGA forms a position. Council member health and Council members are not ‘workers’ for the purpose of The proposal formalises a link between the council safety obligations the WHS Act. But they will now have specific WH&S The CEO will have clear powers to put in place and applicable WHS decision making which ought to obligations. arrangements to ensure employee safety. This could have occurred in any respect. include, for example implementing administrative Council members must not adversely affect the health arrangements to limit contact between council and safety of other members of council or employees. members or between a council member and an employee. Could include a direction that a member of a council not attend a meeting of the council. The LGA has sought advice from Norman Waterhouse Lawyers to clarify the proposed role of Council members must follow the reasonable directions CEOs in administering this provision. of a responsible person (usually the CEO) in this respect. Where appropriate in the circumstances, provision for alternative participation in a council or committees should be considered.
76 Remaining: The requirement of the Remuneration Tribunal to Generally supportive. consult with the LGA and reach agreement on Member Allowances Member Allowances set by Remuneration Tribunal. arrangements has been deleted. While not known if the previous arrangements included a contribution being made by the Minister LGA to pay Remuneration Tribunal their “reasonable Clarification is required regarding “reasonable costs” toward the costs of the Tribunal’s activities, then costs”. to ensure there are appropriate limits on the cost to there could be additional costs to be borne by the councils (via the LGA). LGA and councils. But as the activity directly relates to the sector why shouldn’t the sector pay for the 100% of South Australian councils are currently independent umpire’s decision-making process. members of the LGA and the enjoy the numerous savings and benefits that result from their membership. However, provisions need to be made that enable an equitable proportion of the costs to be recovered from a council that may withdraw or be expelled from the LGA in the future.
80A ‘LGA Training Standards’ will still be specified in the The LGA submission recommended that there be Generally supportive. Regs. approved candidate training and candidates must Training & Development indicate whether they have completed the approved Extensive amendment to section 80A regarding Each council must adopt their own policy for conduct candidate training, when nominating for council council member training and development. New and completion of training and development by their elections. requirement for CEO to enforce compliance. members. At present, the State Government does not intend to Whether the senior administrator of the Council If a council member has not completed the training, the include these in the (yet to be drafted) Regulations. ought to be responsible for ensuring that council CEO must suspend the council member unless the members undertake their training in accordance with council member satisfies the CEO that good reasons their training and development policy could be exist. questionable; perhaps the role ought to be
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/62
“managed” by key council committees such as the (See s262 for referral to Behavioural Standards Panel Feedback from members is required about the Audit and Risk Committee and or a Governance and penalties. ) proposed role for council CEOs in enforcing Advisory Panel. compliance with the training standards. This could be particularly difficult where the Council itself is responsible for assessing the performance of the Chief Executive Officer which could be limited by the performance of the Council (in its training obligations).
Candidate training is not covered in proposed amendments.
80B Suspend a council member who is the subject of an This proposal needs to be tested with member Supportive of the concept, but in practical terms the intervention order. councils before the LGA forms a position. amendment may need some further review. It is Suspension of Council assumed that the section applies to all council Member subject to an The CEO will have a discretion to suspend a member The LGA has sought advice from Norman members including the Mayor, but it is deficient intervention order Waterhouse Lawyers to clarify the proposed role of where the subject of the intervention order against CEOs in administering this provision. the member might be the Chief Executive Officer.
Feedback from members is required about the In this respect not sure about the role of the CEO in proposed role for council CEOs. implementing the section; perhaps the provision might become part of the role for the Independent member-controlled Audit/Risk Committee or the Governance Advisory Panel.
90(3)(o) New exemption, allowing councils to discuss potential This is a minor but welcome amendment. Supportive. award recipients in confidence. Meetings held in public This will allow the names of award-winners to not enter the public domain until the award is presented.
S90(8) The rules relating to informal gatherings are simplified. The current provisions are confusing and Supportive. unintentionally broad. Informal Meetings held in The Bill replaces 'informal gatherings or discussions' public with a simpler scheme of clearly defined 'information These new sessions will enable councils to more and briefing sessions'. easily discuss and better understand their business but will also retain the expectation that these sessions cannot be used to obtain, or effectively obtain, decisions that should be made in a public council meeting.
New S90A The concept of ‘Information or briefing session’ is As per S90(8) above. Supportive. described more carefully. If it is one of these, it needs to be open to the public and a record made.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/63
The CEO makes decisions regarding whether a matter will be on the agenda and if the group has ‘effectively made the decision’.
S92 Councils must already have a Code of Practice about Almost all of the reporting consultation provisions Supportive. meetings and access to documents. The new are removed from the Act and will be replaced by a Access to meetings and obligation requires councils to consult with the public schedule. Change to administrative process. documents before adopting, altering or substituting this Code. Similarly, the Bill also removes requirements to have Council reporting obligations are taken out of the documents available to the public (online or in office) various sections of the Act and will be replaced by a e.g. sections 77, 79, 105, 252, 259. schedule, making it easier for councils and the public to understand what needs to be reported (and how).
97(3)(a) Before council can terminate a CEO’s employment, The detail of this proposal needs to be tested with Generally supportive. they must have regard to advice from a “qualified member councils before the LGA forms a position. Terminate a CEO independent person”. The new provisions apply to where a CEO Council must consider the advice but is not bound by performance has become an issue or where there is Definition: “a legal practitioner OR someone it. a breach of contract. Seems sensible for a council determined by the council to have appropriate to approach these forms of dismissal cautiously qualifications or experience in human resource This provision only applies to some of the grounds considering the occurrence of additional legal costs management”. for termination. There is no requirement to obtain to confirm the course of action. this advice if the CEO is ‘guilty of an offence’, etc.
98 Councils no longer need to advertise in a newspaper - Councils will typically engage a suitably qualified and Generally supportive. instead, can use a website. experienced third party to assist with CEO Fill CEO Vacancy recruitment. Under normal circumstances a suitable human Selection Panel: At least one is not a council member resource and or management firm would be or member of staff. The detail of this proposal needs to be tested with contracted to carry out at least part of the process to member councils before the LGA forms a position. appoint a new council CEO. Before the CEO appointment, council must obtain and consider independent advice on the assessment of In terms of the CEO Selection Panel containing at applications and recommendation on appointment least one independent member, this could be fulfilled by the Independent Chairs of Council committees such as the Audit/Risk Committee or the Governance Advisory Panel if the council did not want to seek out wider specialist independent membership.
99 (ia) and (ib) New subsections relating to CEO functions. The section clarifies a role that most council CEOs Supportive. perform already. Role of CEO A CEO must: - ensure council has effective polices systems procedures, etc - Report annually to the relevant audit and risk committee on the council’s internal audit process.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/64
99A The Remuneration Tribunal will determine minimum The proposed provisions are modelled on the Generally supportive; but in some way it is reflective and maximum remuneration for CEOs. Western Australia legislative scheme are were of returning to the days of the old ASU Award Remuneration Tribunal broadly supported by councils and the LGA in calculation for CEO Renumeration based on Council extends to CEOs The Remuneration Tribunal may have regard to any previous local government reform submissions. banding and several relevant criteria such as rate matter set out in the Regulations. revenue, population and staff numbers. Clarification is required about how additional ss(4) remuneration may differ based on geographical allowances (such as mobile phone, travel/fuel for Is it assumed that where an existing CEO factors or other factors. country CEOs etc) will be considered/determined by renumeration sits outside of the proposed upper and the Tribunal. lower bands that there will be some form of Amounts may be indexed. transitional system is place, particularly where for The Bill allows for a determination to be made ‘from example the proposed band level might be set lower The LGA will pay for the Remuneration Tribunals’ time to time’. Greater certainty should be provided reasonable costs. than an existing contractual agreement. Tools of about the minimum / maximum frequency of trade allowances are normally paid separate to cash Councils must ensure the remuneration they pay is determinations, particularly as the cost of this or other package arrangements. within the range set by the Remuneration Tribunal. process will be borne by councils (via the LGA). 100% of South Australian councils are currently members of the LGA. However, provisions need to be made that enable an equitable proportion of the costs to be recovered from a council that may withdraw or be expelled from the LGA in the future.
102A New. The detail of this proposal needs to be tested with Supportive. member councils before the LGA forms a position. CEO Performance review A CEO Performance Review must occur at least once Generally reflective of what occurs at LRC. a year and “if relevant” before reappointment.
Council must obtain independent advice by “qualified independent person” who is not a member of council and determined by the council (same as the requirements for CEO termination but a legal practitioner is not listed as an option. see 97(3), above).
110 Code of conduct for This is replaced by s119A The employee register is designed to mirror the Supportive. employees requirements for council members. CEOs have responsibility to manage this through council policies and industrial arrangements.
110A Duty of employees to protect confidential information. This is consistent with the clarification for council Supportive. members’ confidentiality obligations. Duty to protect confidential Adds a new limb “employee knew or ought to have Also note increase to level of financial penalty from information known that the information is to be treated $10,000 to $15,000. confidentially”.
119A This was previously dealt with by Code of Conduct. The aim is for consistency in these arrangements, Supportive. The limit is intended to be the same as is currently for employees and council members. Register of Gifts and Benefits declared by Minister. for Employees
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/65
120A Council must prepare and adopt standards. While the council will adopt the overall policy, the Supportive. CEO otherwise remains in charge of employee Employee Behavioural An employee must comply with these standards. matters. standards These standards will set out: The LGA will consult with member councils and with - grounds for suspending or dismissing, disciplinary the relevant trade unions action against the employee.
Before a council adopts or alters these standards, they must consult with relevant industrial association re the Employee Behavioural standards and any subsequent variation.
Within 6 months of periodic election, council must review these standards.
122 A Council’s Long-Term Financial Plan -must be for a The LGA acknowledges the significant work that Supportive. 10yr period. almost all councils have undertaken in developing Strategic Management Plan their LTFPs and is comfortable with this codification The LTFP must: of existing practice.
(New) Note that the Consultation Charter arrangements: - outline council’s approach to funding services and • will require councils to consult with their infrastructure communities on their LTFPs; and - Set out council total revenue for the period • are likely to require councils to undertake - Outline the sources of revenue including fees, further consultation before changes are grants, rates and charges. made to the LTFP. (3a) Regulations may require the inclusion of other information.
123 An Annual Business Plan (ABP) must include: This section would impose a series of expensive and Supportive of the LGA’s position. - New: a statement on the proposed change in total unwarranted new requirements on councils in Annual Business Plan revenue from general rates for the financial year drafting and adopting their Annual Business Plan This is a rate capping measure, not even by stealth; although it is acknowledged that the proposed and if ABP sets out a growth component in and Budget. legislation includes the allowance for new relation to general rates it may only relate to This proposal introduces another layer of assessment growth within anticipated general rate growth in the no of rateable properties and must bureaucracy and gives a significant role to an revenue. not relate to the growth in the value of rateable unelected body that has no relationship with or properties. accountability to the local community. What the legislation lacks is any reference to all organic development that occurs on existing - an explanation of how the proposed change is This process will place councils in a continuous property which accordingly increases valuation or consistent with the council’s LTFP. cycle of administrative planning and reporting that alters land use. This can cause significant changes - A summary of other reasons for the proposed will detract from the councils’ role in providing local within a council’s rates model. If this activity was change. services and facilities that benefit the local recognised, then the legislation might be supported. - Details of impact of the proposed change on community. The issue is particularly relevant for high growth average rates for each land use category. The timeframes outlined in this section are developing councils (not just focussed on new unrealistic and unworkable. A council will be assessment growth) and those smaller councils
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/66
- The advice received from the ‘Designated required to adopt a draft Annual Business Plan and which have very little or no assessment growth. Authority’ (which looks like being the Essential Budget in December – 6 months prior to the Further how is the issue of annual CPI or LGPI Services Commission of SA); and commencement of the new financial year. This growth handled? provides limited flexibility to respond quickly and - The council’s response to the advice which must effectively to changing economic and social The proposals would require a shift in administration set out whether the proposed change in total circumstances, such as those we have experienced processes to effectively commence drafting the revenue from general rates is consistent with the in 2020 during the Covid-19 public health following year’s proposed Annual Business Plan and advice and if not the reasons for the emergency. Budget immediately following the adoption of the inconsistency. current year’s ABP and B. The LGA position notes In 2019, the South Australian Productivity the effect of extraordinary impacts on Council’s (3a) The draft ABP must be provided to the Commission undertook an Inquiry into Local ability to adequately address flexible shifts within the Designated Authority by 31 Dec in the FY preceding Government Costs and Efficiency. The Inquiry ABP and B. The Covid19 event was provided as an and must include: found that SA councils are achieving high levels of example; others are extreme fire events (2015) and - The proposed change in total revenue from efficiency and did not make any recommendations storm events (2010) causing natural disaster. general rates. that are consistent with the rate capping proposals contained within the Bill. Like the LGA, the administration has concerns about - The council’s view of the impact of the change. the ability of ESCOSA (if that is the reviewing entity) - Information about consideration given by council The Commission did, however, find that regulatory to meet the deadlines (3-month period) imposed by to alternatives to the proposed change including compliance costs and the expansion of mandated legislation. Additionally, the cost of undertaking the total revenue resulting from such alternative responsibilities under state legislation have created review is to be met by the councils themselves, then measures. additional cost pressures for councils. that additional cost will need to be absorbed into Council’s already restricted budgets. If the $2m cost This Bill introduces a range of new compliance (d) information as to how the proposal is consistent guide applicable to Victorian Councils is translated to requirements that will need to be funded by councils. with the Council’s LTFP. SA councils as a quick guide example, this an The costs of this process are likely to be significant. - Any other matter set out in the in Regs. additional $30k estimated expense per council. A ‘Designated Authority’ (likely to be ESCOSA) will The Designated Authority must provide its advice back need to undertake an individual assessment of every to the council by 31 March of each year. councils plans and budget, every year.
The Designated Authority must have regard to: As a reference, the Essential Services Commission - Information provided by, AND any matter directed in Victoria spent $2 million in 2018/19 administering its local government regulatory role. by the Minister; and - Any other matter considered relevant by the Every extra dollar that is needed to fund new Designated Authority. reporting requirements in an extra dollar that needs to be paid by ratepayers, or one less dollar that is The Designated Authority must publish a copy of any invested in local services and facilities. direction given by the Minister as soon as practicable. This proposal is inconsistent with the LGA’s If the Designated Authority considers a council has longstanding policy position to oppose rate capping failed to respond to its advice - it May provide a report in any form. to the Minister.
Ch 13 s273 Reviews Initiated Minister may ask the council to report. Councils already publicly consult and report on Supportive of the LGA’s position. by Minister Annual Business Plans and Budgets, which outline If the council has “failed to adequately respond” to the proposed rate increases. Minister / Designated Authority advice, then…. Councils also have Audit Committees and are subject to an annual external audit. The Auditor
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/67
General also has broad powers to review a councils’ The Minister can give directions to the council to financial decision making. “rectify the matter” or to prevent recurrence of the “act, failure or irregularity”. Ultimately, councils are accountable to the community and are held to account via democratic This is not limited to situations where there has been a elections that are held every 4 years. breach or failure by a council. It could relate to any council budgetary decision -eg where the Minister and This proposal centralised more power with an council merely have different financial priorities. individual Minister, who will be given extremely broad scope to direct a council in relation to its budget and the delivery of local services and projects.
This proposal is inconsistent with the LGA’s longstanding policy position to oppose rate capping in any form.
125 New Regulation making powers. Councils must ensure This is a potentially significant power and has the Supportive of the LGA’s position. their policies, practices and procedures comply with potential for the State government to significantly Internal Control policies these Regulations. encroach on the decision-making of local It is already acknowledged that the current section representatives. has a wide remit. The key phrase in the proposed legislation is the reference to complying with that The scope of the section extends to any policy, which is “prescribed by the regulations”. procedure, etc.
The section could be used to effectively take away almost all council discretion and undermines the role of local government as an independent, democratic sphere of government.
126 A majority of members of council Audit and Risk The LGA’s previous local government reform Generally supportive of the proposed legislation. Committees must not be members of the council and submission provided broad support for an expanded Audit and Risk Committee may not be an employee of the council. role for council Audit Committees. will seek advice Note change to title “Audit” to “Audit and Risk” on these details from the sector. Committee. Proposed activity mirrors what currently The role of these committees is expanded to include occurs with the LRC Audit Committee. Some ‘risk’. The detail of this proposal needs to be tested with administrative process changes would need member councils before the LGA forms a position. alteration. ‘Functions’ of Audit and Risk Committees expanded:
New functions include: - Monitoring expenses of council. - to make recommendations for improvements based on previous audit/risk assessments. - Review powers when CEO assists audit committee. - Liaise with council auditor in accordance with the Regulations
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/68
(g) if a council has an internal audit function -to review/comment on an annual report by CEO in internal report re the scope of internal audit work; and - The objectivity and standard demonstrated in the carrying out of the function.
If a council does not have internal audit function, the CEO must report on polices of council etc
The must be one meeting of the Audit and risk Committee each quarter.
Audit and risk Committee must provide a report to council every 3 months.
126A Regional audits permitted, where 2 or more councils This option may be useful for regional councils who Supportive. share audit resources. This is optional. struggle to recruit qualified independent auditors.
128 Councils must use a different audit firm at least every 5 Unlike the Corporations Act, councils can’t just Supportive. years. change the particular auditor within the same firm. Auditor Somewhat surprised that this proposed change has Then a council must wait five years before re-engaging not been introduced before now. Particularly that same auditor. relevant to audit firms that have multiple registered local government auditors on their team as a council could potentially keep the same audit firm but just change the ‘lead’ registered auditor.
129 If the SA Auditor-General exercises (existing) powers Note that the Auditor-General also has new powers Generally supportive, but there may be a question to perform the council audit, then a normal audit is not to conduct a ‘review’ which is not a full audit but regarding contractual obligation (to the appointed Conduct of Audit required. might be, for example, an investigation into a Council audit firm) needing answer. particular aspect of a council’s affairs. If the Auditor -General conducts the audit, the council must pay for the reasonable costs incurred. The broad powers that are already available to the Auditor General to review or audit a council’s financial management are further justification that the additional, expensive rates oversight processes outlined in the Bill are unnecessary and unwarranted.
151 Delete council power to use ‘site value’ as a means of The OLG advise that currently only 8 councils use Supportive of having a uniform method across the rating. All councils will use ‘capital value’ method. site value. State, i.e. capital valuation. Basis of rating This will mean state-wide consistency for ratepayers, but the detail of this proposal needs to be tested with member councils before the LGA forms a position.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/69
170 Requirements to give the public notice of the The specific requirements to give the public notice of Supportive. declaration of rates. the declaration of rates will be set out in the Notice of declaration of rates Community Engagement Charter.
194 Simplification of current unwieldy process to revoke On an initial review of this proposed clause the LGA Agreed with the LGA’s assessment. community lands. Cases where the Minister will be is not convinced that the drafting achieves the policy Revocation of community land required to make the decision is clarified. intention. With assistance from Norman Waterhouse While the intention may be to make the legislation Lawyers, we hope to clarify this and ensure the more workable and therefore the process of revoking More situations where councils can make the decision Minister is not required to approve minor or community land simpler, the rewriting of section 194 to revoke uncontroversial community land (eg unmade uncontroversial applications. and the addition of two new sections 194A and 194B roads). doesn’t give that impression. There seems to be a lot of involvement in the process by the Minister and Does not apply to Adelaide Parklands. the Governor.
Will wait to see the outcomes of NWL’s review of the proposed legislation.
222 (1a) – permits for mobile Removal of automatic granting of permits to mobile Mobile food vending business will now be treated Supportive. food vending business food vendors (food trucks). like any other business seeking a council permit. This is consistent with ongoing submissions from the sector and LGA advocacy.
262A First step requires the council deal with issue in Council has initial obligation to deal with council Supportive. accordance with their (new) behaviour management member behavioural issues, according to their own Council Member Behaviour policy and behaviour support policy. ‘Code’.
This is consistent with previous LGA local government reform submissions.
262C Council has powers to insert consequences/ penalties Most of these changes are welcome. Generally supportive, although note that a into their policy for breaches of their Council policy. supposedly informal process will lead to a formal Member Behaviour - Action Councils may: Legal advice, mediation and other options can be outcome, particularly when considering a censure, used, if a council elects. removal or suspension. (a) censure Based on the consultation with the sector in 2019, (b) Require a public apology. there may be some concern if a majority of council members have a power to suspend a council (c) Require the councillor to undertake a specified member, even after a formal process had been course of training or instruction. completed.
(d) remove or suspend the member from 1 or more The LGA will seek feedback from member councils offices held by the member on the detail of this proposal.
In dealing with these, council must proceed with as little as possible formality and technicality
The clause has been designed in an attempt to enable councils to operate without requiring lawyers.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/70
Councils are not bound by the rules of evidence but must provide procedural fairness
Council can refuse to deal with a matter because it is frivolous, vexations, trivial. Council can also decide to take a matter no further.
262D - Member Behaviour - If a council refuses to deal with a complaint or This is a new administrative step that, ideally, will be Supportive, any decision ought to be accompanied Reasons determines to take no further action, then the council part of an overall scheme that is faster and less by reasoning. must provide written reasons. expensive than currently operating.
262E Misbehaviour means: Classifying these levels of poor behaviour will enable Supportive of an attempt to define behaviours. - A failure by a member of council to comply with a the new Behaviour Panel to issue guidelines on Behaviour Panel requirement under 262C(1) (ie the council likely penalties. determination about the complaint) The proposal will give the Panel power to define - Failure to comply with a council behaviour bullying and harassment, for the purposes of the management policy. Local Government Act.
A failure to comply with an agreement reached following mediation, conciliation arbitration, dispute resolution process (ie a councillor has agreed and re- negged).
Repeated misbehaviour.
Misbehaviour, repeated behaviour and serious misbehaviour are defined.
‘Serious misbehaviour’ means bullying or harassment of another member or employee of council.
S262F Panel Local Government Behaviour Panel will have 3 This proposal is consistent the LGA’s previous local Supportive. members: government reform submissions. 1. Jointly appointed by Minister and LGA 2. appointed by Minister 3. appointed by LGA
262J Remuneration and expenses of the Panel will be Early estimates (based on Local Government Grants Funding model seems reasonable; however, it is determined by Governor. Commission Model) indicate costs will be $300-350K assumed that there will be start-up costs that will for all three Panel Members (and including an need to be incurred before any matters (and fee for Executive Officer and one administrative person). service activities) are referred to the Panel.
It is proposed that the LGA pay these fixed costs Further it is assumed that these start-up costs would with councils paying on a fee for service basis when be billed to all councils, perhaps along the lines of their matters come before the Panel. the annual LGA membership subscription basis. Further clarity needed. The LGA seeks feedback on whether the sector is prepared to fund the proposed model.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/71
S262N The Panel must: The LGA will seek further details on the funding Supportive of the LGA’s comments, further clarity of - Publish guidelines model. At present, the LGA would pay extra, if the functions required. Perhaps the sector can develop - Publish model behavioural management policies Minister assigned the Panel additional functions. the guidelines, models and directions through its - Practice directions This appears to present an open-ended financial own resources and then to be signed off by the commitment. Panel as best practice standards. Possibly either Panel can perform other functions assigned. way the sector pays for the policy development role. There is a danger that the State Government could use LGA to take on extra regulatory roles (cost shifting). Extra LGA and sector funding needs to be by agreement.
S262Q Matters can be referred to the Panel by Council policies should have processes to deal with Agreed, there already exist complaint opportunities - Resolution of council complaints from the public, council staff and council within the Act. Referral - CEO of council members. However, appeals do not need to be - at least 3 members of council treated consistently. - the Minister This clause needs to distinguish members of the public complaining about council member behaviour + any person dissatisfied with council decision (already dealt with by s273 with appeals to Ombudsman) and complaints from staff and council members. The public already have the ability to complain about council member behaviour. There is no need (and have been no calls) for an additional grievance process for members of the public.
Council staff and members should have access to the Panel where internal council processes have not been successful. This is the specific problem that the Panel is established to solve.
S262S Panel may arrange for investigations, compel reports Council will often conduct an initial investigation. Supportive of LGA comments. It is suspected that from council, etc. While the Panel should be a fast and low-cost forum, each council would at least have undertaken some it may need to (but should not be required to) form of initial investigation into matters referred to conduct its own investigation. the Panel. This data would be forwarded accordingly, it would only be from that point that any additional investigation might be carried out.
262W The Panel may: The LGA queries why the Panel refers censures Supportive of the LGA’s comments. - Reprimand back to councils and doesn’t have the power to Powers of the Behaviour - Direct a council to censure censure, itself. The direction seems out of kilter with the other Panel. actions available to the Panel, particularly in the - Require a public apology circumstance where the Panel can remove or suspend a member. Alternatively, is the censure
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2011/72
- Require a councillor to undertake a course of motion a recognition by the Council that the Panel training or development. has delivered a penalty, order or action. - Require a councillor to reimburse an amount of money. - Remove or suspend an office in capacity as member of another body - Suspend for up to 3 months - Direct council to lodge complaint with SACAT (SACAT can suspend for longer or remove a person from council).
If a councillor fails to comply with an order, this is defined as an integrity issue and goes to SACAT (not OPI) and the Panel must make a report to the Minister.
S262Y If corruption or integrity issue - it goes to Office of Clarification is required regarding where appeals Agreed, the provision seems unclear in relation to an Public Integrity. from Panel go, where there is not corruption. appeal process, other perhaps the making of an application to SACAT. Council or Panel can refer a matter to OPI.
S273 A Minister may, on the basis of information received This is the clause that gives the Minister broad Agree with the LGA’s comments. from: powers to direct a council on matters arising out of Action a Minister can take on • ICAC these bodies. Report • Ombudsman • A Designated Authority under s123 • A report of the Small Business Commissioner • A report of the behavioural standards panel; or • A report of a council administrator,
ask council why s/he shouldn’t direct the council.
If not satisfied, the Minister can direct the council
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/73
Minor amendments proposed for the Local Government Act 1999 include the following.
Section 3 Objects Additional wording regarding financial contributions by ratepayers. Section 4 Interpretation Additional definitions of terms are to be added around behavioural matters, boundaries commission, community engagement, integrity, relative, risk and audit committee. Section 13 Status of a council or change of various names Removing the need to publish a public notice in newspaper circulating within the area. Section 26 Principles Adding reference to the South Australian Local Government Boundaries Commission Section 45 Principal office Administrative matter only re consultation of change of change of business operations Section 48 Prudential requirements for certain activities Change to administrative process. Section 49 Contracts and Tenders policies Change to administrative process. Section 51 Principal member of council The principal member is to be appointed or elected as a representative of the area (in which case the principal member is to be called a mayor). If there is to be a deputy to act in the Mayor’s absence, then that position is to be called “deputy mayor”. Section 55 Specific requirements if member disqualified Correction to referencing and increase to penalty amount from $5000 to $15000. Section 63 Code of conduct for members To be deleted from the Act. Section 71 Restrictions on publication Increase to penalty amount from $10,000 to $15,000. Section 72A Register of gifts and benefits Insertion of a new section 72A discussing the register of gifts and benefits.
Section 77 Reimbursement of expenses Change to administrative process. Section 79 Register of allowances and benefits Change to administrative process. Section 83 Notice of ordinary or special meetings Change to administrative process. Section 84 Public notice of council meetings Change to administrative process. Section 85 Quorum Clarification to quorum calculation around the issues of council member suspension and leave of absence. Section 86 Procedure at meetings Additional provisions regarding council meeting behaviour and, exclusion from meetings, and voting. Section 87 Calling and timing of committee meetings Change to administrative process. Section 88 Public notice of committee meetings Change to administrative process. Section 91 Minutes and release of documents Change to administrative process. Section 93 Meetings of electors Change to administrative process. Section 94A Meeting information on website Section deleted. Section 105 Register of remuneration, salaries and benefits Change to administrative process. Section 109 General duty and compliance Insertion of two new sub-sections in relation to compliance and integrity provisions. Section 110 Code of conduct for employees Deleted from the Act. Section 117 Provision of false information Increase in penalty from $10,000 to $15,000. Section 119 Restrictions on disclosure Increase in penalty from $10,000 to $15,000. Section 120 Conflict of interest Increase in penalties from $5,000 to $15,000. Includes broadening interests to include family trusts and companies. Section 125A Internal audit functions The insertion of a new internal audit function appointment where the ability to do so exists. Includes subsequent reporting to a council’s audit and risk committee. Section 127 Financial statements Change to administrative process. Section 130A Other investigations Change to committee name. Section 131 Annual report to be prepared and adopted Change to administrative process. Section 131A Provision of information to Minister New administrative process. Section 132 Access to documents Change to administrative process. Section 147 Rateability of land Change to administrative process. Section 153 Declaration of general rate (including differential Prescribed date for rate declaration is proposed as 15 August, general rates) not the current 31 August in each year. Section 156 Basis of differential rates Change to administrative process. Section 181 Payment of rates—general principles Related to section 153 change. Section 184 Sale of land for non-payment of rates Change to administrative process. Section 188 Fees and charges Change to administrative process. Section 193 Classification Change to administrative process. Section 196 Management plans Re-referencing of applicable Act requirements. Section 197 Public consultation on proposed management Change to administrative process. plan Section 202 Alienation of community land by lease or licence Change to administrative process. Section 207 Register Change to administrative process. Section 219 Power to assign name, or change name, of road Change to administrative process. or public place Section 221 Alteration of road Proposed adjustments to sub-sections (7) and (8) which are for the moment have not commenced. Section 223 Public consultation Change to administrative process. Section 224 Conditions of authorisation or permit Change to administrative process.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/74
Section 224A Breach of condition of authorisation or permit Delete from Act. Section 225 Cancellation of authorisation or permit Change to administrative process. Section 225A Location rules—general Delete from Act. Section 225B Review of granting of authorisations and Change to administrative process. permits Section 231 Register Change to administrative process. Section 232 Trees Change to administrative process. Section 234AA Interaction with processes associated with Re-referencing. development authorisations Section 234A Prohibition of traffic or closure of streets or Change to administrative process. roads Section 237 Removal of vehicles Change to administrative process. Section 246 Power to make by-laws Amendment to penalty from $750 to $1250 and Change to administrative process. Section 249 Passing by-laws Change to administrative process. Section 250 Model by-laws Change to administrative process. Section 252 Register of by-laws and certified copies Change to administrative process. Section 259 Councils to develop policies Change to administrative process. Section 263 Grounds of complaint Delete from Act. Section 263A Investigations by Ombudsman New sub sections referencing behaviour complaints, the Panel and Ombudsman investigations. Section 263B Outcome of Ombudsman investigation Substitution of existing sub sections highlighting outcomes from Ombudsman’s investigation. Section 264 Complaint lodged with SACAT Change to administrative process in lodging member complaints to SACAT. Section 265 Hearing by SACAT Change to administrative process. Section 267 Outcome of proceedings Change to penalties which may include the reimbursement of the council's costs relating to investigation of the complaint, increase in penalties from $5000 to $15000 and from 2 months to 6 months. Section 269 Report on operation of Part Delete from Act. Section 270 Procedures for review of decisions and requests Change to administrative process. for services Section 279 Service of documents by councils etc Change to administrative process. Section 280 Service of documents on councils Change to administrative process. Section 303 Regulations Referencing the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Act 2020 Schedules to the Local Government Act 1999 There are various amendments proposed to the Schedules accompanying the Act. This most significant is the introduction a new Schedule 9 – Suspension of Members which directly relates to the recommendations handed down by the SACAT, the Behavioural Standards Panel, and the Ombudsman
Conclusion Council’s administration considers that general support ought to be offered to the LGA concerning their policy positioning. With reference to proposed Section 11A, perhaps an area of alternative strategy centres around the proposed maximum number of elected council members. In lieu a maximum number particularly aimed at the larger metropolitan councils, Council’s earlier view submitted to the LGA is that there ought to be a general review of the level of representation across the sector. Several significant policy adjustments are included in the proposed legislation, particularly regarding the issues of Community Engagement and Elected Member Behaviours. The roles of Council Members and the CEO are proposed to be expanded. Significant changes are proposed for the Conflict of Interests provisions. Alternative legislation has been proposed for Gifts and Benefits Register provisions contained in the Act for both council members and staff. The role of the Audit Committee is proposed to be expanded to include the area of Risk, as such to be renamed Audit and Risk Committee. General rate capping is proposed; it is both the LGA’s and this Council’s stated policy position that this legislative mechanism ought to be opposed. The revocation of community land provisions has been re-written, in theory to make the process simpler. There are significant additions to the Act in the Bill around the issue of Member Behaviour focussing on the establishment of a Behavioural Standards Panel and the various processes and policies attached to that. This then expands into the addition of a new Schedule 9 to the Act which refers to the Suspension of Members. There are many other minor changes proposed in the legislation which are related to the key themes noted above.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/75
References Legislation Local Government Act 1999
Council Policies Various Council policies will be affected by the proposed changes to the Local Government Act.
Strategic Plan LRC Strategic Management Plan 2017 to 2020.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/76
13.3 GENERAL MANAGER, STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT
13.3.1 Genetically Modified Crops Moratorium
Folder ID: 74058
Appendix: 13.3A 13 May 2020 – Crop Science Society of South Australia (via e-mail from Mr. Peter Grocke) 13.3B 29 May 2020 – A request from The Barossa Council seeking LRC views on the proposals 13.3C 3 June 2020 – PIRSA 13.3D 10 June 2020 – Mark Parnell MLC 13.3E 18 June 2020 – Grain Producers SA (+ Fact Sheet) 13.3F 25 June 2020 – Review of the Independent Review of the SA GM Food Crop Moratorium by Dr. John Paull (March 2019) – provided via Cr. Zeller 13.3G 6 July 2020 – NASAA Organic 13.3H 10 July 2020 – Correspondence from Mr. Graham Brookman (Joint Managing Director of ‘The Food Forest’ at Hillier which is NASAA Certified Organic) + Attachments 13.3I 22 July 2020 – Jamie Wilson
Author: Craig Doyle, General Manager - Strategy & Development
Report Presenter: Craig Doyle, General Manager - Strategy & Development
Executive Summary Report highlights This report provides additional information with respect to the amendments to the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act, 2004 (GMCM Act).
The report adds to Item 11.4 ‘Genetically Modified Crops in South Australia’ considered by Council on 26 May 2020.
It is also noted that Cr. Zeller has provided a related Notice of Motion for consideration in this Agenda.
As reported in May 2020, the amendments also enable SA Councils to apply to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development (the Minister) to remain a non-GM crop area, based upon an application that is first informed by community consultation (which is to include contact with persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities).
Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA) has advised that, should Council wish to make an application, it should: • Be framed within the scope of the Act, and relate to marketing and trade only (my emphasis); • Demonstrate that the consultation requirements of the Act have been fulfilled; • Include advice on all views expressed during consultation (both in favour or against a declaration) and any evidence provided by the community and/ or industry relating to the application; and
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/77
• Be provided by 30 September 2020, in order to provide the Minister with enough time to fulfil his responsibilities under section 5A of the GMCM Act. Council has received correspondence with respect to this matter from: • 13 May 2020 – Crop Science Society of South Australia (via e-mail from Mr. Peter Grocke) • 29 May 2020 – A request from The Barossa Council seeking LRC views on the proposals • 3 June 2020 – PIRSA • 10 June 2020 – Mark Parnell MLC • 18 June 2020 – Grain Producers SA (+ Fact Sheet) • 25 June 2020 – Review of the Independent Review of the SA GM Food Crop Moratorium by Dr. John Paull (March 2019) – provided via Cr. Zeller • 6 July 2020 – NASAA Organic • 10 July 2020 – Correspondence from Mr. Graham Brookman (Joint Managing Director of ‘The Food Forest’ at Hillier which is NASAA Certified Organic) • 22 July 2020 – Jamie Wilson These submissions are summarised in the report and show the strong differences in opinion on this matter. Council management is aware that The Barossa Council, Town of Gawler and City of Playford have resolved to undertake consultation with their communities on this matter. It is understood that Adelaide Hills Council will be determining whether it will also undertake consultation at its meeting on 28 July 2020. The LGA has provided councils with access to an Explanatory Paper with respect to this matter which is referred to in this report.
Budget Impact Estimated Cost: $Undetermined Future ongoing operating costs: $Nil Is this budgeted? No
Recommendation That Council receives and notes this information for consideration in conjunction with a related Notice of Motion in this Agenda.
Reasons for the decision To enable Council to consider amendments to the GMCM Act, including whether it will undertake public consultation to inform whether it will apply to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development (the Minister) to remain a non-GM crop area.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/78
Detailed Report Purpose This report provides additional information with respect to the amendments to the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act, 2004 (GMCM Act).
The report adds to Item 11.4 ‘Genetically Modified Crops in South Australia’ considered by Council on 26 May 2020.
It is also noted that Cr. Zeller has provided a related Notice of Motion for consideration in this Agenda.
Background The amendments, made via the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Act 2020, will have the effect of lifting a long-standing moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified crops (GMC) on mainland South Australia.
As reported in May 2020, the amendments also enable SA Councils to apply to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development (the Minister) to remain a non-GM crop area, based upon an application that is first informed by community consultation (which is to include contact with persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities).
Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA) has advised that, should Council wish to make an application, it should: • Be framed within the scope of the Act, and relate to marketing and trade only (my emphasis); • Demonstrate that the consultation requirements of the Act have been fulfilled; • Include advice on all views expressed during consultation (both in favour or against a declaration) and any evidence provided by the community and/ or industry relating to the application; and • Be provided by 30 September 2020, in order to provide the Minister with enough time to fulfil his responsibilities under section 5A of the Act. Council has received correspondence with respect to this matter from: • 13 May 2020 – Crop Science Society of South Australia (via e-mail from Mr. Peter Grocke) • 29 May 2020 – A request from The Barossa Council seeking LRC views on the proposals • 3 June 2020 – PIRSA • 10 June 2020 – Mark Parnell MLC • 18 June 2020 – Grain Producers SA (+ Fact Sheet) • 25 June 2020 – Review of the Independent Review of the SA GM Food Crop Moratorium by Dr. John Paull (March 2019) (received by Cr. Zeller) • 6 July 2020 – NASAA Organic • 10 July 2020 – Correspondence from Mr. Graham Brookman (Joint Managing Director of ‘The Food Forest’ at Hillier which is NASAA Certified Organic) • 22 July 2020 – Jamie Wilson The ‘Key Points’ from the correspondence received, which show the strong differences of opinion on this matter, are as summarised in the following:
1. Crop Science • Supports the cultivation of GMC in South Australia. Society of South • Notes that: Australia • The moratorium on GMC has hampered progress of agricultural science in SA and has hindered the broader agricultural community. • The benefits to the SA economy, environment & farmers have proven to be substantial.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/79
• Currently consumers, feed lotters and processors can legally import (into SA) and manufacture from GM products and these products are widely available on supermarket shelves. • After over 30 years of global and Australian GM food and fibre production, the global science has proven GM technology is safe. • GM crops have successfully co-existed with conventional farming systems and identity preserved crops. • The moratorium has placed SA farmers nearly 20 years behind interstate counterparts. • The moratorium (and its extension) have seen GM research and studies diminish in SA – which may also disadvantage consumers and the public at large. • The safety of GMC has been rigorously tested and proven. • Certain GMC have the potential to improve health outcomes for consumers. • The use of GMC can assist with managing risks from climate change. • The use of GMC can assist with creating a sustainable future with reduced pesticide application. • The acceptance of GM technology will also ensure farmers have all the available tools to produce food and fibre crops sustainably and competitively through improved yields, reduced farm chemical use, improved fertiliser and greater water use efficiencies. • Research programs will enable GM technologies to be brought to the market. • To date, stringent regulations have led to large multi-nationals as being the main companies that can afford to commercialise and deliver this technology. • Farmers can continue to make personal and business decisions to use or not to use technology or practices, and GM will be no different. • There are protocols for propagation and segregation enabling GMC to be safely and confidently grown together within SA and even on the same farm. • It has been proven that contamination of non-GMC can be avoided by following the guidelines and consumers can buy with confidence. • Market premiums for a non-GMC product may be based on the product itself rather than the region it originates from. 2. The Barossa The position of Light Regional Council sought, as noted. Council 3. PIRSA • Notes that: • The Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 (the Act) provides the power to prohibit cultivation of genetically modified (GM) food crops and aligns with the national scheme for regulating gene technology which only allows State Governments to regulate GM food crops where there are risks to markets and trade. • Any risks to human health or the environment are managed by the national scheme, which is administered by the Commonwealth Government regulator, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. • The Act is therefore limited in its scope and any concerns relating to health or the environment cannot be used as grounds to apply to be a non-GM designated area under the Act.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/80
• A GM moratorium under the Act only applies to the cultivation of GM food crops. It does not apply to the sale of processed foods made from GM food crops such as canola oil. • Recent amendments lift the GM moratorium across SA except for Kangaroo Island. There is a time limited opportunity for local councils to apply to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development to be declared an area where no GM food crops may be cultivated. • The decision to lift the GM Moratorium on mainland South Australia follows extensive public consultation and recommendations from an independent review that evaluated the market and trade benefits, or lack thereof, of the GM moratorium to the South Australian economy and agricultural industries. • While local councils can apply to be a non-GM crop cultivation designated area there is no requirement for councils to make such an application. • Section 5A of the Act governs the processes relating to designating council areas and the Minister may make a declaration through a notice in the Government Gazette after he has consulted with the GM Crops Advisory Committee established under the Act. • If Council wishes to make an application it must firstly consult with its community, including persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities. • Applications and Ministerial declarations can only occur before Sunday 15 November 2020. • Applications should: • be framed within the scope of the Act i.e. relate to marketing and trade only; • demonstrate the consultation requirements of the Act have been fulfilled; • include advice on all views expressed during consultation (in favour or against declaration) and any evidence provided by the community and/or industry relating to the application; • be submitted by 30 September 2020 to provide the Minister with enough time to fulfil his responsibilities under section 5A of the Act. 4. Mark Parnell • Writes to advise regarding the changes to the Genetically Modified Crops MLC Management Act 2004 and notes that these changes lift the long-standing moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops on mainland South Australia. • Notes that the changes provide SA councils with a short window of opportunity to apply to remain a non-GM crop area council area. • Strongly encourages Council to urgently resolve to undertake a consultation process with the community regarding their views on this question. • Notes that the final decision on whether a local council area can remain non- GM crop area will be made by the Minister for Primary Industries. • Notes that under the Act, the Minister will only be considering views and evidence relating to impacts on marketing and trade of allowing GM-crops to be grown in the Council area or remaining non-GM crop area. • Notes that many food businesses want SA to remain non-GM crop area to provide a marketing advantage and point of difference with their competitors. • Encourages Council to assist by proactively investigating existing and potential marketing and trade advantages that could be gained for food- related businesses in its Council area by remaining non-GM crop area.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/81
• Notes advice that the Minister will also be looking at implications of a decision to declare a council area non-GM crop area for areas beyond council boundaries. • Suggest that Council may wish to consider a regional approach to this matter, in conjunction with neighbouring councils. • Notes that the Anderson Report which will be referred to by the Minister has been disputed by reputable academics. One such critique is by Dr John Paull from the University of Tasmania entitled A Review of the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium and Fourteen Alternative Findings (included at Appendix 13.3F). • Encourages Council to act quickly given applications will be due to the Minister by 30 September 2020. • Notes that this issue is important for all council areas, regardless of whether canola is currently grown. • Notes that this is Council’s only chance to apply to remain non-GM crop area and all future decisions about growing GM crops will be made at a national level with no regard to local economic circumstances. 5.. Grain • Notes the changes to the Act. Producers SA • Advises that Grain Producers SA (GPSA) is the peak industry body for South Australian grain growers, representing the grain industry to government, the community and industry, including grain. • GPSA develops and implements policies and projects that promote the economic and environmental sustainability of South Australian grain growing businesses. • GPSA has run a longstanding campaign to give growers freedom of choice in their cropping decisions. • The South Australian grain industry is large and diverse, with an estimated primary production value of $2.5 billion. Grain is both a major contributor to the economy and a significant export earner for the state. • There are more than 4,500 grain farm businesses that span the cropping belt in South Australia. • GPSA believes that growers should have the freedom of choice to grow the cereal, legume and oilseed varieties that best fit their farming system, including genetically modified varieties. • Removing the GM food crop moratorium from mainland SA will enable producers to have the same freedom of choice as growers from other mainland states. • The Australian grains industry successfully and safely manages a complex value chain, and self regulates through best‐practice farming systems and processes that effectively manage numerous segregations tailored for various markets. As such, growers’ choice to remain GM‐free on their farm will be retained should the moratorium be lifted. • SA’s predominant grain handler, Viterra, has advised GPSA that “Viterra’s position has always been that we can support the choice to grow GM crops by providing handling and quality management expertise and processes to meet the market requirements of handling and segregating both GM and non‐GM commodities.” • GPSA’s position is about enabling choice for all producers. Enabling grower choice will allow the use of approved GM crop varieties consistent with the remainder of mainland Australian states and provide a commercial incentive to fund research in GM technology in South Australia. • In line with the Act’s trade and marketing scope, GPSA commissioned an independent economic analysis of price premiums under the moratorium in
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/82
2017. This analysis concluded that growers did not receive a marketing advantage as a result of SA’s GM‐free status, and that the only effect of moratorium was to deny the use of safe and effective GM tools. • Fact Sheet provided in summary of the above. • Notes that any local government looking to make an application for designation as a GM cultivation‐free area will have to meet the high threshold set by the findings of these two separate independent economic assessments (GPSA’s and the Anderson Report). • As the peak industry body, GPSA welcomes consultation by Light Regional Council, noting this as an explicit requirement under s5A(2) of the Act before any application is made. 6. Dr John Paull Submission Title: A Review of the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium and Fourteen Alternative Findings’ This submission to the GM Moratorium Report Consultation provides 14 Findings in contrast to the State Government’s own commissioned Review, summarised as follows: 1. The Independent Review contains errors and is not independent as it was written by an advocate of GMOs and GM-crops. 2. The majority (78%) of submissions support retaining the existing SA GM Moratorium and the “Independent Review falsely reports the contrary.” 3. Australian supermarkets do not stock GM-foods because they are aware that Australian consumers have rejected such ‘Frankenfoods’. 4. SA enjoys a clean and green and smart image which is important for tourism, trade, investment, education and migration and is supported by the GM Moratorium, the loss of which would undermine that image and its economic benefits. 5. Around the world, there is strong consumer sentiment against GMO food and economic price penalties for growing GM Crops. 6. There is a price penalty for growing GM crops (average price penalty for GM canola in WA is 7.2%). 7. GM agriculture is concentrated in just three countries, USA, Brazil and Argentina. Australia is a very minor player in the world of GM agriculture. 8. Segregation of GM and non-GM canola has failed in WA. Non-GM has been redefined as ‘GM-contaminated to an extent not exceeding 0.9%’ as a result. 9. GM RR canola is glyphosate dependent. Glyphosate is carcinogenic, leading to more health costs for SA. Contaminated products (beer and wine) can have negative economic consequences and damage exports. Glyphosate lawsuits can be an economic drain on the SA economy. 10. Around the world, there is strong consumer sentiment for organic food (and against GM food) and economic rewards for providing this. 11. Australia is the world leader in organic agriculture and accounts for 51% of the world’s certified organic hectares. GMOs put organics at existential and economic risk. 12. Organic agriculture in Australia is growing at 22% per annum. Allowing GMOs puts organics at risk. 13. South Australia leads the country in organic agriculture (based on certified organic hectares). Allowing GMOs in SA places a price premium for organic produce at risk. 14. There is no social licence for GMOs. The SA GM Moratorium warrants being maintained for its social, environmental, health, education, trade and economic benefits.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/83
7. NASAA • Urges Council to act to ensure that council areas across South Australia Organic remain GMC free. • Notes that losing South Australia’s non-GM crop area status and reputation for high quality non-GM crop area food products will disrupt food markets and deny many trade benefits state-wide. • Notes that all SA councils standing together will provide a stronger voice to ensure the SA landscape remains non-GM crop area, while securing future benefits for many SA communities. • Asks Council to resolve to: • consider retaining the Council area as a GMC free zone; • consult all members of your community, “including persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities”; • gather evidence of the present and future benefits and costs of remaining GMC free vs the potential benefits and costs of allowing GM crops to be grown; • show a marketing advantage for primary producers, food producers, manufacturers and the community from remaining GMC-free; • provide evidence of positive marketing or trade benefits for local businesses from remaining a GMC free zone. • Notes GMC free (moratorium) benefits, including: • substantial price premiums and preferential market access; • lower production costs, without segregation and identity preservation being needed; • no recalls or market disruptions from GM contamination, as US wheat and Lucerne caused; • domestic and export market reputations for high quality non-GM products. • Notes that in contrast, adopting GM crops like canola would have marginal, unquantified, and speculative benefits. • Refers to the example of Kangaroo Island remaining GMC free and the benefits of this – referencing also the example of Japanese Consumer Cooperatives (‘Palsystem Consumers’ Co-operative Union of Japan’ and ‘Japanese Consumer Co-operative, Coop Shizenha’) which supply only non- GM crop area products. • Comments that the State Government’s Review (Anderson Review) had a “short term and narrow Terms of Reference, so the report made shaky assumptions, excluded relevant information, and ignored unfavourable data.” • Notes reports that Australian non-GM canola has earned premiums in Europe since 2006; • Comments that in the week ending June 5, 2020, GM canola was discounted $95/tonne in WA (compared with non-GM varieties), $39/tonne in Port Melbourne, and up to $39/tonne in rural NSW. • Notes that consumers don’t want GM foods and Coles and Woolworths branded products don’t use GM ingredients accordingly. • Notes non-GM crop area labelled products are now amongst the fastest growing markets. • Notes that lifting the ban could negatively impact on wheat markets and trade.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/84
8. Mr. Graham • Mr. Brookman has provided number of attachments to his submission as Brookman – follows: The Food Forest • Attachment # 1 – ‘Some Premiums for Non-GM Crop’ • Attachment # 2 – ‘2020 Gross Farm Margin and Enterprise Planning Guide’ (PIRSA) which can be accessed here • Attachment #3 – ‘Relative yield and profit of Australian hybrid compared with open-pollinated canola is largely determined by growing-season rainfall’ – CSIRO Publishing – provided to Elected Members under separate cover. Unable to be included in the Agenda as it is subject to copyright, but can be purchased here • Attachment #4 – ‘Summary of market from Tasmanian GM review 2019’ • Attachment #5 – ‘Identification and Assessment of Added-Value Export Market Opportunities for Non-GMO Labeled Food Products from South Australia’ – University of Adelaide, Centre for Global Food and Resources, prepared for PIRSA, which can be accessed here • Attachment #6 – ‘A Review of the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium and Fourteen Alternative Findings’ – Dr. John Paull – provided in this Agenda at Appendix 13.3F • Attachment #7 – ‘The cost of GM contamination’ • Attachment #8 – ‘Genetically modified crop unknowingly planted by SA farmer in state with strict ban’ (ABC News - also accessible here) • Attachment #9 (& #10) – Memo to Light Council – Mr. G. Brookman • Notes that his property shares a boundary with Light Regional Council. • Mr. Brookman has a real interest in Council's response to its opportunity to apply to the Minister to become a GMC-free area. • Notes that the issues warrant public discussion in the interests of the prosperity of the Council area. • Provides evidence that Council will be advantaged in trade and marketing by applying for and being granted the right to become a GMC free area. • Cites: • Data in PIRSA’s 2020 Farm Gross Margin and Enterprise Planning Guide that GM Canola is significantly less profitable (gross margins over 5 years of data) than naturally bred cultivars, right across SA. • Data presented in the Anderson Report commissioned by the State Government showing the higher profitability of GM canola was questioned in a paper from the Journal of Pasture Science 2016 (specifically about SA cropping areas) which showed that open pollinated canola was more profitable in lower rainfall areas. • Data within the Anderson Report confirmed that farmers growing non-GM canola were receiving a substantial premium for non-GM canola on Kangaroo Island. • Market reports for the sale of canola from Australian ports show that non- GM canola provides constant premia over GM canola sometimes rising to almost $100 per tonne. • Notes that food businesses wanting to produce non-GM products will find ingredients more difficult to obtain or more expensive if GM is adopted more widely; on the other hand, they will have more market access if they remain non-GM. • Refers to data from world markets confirming that the market for non-GM Crops is growing rapidly (>17%).
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/85
• Refers to surveys of populations worldwide showing that most people do not want to eat GM food. • Notes that: • Key users of grain in Australia will not use GM grain in their value adding processes. • The segregation of GM crops from non-GM crops has been shown to fail regularly overseas and in Australia. The Independent Parliamentary review of the release of GM crop cultivars into the environment pointed out more than 20 failures and obstacles in the regulation of GM crops. • The multi-million dollar non-GM/Organic SA beef export market could be compromised by GM 'contamination' (not to mention other meat, milk and grain crops) as livestock eating GM feed are disqualified from certified non-GM status domestically and in some export markets. • More GM cultivars including cereals are planned for release into the environment, potentially threatening the status of South Australia's beer, pasta, biscuits, flour and stockfeed. • The term 'GM Crops' is broad and could lead to losses of potential markets and premia for many crop types (including horticultural crops). • The loss of SA's overall clean, green image and the difficulty of assuring patrons of shops, restaurants and wineries that food is free of GM ingredients will likely cause higher costs and a lack of confidence from potential tourists. • Most consumers of wine are unaware of the wine industry's self-imposed ban on GM inputs and need to be advised that wine comes from non-GM areas as well as excluding GM yeasts, which can be viewed as a market advantage to a branded non-GM region. • Buyers of SA products may well demand independent certification of non-GM status if the bulk of the State is GM, placing additional costs on the producer. • Organic farmers with neighbours growing GM may lose certification of all or part of their crops due to the proximity of GM crops. • There is no legislation to handle problems caused by the commercial incompatibility of GM and non-GM crops. • Genetic modification is an inexact science and there can be unintended outcomes and consequences. • Government research investment has been redirected from natural plant breeding programs in the pursuit of engineered plants that are resistant to pests , diseases or herbicides through GM; however weeds, pathogens and insects can adapt to the ‘blocking’ mechanisms used (example of ‘Roundup’ resistance). • Farmers are required to pay high prices for the seed of GM cultivars that have specific resistances or other qualities, but the base cultivar that was chosen and modified is often maladapted to the specific environmental conditions in which a farmer is growing the crop. • Farmers are also required to sign and pay for 'technology agreements' through which they are locked into using certain herbicides from which the seed supplier is directly profiting. These costs eat into the gross margins (profitability) of GM crops. The keeping or sale of seed for planting is forbidden and aggressively enforced. Farmers are taken to court for breaches, both systematic and accidental. • Some GM seed companies (e.g. NuSeed) currently pay farmers a bounty on each tonne of grain produced to artificially make up for the lower
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/86
profitability of crops grown using their seed. Such 'promo' bounties can be withdrawn at any time. • The above points do not consider the proven negative impacts of GM crops on: • human and animal health; • effects on the environment including soil biology and water resources (including potable water). • Points out that a good website for basic research into the advantages of being a non-GM area is https://non-gmoreport.com • Mr. Brookman: • has provided attachments and is happy to provide further resources demonstrating the potential future losses that would be caused by Council remaining in the GM zone; • mentions his membership of a group that is concerned about the GM situation that comprises a range of professionals including a number of experts in the field of genetics; • notes that the Minister has commented that it would be logical for adjacent councils to communicate about this matter and his understanding that Gawler, Barossa, Playford, Adelaide Hills and Onkaparinga Councils will be consulting with their communities and his hope that LRC will do the same; • offers to provide additional information as required and to address Council if desired. 9. Jamie Wilson • Notes the changes to the GMCM Act. • Advises that he is an experienced agronomist working in the LRC area and has studied plant science. • Advises that GM crops are administered federally by the Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). Further, prior to commercial release all GM crops must undertake onerous safety testing by both federal bodies. To date since GM crops have been produced in Australia there has been no adverse effects in 25 years in Australia and 30 years globally. • Notes that there will be strong opposition from the organic industry, but it could be argued that the introduction of GM crops would increase the value of the organic produce if the market is prepared to pay and would allow a marketing difference for that niche portion of the market, increasing the value of this sector. • Notes that these sectors have continued to be viable in every other state where GM crops are grown and have successfully co-existed. As both industries use different supply chains for their markets the management of identity preservation is easily managed. • The delay in allowing GM technology in South Australia has seen a reduction in agricultural research in SA and a transfer of scientists to the eastern states at immeasurable cost. An independent report has shown that the lack of GM technology for SA has cost the industry approximately $33M (refer here). • GM technology is rapidly changing and there are a range of GM uses currently undergoing infield testing for performance and regulatory approval (e.g. drought and frost, salinity tolerance, bio-fortification). • GM plant-based vaccines are also being tested, including increased Omega oils in safflower and canola, algae for biofuel and plastics, tree crops such as eucalyptus and poplar trees. Currently under development and commercialisation are GM yeasts for wine and beer production, GM pastures for livestock production and GM wheat with improved water use efficiency.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/87
• Commercially GM traits include: • Abiotic Stress Tolerance • Altered Growth/Yield • Disease Resistance • Herbicide Tolerance • Insect Resistance • Modified Product Quality • Pollination Control System • GM crops have been globally increasing in area since their introduction. Being introduced in 1996 and 1.7 million hectares to 2018 global production reaching 191.7 million hectares. This indicates several key points: 1) Economic return – if there was not an economic return farmers wouldn’t be growing; 2) Market Acceptance – if markets didn’t accept GM crops there would be no market available for the produce. • Many countries including Australia’s trading partners have GM crops registered and have GM crop production. The European Union and China both accept GM crops and China has a range of crops in production. Many other Asian countries also produce and accept GM crops and are a very important part of food security for developing countries shown at https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/ • The consultation process undertaken in South Australia showed a majority support to produce GM crops in South Australia. • Mr Wilson fully supports the introduction of GM crops in South Australia and requests that Council supports the propagation of GM crops in its region.
A link to the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium prepared by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson is available here The Report of the Select Committee on the Moratorium on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops in South Australia is available here History 26 May 2020 – Item 11.4 – Genetically Modified Crops in South Australia
Discussion/Analysis Council management is aware that The Barossa Council, Town of Gawler and City of Playford have resolved to undertake consultation with their communities on this matter. It is understood that Adelaide Hills Council will be determining whether it will also undertake consultation at its meeting on 28 July 2020.
LGA Advice The notes that follow are based upon advice found in the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 (SA) Explanatory Paper prepared by the Local Government Association of SA (LGA).
Recent changes made to the GMCM Act by the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Act 2020 substantially alter the way in which areas of South Australia may be designated as non-GM crop areas. Now, under the GMCM Act, only Kangaroo Island is designated as a non-GM crop area.
If Council wishes to make an application to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development be designated as a non-GM crop area: • The application may only relate to the entire area of the council (not specific parts of that area).
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/88
• It is at the discretion of the Minister as to whether any application will be successful. As noted in the May 2020 Council Report, before deciding the Minister must first consult with and take advice from the GM Crop Advisory Committee (as well as any other advice as the Minister may deem necessary). • The Minister’s determination that an application is successful is via a publication of a notice in the Gazette, which according to a deadline set by Parliament, needs to occur before 15 November 2020. • As matters presently stand, councils will not be provided with another further opportunity to apply to become, or to otherwise be designated as, a non-GM crop area. Application Process As noted, the Act requires that Council undertakes a public consultation process before making an application to be designated as an area in which no genetically modified food crops may be cultivated. The LGA notes that Council is only required to conduct formal public consultation if it is going to make an application to the Minister under the Act. Council can determine that it will forgo making an application, in which case there is no need to undertake consultation, however this would have the effect of determining that Council will never be a non-GM crop area, which is a significant decision. The public consultation process must include persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities in the area of the council however the GMCM Act is not prescriptive about the method of consultation and it is open to councils to develop a consultation process suited to the circumstances, guided by Council’s Public Consultation Policy. Should Council proceed with consultation, the LGA recommends that council keeps in mind that the persons (including corporations) engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities in the area of the Council may be based outside the Council area and would need to be included in any public consultation campaign. This is consistent with the submissions received to date with respect to this matter. The author is only aware of one resident, Mr. Peter Grocke, corresponding with Council with respect to this matter to date. If Council does resolve to proceed with consultation, the LGA notes that while the council must have regard to the views expressed by the community and the ultimate purpose of designating an area as a non-GMC area is to preserve crop identities for marketing purposes, council should consider all views that may be received, as ultimately the determination is a matter for the Minister. Making an Application Should Council proceed with public consultation, it is at the discretion of each council as to whether it then applies to the Minister to be designated as a non-GM crop area. A council is not bound by the views expressed one way or another. However, information in the submissions received from PIRSA and others (as referred to in this report) indicates that an application would need to be framed within the scope of the Act and relate to marketing and trade only. This strongly indicates that additional expertise and evidence is expected by the Minister in support of any application to be designated as a non-GM crop area. Council does not have the necessary technical or economic skills on staff that would be required to fulfil the requirements of an application addressing such criteria and this would need to be allocated a budget and outsourced to an appropriate consultancy. On this matter, it is noted that if other adjoining councils are so inclined, collaboration to produce a ‘regional application’ is a possibility. Conflicts of Interest The LGA has recommended that councils be mindful that where council members are involved in primary production activities or food processing or manufacturing activities (and/or whose family members or other relevant related parties are involved in such activities), those members consider whether they (and/or any relevant related party) would gain a benefit or suffer a loss depending upon whether the council decides to apply to the Minister under the GMCM Act. They would also need to consider whether this interest is shared by a ‘substantial proportion’ of the ratepayers, electors or residents of the council area. As always, this is a matter for each member, but is mentioned simply as another relevant consideration. LGA Recommended Resolution If Council is intending to undertake consultation, the LGA recommends the following resolution is used: The Council resolves that:
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/89
1. The Council will consider whether to apply to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development under Section 5A(1) of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 for the designation of the Council area as an area in which no genetically modified food crops may be cultivated. 2. Pursuant to Section 5A(2) of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004, the Council seeks the views of its community, including persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities in the area of the Council, regarding whether or not such an application should be made. 3. The Council will conduct public consultation in accordance with its Public Consultation Policy.
Conclusion As noted, Cr. Zeller has provided a related Notice of Motion for consideration in this Agenda and this information is provided for consideration in conjunction with this.
References Legislation Genetically Modified Crops Management Act, 2004 Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Act 2020
Council Policies Public Consultation Policy
Strategic Plan 3.1 – Support local agricultural and tourism industries as well as manufacturing and small business
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/90
13.3.2 Kapunda Country Chic Craft Incorporated Folder ID: 52397
Authors: June Austin, General Manger, Business and Finance
Report Presenter: June Austin, General Manager – Business and Finance
Executive Summary Report highlights The Kapunda Country Chic Craft Inc. was formed on the 29 November 2019 by a small group of local residents to provide an outlet for interested community members to sell handmade craft products to the local community and visitors to the region.
Mr Leslie Pfeiffer gave a presentation at the Council meeting held 28 February 2020, seeking funding for the cost of a proposed lease arrangements and council rates, utility costs and electrical work at a commercial rental property located at 18 Main Street, Kapunda, for a period of three (3) years. The purpose of the grant would be to assist the KCCC to establish the not-for-business while building their membership numbers and outlet sales.
Since February 2020, the KCCC have continued to explore possible locations for the shop and including the Kildea Room within the Kapunda Soldiers Memorial Hall in their possibilities, a Council owned facility. The Kildea room is currently being utilised to store Library Service material following a change to council’s off site records management storage arrangements. This was only a temporary solution and the material can be reduced further and relocated.
The KCCC are seeking Council’s support to locate the proposed shop in the Kildea room by waiving the usual hire fees for a period of twelve (12) months.
If the request is supported by Council, the KCCC will be required to complete the Kapunda Soldiers Memorial Hall Hire Agreement and would be responsible for organising public liability insurance ($10m minimum).
Budget Impact Estimated Cost: $N/A Future ongoing operating costs: $N/A Additional Comments (incl Labour Component if applicable): No rental income for the Kildea Room is included in the 2020/2021 Budget.
Recommendation That Council: 1. Supports the Kapunda Country Chic Craft Inc. request to enter into a Hire Agreement with the Council, for occupancy of the Kildea Room located in the Kapunda Soldier’s Memorial Hall, Hill St, Kapunda for a twelve (12) month period at no hire charge; and 2. Asks the Kapunda Country Chic Craft Inc. to provide a financial statement to the Council of the 2020/2021 Financial year, should ongoing support be requested for the 2021/2022 financial year.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/91
Reasons for the decision To provide the Kapunda Country Chic Craft Inc. with an opportunity to establish their not-for-profit business, without incurring rental and utility costs for a period of twelve (12) months to enable them to grow their membership, ascertain actual expenditure and gauge the viability of operating independently.
Detailed Report Purpose The purpose of the report relates to the Kapunda Country Chic Craft Inc. (KCCC) and their request for Council support which is to utilise the Kildea Room located in the Kapunda Soldiers Memorial Hall located at 11 Hill Street, Kapunda.
History 25 February 2020, Deputation – Kapunda Country Chic Craft Incorporated, Item 7.1.1, minute reference page 2020/21
Background At the Council meeting held 25 February 2020 Mr Leslie Pfeiffer made a deputation to Council regarding the recently formed Kapunda Country Chic Craft Incorporated (KCCC). The KCCC are a not for profit community group formed to support women and men to sell locally produced craft items.
The KCCC are seeking financial assistance from Council to help them establish their business with the goal of attaining financial independence and any profits being returned to the community.
The KCCC asked Council to consider funding support for rent, rates, utilities etc. for a period three (3) (Year 1 - $9,388, Year 2 - $7,200,Year 3 - $7,200) as they had found a suitable location to serve as a shop located on Main Street, Kapunda.
A meeting was held 12 March 2020 with Mr Pfeiffer, Cr Lynette Reichstein and Mrs June Austin in attendance to gain additional information regarding the KCCC’s financial assistance requirements to help to develop a business case in accordance with Council’s resolution:
Motion without notice
“That a meeting be arranged with Council and the Kapunda Country Chic Craft Incorporated to develop a Business Case and a report be brought back to the next Council meeting for consideration”.
Discussions were also related to the type of support Council currently provides for similar community groups in the Council region, such as:
• Use of Council owned facilities at no cost; • Management fees for large community groups; • Rate rebates for rental properties to reduce costs; and • Community event grant funding upon application.
Shortly thereafter it became evident that progression of the new venture would be stalled due to the nationwide outbreak of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) and the restrictions that were put in place by the State Government to reduce the spread of the virus.
During the period of Covid-19 restrictions, the KCCC continued to explore and consider plausible options regarding suitable locations and the information to be included in their business case to Council. They contacted Council and requested an opportunity to view the Kildea room.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/92
Discussion/Analysis
On the 6 July 2020, Mr Pfeiffer and members of the KCCC attended a site visit of the Kildea room and felt it suited their business needs. The room is located within the Kapunda Soldiers Memorial on Hill Street which is the tourism hub of Kapunda. Volunteer members would have access to the public toilets on site, kitchen facilities and an approved Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) disability access ramp.
The KCCC has since advised Council that the Kildea room would be an excellent venue to establish their business.
In February 2019, a proposal was put to another community group which included holding exclusive occupancy of the Kildea room and use of the main hall to hold the annual Christmas Tree Festival, however this arrangement was not accepted by members and they expressed concerns about:
• Security - as the building is not occupied at all times; • Working in isolation – potential sudden illness of an elderly volunteer may go unnoticed; and • the type of disabled access to the building.
These concerns were also raised with KCCC members and members provided the following responses:
• Members were not concerned about security, as the Kildea room has an individual lock on it to secure shop items and the main hall can also be locked when not in use, meaning people will be entering the building from Hill Street;
• They accept responsibility for their members wellbeing;
• Are satisfied with the disability access ramp which will enable members with mobility issues to gain access to the facility.
Council engages a regular cleaning and maintenance service to clean the Solider Memorial Hall on a weekly basis, however, should the KCCC occupy the Kildea room they will be responsible for the day to day cleaning of the Kildea room and the kitchen facilities (if utilised). In addition to normal cleaning requirements, the KCCC may be required to develop and implement the applicable COVID-Safe plan in accordance with the State Government directives.
Council endorsed the Kapunda Soldier’s Memorial Hire Agreement at its meeting held 28 August 2018. The Agreement provides the details of hire costs for hourly, daily and regular bookings for use by businesses, residents and not-for-profit community groups.
The table below outlines the applicable fee for not-for-profit community groups who wish to hire the various rooms for the 2020/2021 financial year.
Light Regional Council – KSMH Hire fees 2020/2021 Rooms Base rate Regular 1/2 base rate 1/3 Base rate (daily hire) bookings* N-F-P* N-F-P* (daily hire) (daily hire) (daily hire for 2 or more consecutive days) Main Hall + $15 per hour $10 per hour $7.50 per hour Kitchen $150/day $100/day $75 (24-hours) $50 (24-hours) Kildea (meeting) $8 per hour $5 per hour $4 per hour room $60/day(24-hour) $45/day $30 (24-hours) $20 (24-hours) Main Hall + $20 per hour $15 per hour $10 per hour Kitchen + Kildea $180/day(24-hour) $125/day $90 (24-hours) $60 (24-hours) *NFP = not-for-profit community groups *Discounted rate applies to regular bookings of ten or more weeks duration
Applying the daily rate of $20 for not-for-profit community groups for the regular hire of the Kildea room would mean the KCCC would incur a weekly cost of $140 however, if the KCCC were required to fund the hire costs for the Kildea room at the initial stage of establishing their new business model it would not be a viable community group. The KCCC are required to maintain public liability insurance up to $10,000,000 and maintain the kitchen area.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/93
At present the Kildea room is utilised by Council for storage of Library Service and Community Development items. This was only a temporary arrangement following the decision to relocate Council’s records (that are required to be held in an offsite location) to a purpose build record storage facility at the conclusion of the lease agreement, realising a saving to Council of approximately $24k per annuum. The items stored in the Kildea room can be reduced by holding a book sale, reviewing and relocating items to be kept meaning the room would be available for use.
The KCCC will be making a submission to Centrelink with the aim of becoming an approved voluntary work organisation which will enable volunteers who work in the shop to meet their Mutual Obligation Requirements for Centrelink payments for people over 60 years.
The KCCC welcomes will new members in accordance with their constitution and currently have a waiting list of 30 people. Members are also looking forward to working collaboratively with the Kapunda Men’s Shed who also hope to offer small items for sale at the shop.
Conclusion
The adoption of the recommendation to enter into a Hire Agreement for the KCCC to occupy the Kildea Room located in the Kapunda Solider’s Memorial Hall, Hill St, Kapunda for a twelve (12) month period at no hire charge will assist the KCCC to establish a shop for its members to sell handmade craft items. The Men’s Shed will also be invited to sell some of their smaller items at the shop.
References Legislation Local Government Act 1999
Council Policies 9.02 Community and Recreation Facilities Management Policy 9.06 Event Management Policy
Strategic Plan Goal 2.0 – Community Health and Wellbeing 2.1 Continuous improvement of community wellbeing 2.4 Improved communication with stakeholders
Other Barossa, Light and Lower Northern Region Public Health and Wellbeing Plan
Priority Areas: 2. Community and Cultural Wellbeing 3.1 Encourage community participation across all ages and abilities 3.2 Promote social interaction and wellbeing through activities, events and places
Light Regional Council Disability Access and Inclusion Action Plan Community and Culture Services and programs will be made available to the community on a fair and equitable basis
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/94
13.4 GENERAL MANAGER, INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT
Nil
13.5 GENERAL MANAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
13.5.1 Final Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan 2020-2030 for adoption
Appendices: 13.5A Final Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan 2020-2030 (Version 7.1), prepared by Lucid Economics for Light Regional Council
13.5B Light Regional Council Economic Analysis Report, prepared by Lucid Economics for Light Regional Council
13.5C Light Regional Council Draft Economic Development Plan Consultation Summary
Author: Kieren Chappell, General Manager Economic Development
Report Presenter: Kieren Chappell, General Manager Economic Development
Executive Summary Report highlights • The Draft Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan 2020-2030, prepared by Lucid Economics, underwent public consultation closing 24 June 2020 • The community consultation was notified through a variety of methods including: o Latest news notice on Council’s website o Public notices in local newspapers o Social media posts via Council’s Facebook account o Targeted email campaign to LRC businesses • In particular, the targeted email campaign had good reach with many going on to view the Council’s website where the draft Plan could be downloaded to read. • Two submissions were received on the draft Plan and have been used to amend the Plan accordingly. • The Final Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan 2020-2030 (version 7.1) is attached as Appendix 13.5A together with the supporting documents attached as Appendices 13.5B and 13.5C for Council adoption and implementation by Management. • The Economic Development Plan will be reviewed annually, and reports provided to Council on progress of actions completed, together with economic indicators to measure the Plan’s outcomes.
Budget Impact Estimated Cost: $N/A Future ongoing operating costs: $Refer LTFP Is this budgeted? Yes Sufficient Funds? YES
Additional Comments (incl Labour Component if applicable):
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/95
Future ongoing costs to implement the Economic Development Plan have been factored into the Long-Term Financial plan (LTFP), which is subject to annual review in concert with each years Annual Business Plan and Budget. The Economic Development Plan will therefore be monitored and reviewed annually. Recommendation That Council: 1. Receives the submissions made from members of the public regarding Council’s draft Economic Development Plan 2020-2030 (version 6), acknowledging their contribution made toward the strategic planning process of Council; 2. Having considered all submissions received on the draft Plan, adopts the final Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan (version 7.1) as presented and instructs the Chief Executive Officer to upload this document and the associated supporting documents, being an Economic Analysis Report and Draft Economic Development Plan Consultation Summary, to Council’s website for implementation. Reasons for the decision To: • provide open, responsive and accountable government; • be responsive to the needs, interests and aspirations of individuals and groups within Council’s community; • participate with other councils, and with State and national governments, in setting public policy and achieving regional, State and national objectives; • seek to co-ordinate with State and national government in the planning and delivery of services in which those governments have an interest; • seek to facilitate sustainable development and the protection of the environment and to ensure a proper balance within its community between economic, social, environmental and cultural considerations; • manage its operations and affairs in a manner that emphasises the importance of service to the community; • seek to ensure that council resources are used fairly, effectively and efficiently; • seek to provide services, facilities and programs that are adequate and appropriate and seek to ensure equitable access to its services, facilities and programs.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/96
Detailed Report Purpose To receive community feedback on the draft Economic Development Plan 2020-2030 for Light Regional Council and adopt a final version of the Plan.
Background At its 26 May 2020 ordinary meeting, the Council resolved in accordance with recommendations made by the Economic Development Panel at the 4 May 2020 Panel meeting, to:
1. Receive the draft Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan (version 6) and supporting documents, being an Economic Analysis Report and Light Regional Council Draft Economic Development Plan Consultation Summary, and requests that a period of public consultation commence in accordance with the Council’s Public Consultation Policy for a period of not less than 21 days in order that Council is able to consider any feedback from members of the public with regard to its Economic Development Plan;
2. Request a report be prepared to a future Council meeting on any submissions received on the draft Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan (version 6) as a result of the public consultation carried out.
As per Council’s resolution, the subject documents were uploaded to Council’s website requesting community feedback by close of business Wednesday 24 June 2020. The following means of communication were used to invite feedback from the community:
• Notice placed in the “Latest News” section of Council’s website, so that it is visible on the front/home page of the website; • Social Media posts via Council’s Facebook account on 3 June 2020 and 17 June 2020 (‘one week to go’ reminder); • Public notices in the local newspapers; • An email campaign to businesses (1,460 of) with an ABN registered to an address in Light Regional Council, whereby their email contact details are listed in the Australian Business Register database.
Figure 1 shows the open and click rates for the email campaign, which shows good reach compared to the government sector in general (peers’ average).
Figure 1 – Open and Click Rates for the email campaign seeking community feedback on Council’s Draft Economic Development Plan
Figure 2 shows the businesses by industry that clicked through to the website link for the draft Economic Development Plan via the email campaign. There was good interest from the: Professional, Scientific and Technical Services; Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; Construction; Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services; and Administrative and Support Services amongst others.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/97
Figure 2 – Email campaign clicks through to website, by industry
So, the data indicates that that draft Economic Development Plan reached a good cross section of the community.
Feedback received through the community consultation phase was limited to 2 responses from:
• The Chief Executive Officer of Legatus (Central Local Government Region) • A resident and former vineyard, wine and accommodation business
History • 11 February 2016 Economic Development Panel Meeting – Item 10.2 – Economic Development High Level Project Plan • 8 August 2017 Economic Development Panel Meeting – Item 10.1 – Economic Development Strategy / Plan • 20 November 2017 Economic Development Panel Meeting – Item 10.2 – Light Regional Council Community and Economy Profiles • 3 June 2019 Economic Development Panel Meeting – Item EDP9.5.5 – Economic Development – Planning Reform • 5 August 2019 Economic Development Panel Meeting – Item 10.4 – Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan – Progress Report • 26 November 2019 Council Meeting – Item 7.2.1 Presentation – Regional Vision • 10 December 2019 Council Meeting – Item 7.2.1 Presentation – Regional Vision • 3 February 2020 Economic Development Panel Meeting – Item 6.4 Presentation – Regional Deal Project • 3 February 2020 Economic Development Panel Meeting – Item 10.2 – Economic Development Policy Framework • 25 February 2020 Council Meeting – Item 7.2.1 Presentation – Boundary Reform and Regional Vision Update • 24 March 2020 Council Meeting – Item 13.1.2 Regional Vision (Draft) – ‘Update’ • 4 May 2020 Economic Development Panel Meeting – Item EDP9.5.4/2020 – Draft Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan • 4 May 2020 Economic Development Panel Meeting – Item EDP9.5.5/2020 – COVID-19 Impacts and Local Government’s role in providing Economic Stimulus • 26 May 2020 Council Meeting – Item 13.5.1 – Economic Recovery Plan for Light Regional Council
Discussion/Analysis A summary of the feedback responses received on the draft Economic Development Plan during the community consultation phase follows:
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/98
Legatus
Item Feedback Received How addressed in final Economic Development Plan 1 Link to the World Heritage – Copper Mining Referenced connections to Burra and the and connections to Burra and Copper Coast Copper Coast under: • Opportunity listed in Section 5.1 SWOT • Key activities in 6.2.2 Advocacy, for Kapunda Historic Copper Mine • Strategic Direction/Activity 2.4.3 (list Legatus and other local governments under resources/partners) 2 Proximity to Clare Valley and alignment with Matter is addressed in the Light Regional the attracting tourists from the North and Council Tourism Plan 2018-2023. No change West recommended to Economic Development Plan. 3 Alignment with work Legatus is doing with Creative Industries working with Legatus the Creative Industries and Visitor already referenced as a key activity under Information Services Section 6.2.4 Supporting Local Business and Strategic Direction/Activity 3.3.1. Visitor Information Services to be addressed in review of Tourism Plan 2018-2023. No change recommended to Economic Development Plan. 4 Look at the role of Legatus Group – Noted. No change recommended to Economic lobbying through to SAROC and LGA – Development Plan. Regional strength 5 Link to the work we are doing with our MoUs Noted. This work might best be considered with Universities especially in areas such as under the Council’s updated Infrastructure & Local Govt assets and infrastructure Asset Management Plan (IAMP). No change recommended to Economic Development Plan. 6 Noted that roads are included but reference Noted. This work might best be considered to the Regional Local Roads Plan and under the Council’s updated Infrastructure & alignment with the lobby work we are Asset Management Plan (IAMP). No change progressing could be included recommended to Economic Development Plan. 7 Also consider the work being undertaken by Noted. This work might best be considered Legatus in Water – Stormwater – under the Council’s updated Infrastructure & Wastewater Management all key local govt Asset Management Plan (IAMP). No change infrastructure which underpins the ability for recommended to Economic Development Plan. growth. 8 Note also the work occurring through the Noted. No change recommended to Economic Legatus Groups partnership with the Development Plan. Northern and Landscape Board and aligning with Drought Futures Fund programs.
Resident and former vineyard, wine and accommodation business
The resident has requested that their submission not be made public, but made available to relevant Council staff, contractors (Lucid Economics) and Elected Members. The submission referenced specific sections of the draft Economic Development Plan, but also made the following overarching general comments:
“We think the document is well written, user friendly, informative and an easy read. The Executive Summary is excellent.
The document helped us understand more about the bigger picture of the region particularly regarding population, demographics and associated issues, industry and regional growth opportunities.”
The content of the draft Economic Development Plan suitably addresses the feedback provided, however Section 6.2.5 Planning and Strategic Direction/Activity 4 Planning has been refined and expanded to more specifically improve Council’s customer and aftercare service to attract and retain investment in the region.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/99
The final Economic Development Plan 2020-2030, updated to address the community feedback received, is attached as Appendix 13.5A is recommended to be approved by Council for implementation.
References and actions relating to COVID-19 response and recovery have been limited to the preparation of the Economic Recovery Plan in recognition that the pandemic and economic crisis is still unfolding nationally and internationally. As the Economic Development Plan provides the roadmap for economic growth over the longer term, it is considered that it should be adopted now and not deferred due to COVID- 19, which can be managed separately through the Economic Recovery Plan as it focusses on getting back to the current (pre-COVID-19) economic output.
Conclusion A final Economic Development Plan 2020-2030 has been prepared for Council adoption, which addresses the community feedback received on the draft Plan following a period of good consultation.
References Legislation Local Government Act 1999 Development Act 1993 Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016
Council Policies Economic Development – Precincts Policy Grant Funding Policy External Grant Funding Policy Developer Engagement Statement of Business Ethics Policy
Strategic Plan Goal 1 Sustainability:
• 1.3 Continued efficiency improvements in service delivery • 1.4 Appropriate allocation of resources to areas of priority need • 1.6 Continuing commercial partnerships with third parties and other levels of government to provide outcomes for the community
Goal 2 Community Health & Well-being:
• 2.1 Continuous improvement of community wellbeing • 2.2 Continuous improvement of community facilities • 2.3 Facilitate retirement living options in the region
Goal 3 Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure:
• 3.1 Support the local agricultural and tourism industries • 3.2 Strengthen and diversify the regional economic base • 3.3 Advocate on behalf of regional opportunities
14. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
14.1 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Rules per Regulations - • Questions and replies are not entered in the minute book unless expressly required by resolution. • No debate shall be allowed on any question or the reply to any question. • If required by the Mayor, such questions shall be put in writing. • The Mayor may direct that a reply be given at the next meeting.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/100
14.2 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Rules per Regulations – • These questions must be in writing and given to the Chief Executive Officer five (5) clear days prior to the meeting. • Chief Executive Officer shall place these items in the agenda. • They shall be answered by the Mayor at the meeting. • Questions and replies shall be entered into the minute book.
14.2.1 Public Relations Arrangement – Question on Notice from Cr Peter Kennelly
Appendix: 14.2A Letter of Engagement
Question: Has Light Regional Council any contract or other arrangement with Rob Ball Public Relations, 92a Halifax Street, Adelaide 5000?
If so, what is the purpose of such contract or arrangement and what costs are involved?
Response: A copy of Ball Public Relations Letter of Engagement of 19 September 2019 is attached as Appendix 14.2A in response to Cr Kennelly’s Question on Notice.
14.3 NOTICE OF MOTION
14.3.1 Genetically Modified Crops – Notice of Motion by Cr Simon Zeller That Council: 1. Notes the correspondence received from Grain Producers SA, NASAA, GM free SA, and LGA about the once only opportunity for Council to apply to be a non-GM crop cultivation area. 2. Pursuant to Section 5A(2) of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004, will seek the views of its community, including but not limited to persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities, regarding whether or not such an application should be made. 3. Will conduct public consultation to that affect in accordance with Council’s public consultation policy. 4. Provide a report about the findings of the public consultation to the earliest possible Council meeting for further consideration.
14.4 MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Rules per Regulations • A member may bring forward a motion without notice and if required by the Mayor, put it in writing. • Before addressing the meeting, the member shall state the purpose of the motion. • A member cannot move more than one motion without notice on the same subject at any meeting.
Council Agenda – Tuesday, 28 July 2020 2020/101
15. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS
15.1 Roseworthy Township Expansion (RTE) -Kingford Regional Industrial Estate (KRIE) Water Scheme
Folder ID: 67550, 69793, 67563
Author: Simon Sherriff, Chairperson RTE Infrastructure Taskforce & Manager Strategic Projects Report Presenter: Simon Sherriff, Chairperson RTE Infrastructure Taskforce & Manager Strategic Projects
Recommendation 1. That under the provisions of Section 90(2) and (3)(d) of the Local Government Act 1999, an order be made that with the exception of those persons listed all other persons present and the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in order to consider in confidence a report (15.1 Roseworthy Township Expansion (RTE) -Kingford Regional Industrial Estate (KRIE) Water Scheme) relative to the provision of : (d) commercial information of a confidential nature (not being a trade secret) the disclosure of which— (i) could reasonably be expected to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information, or to confer a commercial advantage on a third party; and (ii) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest; 2 That accordingly, on this basis, the principle that meetings of Light Regional Council should be conducted in a place open to the public has been outweighed by the need to keep the discussion confidential.
Recommendation Pursuant to Section 91(7) of the Local Government Act 1999, the Council orders that the report, minute and associated documents pertaining to (15.1 Roseworthy Township Expansion (RTE) - Kingford Regional Industrial Estate (KRIE) Water Scheme) of the meeting held on 28 July 2020, relating to a matter that was considered in confidence pursuant to Section 90(2) and (3)(d) be kept confidential until the matter is finalised.
16. NEXT MEETING
17. CLOSURE
APPENDIX COUNCIL 11.7A-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 11.7
COMMUNITY LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN and REGISTER
DRAFT FOR REVIEW January 2020
APPENDIX COUNCIL 12.4A-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 12.4.2 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL
COMMUNITY LAND REGISTER AND MANAGEMENT PLANS
Community Land Management Plan – CATEGORY 6 OPERATIONAL
FIEDLER ROAD MANAGED AQUIFER RECHARGE SITE The land parcel is owned by the Crown with Light Regional Council as Custodian. The Schedule of Interests on the Title state that the land was formerly declared for stone purposes pursuant to the Waste Lands Act, 1874 (Control granted by gazette 25/04/1874) and was used as a quarry. The land consists of a regular shaped parcel surrounded by stock fencing with a southern frontage to Fiedler Road. The land is covered with vegetation and has various tracks meandering throughout. The land has a total area in the order of 1.619 hectares.
Asset 395 Water Reserve Fiedler Road Ward Belt H140700 S882 CR6220/952
PURPOSE OF THE LAND Land that is required for Council’s operations including its offices, for emergency services or for stormwater drainage, recycled water or CWMS purposes is considered to be Operational. Often land classified as Operational and within Council’s ownership is excluded or revoked from Community Land status, however there are parcels of land owned by the Crown that are within the care and control of Council. These would include water reserves, quarry reserves etc and likely to have a dedication as such for the intended purpose in accordance with the Waste Lands Act 1874. This parcel of land had structural improvements in the form of a Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) well and associated access track constructed vie the Australian Government sponsored Gawler Water Reuse Scheme project. As the land is owned by the Crown, within the care and control of Council, it is considered within the terms of the Local Government Act 1999 to be Community Land.
DRAFT CLMP April 2020 for consultation - Fiedler Road Aquifer Recharge Site P a g e | 1 APPENDIX COUNCIL 12.4A-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 12.4.2 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL
COMMUNITY LAND REGISTER AND MANAGEMENT PLANS
The land holds a Dedication pursuant to the Crown Land Management Act 2009, Section 20 for the purpose of Water Management. The Crown have provided their consent to the use of the land for water management in accordance with the operations of the Gawler Water Reuse Scheme project. OBJECTIVES FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE LAND
• Facilitation of the successful management of water reuse and aquifer recharge activities for the benefit of the region through continuing commercial partnerships with third parties and other levels of government to provide outcomes for the community. • Provide for further planning for extreme weather events in the region. • Provide improved management of water resources. PROPOSALS FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE LAND
• The Council may grant a lease for the management of water reuse and aquifer recharge activities on a commercial basis for the benefit of the region. To ensure long term viability the lease may be granted for the maximum term as limited by the Local Government Act 1999 Section 202 as amended from time to time. • Management of the land will become the responsibility of the lessee, with reporting to Council required as depicted in the lease. PERFORMANCE TARGETS
• The water management activities are to be managed such that they do not present unacceptable conditions for surrounding properties. • The water management infrastructure is to meet applicable standards. • The site is to be maintained in a clean and tidy condition. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
• The water management activities do not breach legislative requirements. • No complaints regarding the operation of the site are received by the Council. • No legislative improvement notices are issued to the Council. • Illegal dumping of rubbish on the site is minimised. (Through a third party and regular presence at the site, it is expected the passive surveillance will reduce incidences of unwanted behaviour)
DRAFT CLMP April 2020 for consultation - Fiedler Road Aquifer Recharge Site P a g e | 2 APPENDIX COUNCIL 12.4A-28JULY2020 PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 12.4.2
Mr Bill O’Brien Mayor Light Regional Council PO Box 72 KAPUNDA SA 5373
Notification of stage 1 potential boundary proposal
Dear Mayor O’Brian
Thank you for your letter of 18 May 2020 outlining the potential proposal for a boundary change from the Light Regional Council (the Council), as required by the Boundaries Commission’s (the Commission’s) Guideline 3 — Submitting a General Proposal to the Commission.
The intent of the two-stage requirement under Guideline 3 is to enable the Commission to provide advice it considers relevant to a potential general proposal, including whether a general proposal can be referred for the Commission’s consideration before extensive work is undertaken by a proponent to fully-develop the proposal.
At its meeting on 11 June 2020, the Commission considered the Council’s potential proposal along with correspondence received in relation to it.
When discussing potential proposals, the Commission gives close consideration to the principles contained under section 26 of the Local Government Act 1999 (the Act). These principles are of fundamental importance to boundary change proposals and ultimately form the basis of any recommendation that the Commission makes to the Minister.
It is for this reason that the Commission’s Guidelines require prospective initiators to consider these principles at the outset of a potential proposal.
The Commission determined that the Council’s potential proposal does not easily align with the section 26 principles.
The Commission acknowledges that the Council has made reference to a number of section 26 principles. However, the Commission determined that the potential proposal does not address the broader concept of a ‘community of interest’ nor does it specifically identify common interests between the affected communities.
Further to this, the Commission does not believe that additional work or information from the Council at this stage would assist in the progression of this proposal, and therefore advises that a general proposal as outlined in the potential proposal cannot be referred for consideration.
The Commission noted that the key objective of the potential proposal to enhance regional productivity, regional governance and regional economics. However, the Commission is of the view that the potential proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate that link between these objectives and the boundary changes that the potential proposal outlines.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1A-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
If the Council is of the view that boundary changes to the councils in the region are necessary to achieve this ‘regional vision’, a potential proposal must demonstrate this much more clearly, in the context of the section 26 principles.
More specifically, the Council would need to identify and demonstrate the cultural, heritage, shopping, community services, sporting or any other component that the Council identifies that in the Council’s view, forms the social fabric of the affected areas.
Further to this, the Commission also expects that a potential proposal that is based on such significant changes to the boundaries of numerous councils should explicitly reference views from these councils.
The Commission is aware that the Council has received correspondence from Regional Development Australia (Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains) and the Town of Gawler in relation to its proposal. Should the Council resolve to reconsider a potential proposal, details of this correspondence should be included in the Council’s proposal, along with any other correspondence in support or opposition of the proposal.
Finally, I note that the initiating council is responsible for the costs associated with the investigation of any general proposal that the Commission determines to investigate that is initiated by councils. Your Council may wish to note at this point that the costs of the investigation for a proposal of the nature that you have put forward are likely to be very significant.
As set out in Guideline 9, please be advised that I have notified the councils affected by this potential proposal.
I also advise that, in accordance with the Commission’s publication policy, the information about the potential proposal, including this response, has been made available at— www.dpti.sa.gov.au/local_govt/boundary_changes.
I trust that this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please contact the Commission’s Executive Officer on (08) 7109 7148.
Yours sincerely
Bruce Green Chair, SA Local Government Boundaries Commission 10 July 20209 July 2020
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1A-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
MAYORAL STATEMENT 13 July 2020
Light Regional Council will continue to put first the interests and welfare of residents in any considerations to reform local government boundaries.
Last week’s decision by the South Australian Local Government Boundaries Commission does not alter Council’s commitment to residents and the region. Council is surprised at the Commission’s decision. It is confusing given that the issues and circumstances driving Council’s application are no different to those of the Barossa and Gawler councils.
Council will need time to consider the Commission’s decision, seek advice and decide on its next course of action.
MAYOR BILL O’BRIEN
Postal Address: PO Box 72, Kapunda, South Australia 5373 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1B-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 Telephone: (08) 8525 3200 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 Email: [email protected] Principal Office Website: www.light.sa.gov.au Branch Office 93 Main Street, Kapunda, SA 5373 12 Hanson Street, Freeling, SA 5372 Light Regional Council ABN: 35 455 841 625 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Table of contents
1. OVERVIEW ...... 3 2. KEY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 4 2.1 Overview ...... 4 2.2 Community of Interest ...... 4 2.3 Regional Economic Considerations ...... 7 2.4 Infrastructure, Resources and Planning ...... 7 2.5 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (Urban Growth Boundary)...... 8 2.6 Section 26 – Principles ...... 8 3. PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES ...... 9 3.1 Concordia Growth Area (Area 1) ...... 9 3.2 Hewett (Area 2) ...... 16 3.3 Kalbeeba (including Springwood) (Area 3) ...... 22 3.4 Gawler Belt (Area 4) ...... 30 3.5 Evanston Park (Area 5) ...... 37 3.6 Reid (Area 6) ...... 43 3.7 Hillier (Area 7) ...... 49 3.8 Bibaringa (Area 8) and Uleybury (Area 9) ...... 55 ATTACHMENT 1 – AREAS OF INTEREST SUMMARY ...... 60 ATTACHMENT 2 – HIGH LEVEL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS – AREAS OF INTEREST ...... 61
Page 2 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
1. OVERVIEW The Town of Gawler is a unique place with a strong sense of history. Although considered a part of metropolitan Adelaide, it was the first country town to be established in South Australia in 1839 and the Town closely connects to the Barossa Valley and smaller rural towns such as Roseworthy. The Town of Gawler is located 42 kilometres to the north of Adelaide City and is relatively small at 41.1 square kilometres. The Town has been a regional centre since its inception, including as a stop off point for the towns to the north (Burra and Kapunda) in the early years. The Town of Gawler remains a regional centre today, catering for sporting activities, schooling, events and community activities. The heart of Gawler is triangular rather than square due primarily to the topography and river systems. The Town of Gawler is defined geographically by its river systems including the Gawler River, the South Para River and the North Para River. Parts of the Town of Gawler are hilly (to the north and east) and other parts to the west and south are flatter. The Town of Gawler has large sections of natural area, particularly along its river systems. The Town of Gawler remains a Regional Service Centre and whilst the latest population data (2016) states that Gawler has a residential population of 23,034, it services a regional catchment which is estimated to be in excess of 110,000 people and growing. Today, the Gawler Town Centre maintains its longstanding role as a service centre for a predominantly rural hinterland, however it is also emerging as the regional centre for a rapidly urbanising region. The areas around Gawler to the south, east and north-east are being developed rapidly for residential and in the longer term, the urban catchment for Gawler will extend to Concordia. Consequently, Gawler will be required to service this growing catchment and meet its future economic, social and environmental demands. The Town of Gawler is seeking to realign its boundary in accordance with Chapter 3, Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1999 (the Act) and seeks the opinion of the Boundaries Commission (the Commission) on the proposed realignments. Town of Gawler’s proposed boundary adjustments are focussed on:
• Formalising Gawler’s existing (and future) Community of Interest, which currently extends past existing boundaries. • Ensuring people who consider themselves to be part of Gawler have a say and are appropriately represented in decision making processes. • Planning for future growth, through the alignment of the Town of Gawler boundary to the State Government’s Urban Growth Boundary. • Removing current administrative anomalies such as property boundary interceptions and/or realign boundaries so that entire suburbs are included (or excluded). • Ensuring Gawler continues to function as a Regional Service Centre, providing greater opportunity for investment and job creation. • Creating a local government administrative construct that can best work with the market to facilitate investment and job creating opportunities relative to the One Gawler community that will be created. This Proposal seeks both the inclusion of new areas as well as the renouncement of land within the current Gawler boundary as follows: Areas to be included in the Town of Gawler: • Area 1 - Concordia Growth Area • Area 2 - Hewett • Area 3 – Kalbeeba (including Springwood) • Area 4 - Gawler Belt
Page 3 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 5 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
• Area 5 - Evanston Park • Area 6 – Reid • Area 7 – Hillier Areas to be removed from the Town of Gawler: • Area 8 - Bibaringa • Area 9 - Uleybury An overview map of the proposed changes is presented in Attachment 1. 2. KEY CONSIDERATIONS 2.1 Overview The key rationale applied to Town of Gawler’s deliberations when considering boundary adjustments for Gawler include:
• The Gawler Township has and will continue to function as a Regional Service Centre to the lower mid north servicing a catchment in excess of 110,000 people and growing. This is expected to increase significantly over the coming decades. • As development occurs immediately adjoining the current Town of Gawler boundary the equity of residents living adjacent our borders utilising the Gawler community’s services (particularly current Hewett and Gawler Belt residents and future Concordia residents) needs to be addressed to provide Council with capacity to provide quality infrastructure and services to its Community of Interest and the region. • Future generations forming part of the Gawler community in real and functional terms should have equal and appropriate representation in local decision making rather than being governed by distant entities. • The formation of a community that is based on collective responsibility and engagement are the foundations on which a community that is harmonious and sustainable will flourish. • Coordinated local governance (including but not limited to urban development expansion) by one entity as opposed to potentially four separate local government bodies will ensure more coordinated decision making, the most cost effective provision of services and best facilitate investment to drive job creation and economic prosperity for the region. Town of Gawler has adopted a strategic approach to boundary reform. A number of factors have been key to Council’s deliberations, as summarised below. 2.2 Community of Interest There are many factors contributing towards the recognition of a Community of Interest, some are tangible and easy to identify/measure and others though are more difficult to substantiate, and intangible are felt strongly through the community, and are equally important.
The Gawler Community of Interest can be illustrated as follows:
Page 4 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 6 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Value systems
Family and Friends network Emergency Services Health Services Safety (Police, Fire) (Hospital & Allied Services)
Education Community groups
Recreation & Sport Passive - walking paths, Beliefs Council Services bike tracks, parks and (Library, Aquatic Centre, playgrounds Open Space, Waste, ElectedFunctional body which represents the Human Services, Roads) interests of the Active – sporting precincts, Identity community organised sports, sporting Places of worship clubs
Entertainment Retail (hotels, cinema etc) (Shopping & Services Heritage identity
Food and dining Financial Services
Local economy (services, Trades etc)
Sense of belonging
While it is acknowledged that Gawler is a regional service centre for the wider region, it is clear that Gawler’s Community of Interest extends well beyond its current boundary. Some of the services provided by Council and their utilisation rates from members of the community who reside beyond Council’s boundary are provided below as examples:
• Approximately 50% of Gawler’s Aquatic Centre Learn to Swim students reside outside of Gawler. • 7 schools outside of the Gawler LGA utilise the Gawler Aquatic Centre for DECD swimming lessons. • 46% of students who participated in DECD swimming lessons attend schools outside of the Gawler LGA. • 36% of Aquatic Centre season pass members reside outside of Gawler. • 33% of Gawler library members reside outside of Gawler. From a service perspective, the Town of Gawler remains the primary service centre for the region, with approximately 560 rate paying businesses located within the Town. These businesses are scattered throughout the Town in a number of shopping and service precincts with the most predominate being:
• The Town Centre & Adelaide Road Precincts. • Gawler Green Shopping Centre. • Gawler Park Home Maker Centre. • Light Industry Zone in Willaston.
Page 5 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 7 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Gawler is also a regional service point for many allied health services, Federal Government (Centrelink, Medicare) and State Government departments (Service SA, Education, Gawler Health Service, Emergency Services, SA Police).
With regards to providing facilities, Gawler has the two court Gawler Sport and Community Centre; Starplex at Trinity College (located on private school land) which has four courts, a 25 metre indoor pool and theatre; and the 50 metre outdoor Gawler Aquatic Centre. In addition to these built facilities, it has Essex Park/Showgrounds and adjacent river parklands which is a 16 hectare sports precinct that includes linear trails. There are eight council owned district level facilities in the region and a further six located on private or school grounds.
While not formally within the Town of Gawler LGA, Council already recognises the proposed Areas of Interest as being within the Gawler Community of Interest. Planning for both the current and future Community of Interest which is anticipated to come to fruition over the next 20-30 years is critical.
In regards to recreation facilities, the Gawler Open Space, Sport and Recreation Plan (GOSSRP) already takes into consideration a more regional context due to the vicinity of areas such as Hewett and Roseworthy and the likely pressures these growth areas are likely to place on the Gawler township.
The Gawler Aquatic Centre is at its end of useful life having served local and regional communities since it opened its door in 1962. In 2016-2017 Council undertook a feasibility analysis to allow a high level understanding of the future provision of an aquatic facility within Gawler for not just local residents but the regional community that have been its customers. The cost of a new Aquatic Centre was estimated at $25m, and it is likely that when constructed the cost to the community will be higher than this estimate.
Council is in the process of developing Master Plans for two key recreation precincts: the Karbeethan Reserve Master Plan and the Essex Park and Gawler Showgrounds Regional Sporting Precinct Master Plan, with the latter taking into consideration the regional Aquatic Centre. Planning for these significant recreational precincts is not just to serve Gawler rate payers but also the wider region.
The above is just one example of how Town of Gawler considers its Community of Interest and the wider region in its strategic planning. Other key documents where the areas of interest have been included in considerations relative to the broader regional function of Gawler include:
• Gawler Community Plan 2017-2027 • Gawler Walking and Cycling Plan 2018-2028 • Environmental Management Plan • Biodiversity Management Plan • Stormwater Management Plan • Gawler Open Space, Sport and Recreation Plan • Gawler Urban Rivers Master Plan • Social Infrastructure and Services Study • Youth Development Plan
Not only is it important that Council has the capacity to provide for its immediate community, it is also important that those broader Areas of Interest who form part of the Gawler Community of Interest and have a vested interest are able to participate in the planning process and are appropriately represented when decisions are made. In this regard the beneficiaries of these and other such infrastructure outcomes should also be making an appropriate contribution, both in regards to upfront delivery and ongoing maintenance.
Page 6 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 8 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
2.3 Regional Economic Considerations Boundary changes must enhance the capacity of local government within the region, so the region can continue to deliver results to local communities in a more strategic and effective way. In this respect, Town of Gawler has had due regard for the importance of protecting and maintaining the following industries for the benefit of the region: Agriculture – Light Regional Council, Adelaide Plains Council
Light Regional Council and Adelaide Plains Council areas are mostly rural in nature, with small townships distributed throughout these Council areas. Rural land is used largely for farming, particularly grain growing (wheat, barley and oats), and sheep grazing as well as horticulture being predominant along the Gawler River in the Adelaide Plains Council.
Viticulture – The Barossa Council, Light Regional Council
Viticulture is a critical industry within the Barossa Council and wineries situated throughout a number of towns within the Barossa Council. The Barossa Council is having clear regard to the Barossa Geographical Indication (GI) Zone in its boundary reform considerations proposing a portion of viticultural land from Light Regional Council (e.g. Seppeltsfield) and Mid-Murray Council (e.g. Eden Valley) be included within its council boundaries. It is understood that Light Regional Council is opposed to Barossa Council’s boundary reform position.
The intent of the Barossa and Light Regional Councils to protect their respective viticulture industry is acknowledged.
It is noted that the Barossa GI Zone also covers current Gawler township areas, Hewett (Light Regional Council) and the Concordia Growth Area (Barossa Council). Town of Gawler is of the view that significant urban areas, either current or proposed, that are located at the periphery of the GI and at Gawler’s door step, should not be included within this Zone and would best be situated within the Town of Gawler.
Services and other economic sectors (Town of Gawler)
While the population of the Town of Gawler (LGA is currently approximately 23,000, Gawler is a regional service centre to the lower mid north servicing an existing catchment of 110,000 people and growing. Noting that this catchment will increase over the coming decades, there is a need to ensure that Town of Gawler has the capacity to deliver services and infrastructure for its Community of Interest and the wider region. This is further discussed above, in section 2.2, and in section 2.4 below.
2.4 Infrastructure, Resources and Planning The Town of Gawler delivers, and is continually planning for improved services and facilities to benefit this regional catchment, investing heavily in servicing and representing its community and the region. It is continually striving to improve and contribute towards the town’s economic and environmental sustainability, the social and recreational services it provides and as a whole to realise the collective vision within the Gawler Community Plan, which is to create “a liveable cohesive, active, innovative and sustainable community”.
The existing and planned areas located on the immediate periphery of the Gawler LGA form, or will form, a natural extension to the Town of Gawler. Due to location, these communities do and/or will rely upon the services and infrastructure provided by and within the Town of Gawler.
Town of Gawler’s proposed boundary changes will enable a strategic and holistic way of planning for the future of our community. A planned, organised way forward is preferred rather than a ‘tacked on”
Page 7 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 9 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 approach as was sometimes past experience which assumed that the existing township (Gawler) would essentially absorb the new community and service its residents sufficiently. A planned approach will alleviate the pressures on the Town of Gawler by providing additional capacity that enables services and infrastructure to be created and enhanced in line with community needs.
The Town of Gawler will be able to create efficiencies and seek greater integration in the areas of urban growth management and creating community with the associated hard infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails that will continue to be required. In addition to the above, further efficiencies can be realised and appreciated by the private sector through consistent policies and procedures. Often differences exist between development and council policy and procedures that are applicable to areas which are essentially identical in nature and adjacent to one another. This will engender greater confidence in the market and seek to promote more opportunity for investment and job creation.
2.5 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (Urban Growth Boundary) Developed by the State Government, the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (first published in 2010 and updated in 2017) provides a vision for how Greater Adelaide would function in 30 years’ time with the following objectives:
a. Maintain and Improve Liveability. b. Increase Competitiveness. c. Drive Sustainability and resilience to Climate Change.
The 30 Year Plan details future urban growth areas as well as an Urban Growth Boundary – Planned Urban Lands to 2045 which extends beyond Town of Gawler’s boundary to Roseworthy, Hewett, the Concordia Growth Area, and sections of Hillier, Kalbeeba and Gawler Belt. Town of Gawler is of the view that the majority of the urban growth area (with the exception of Roseworthy and part of Gawler Belt) should be included within the Town of Gawler LGA.
2.6 Section 26 – Principles The Town of Gawler’s Proposal strongly aligns with the Objects of the Act and Principles under section 26 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1999. A description of how Council’s Proposal aligns with the above principles is provided in detail for each Area of Interest in the following Section 3.
Page 8 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 10 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
3. PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES 3.1 Concordia Growth Area (Area 1) The Concordia Growth Area (Concordia) is approximately 984 hectares in size and is bound by the north para river to the north-west, the Town of Gawler LGA to the south-west.
At its closest point, the land is only 730m from Murray Street within Town of Gawler. In contrast, the land is more than 9km from Lyndoch, the closest township within the Barossa Council. Further to which Concordia is located up to 30km from Nuriootpa which is where the Barossa Council office is located.
The land has the capacity to accommodate in the order of 9785 lots/dwellings and approximately 20,000 people in a master planned community that will form a natural extension to the existing township of Gawler.
The suburb of Concordia is outlined above in green. This proposal seeks to realign the boundary to include the Concordia Growth Area (highlighted in blue above) currently located in the Barossa Council into the Town of Gawler. This proposal is not seeking to include the portion of Concordia which lies within the Character Preservation District (Shaded in grey).
Page 9 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 11 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Concordia proximity to Gawler - Source: https://concordialand.com.au/concordia-and-gawler/ Town of Gawler provides the following information in respect to how this proposed boundary adjustment meets the principles under section 26 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1999.
1. The resources available to local communities should be used as economically as possible while recognising the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within a community For many years, Town of Gawler has been providing for a community that is much larger than its LGA. A planned, organised way forward is preferred rather than a “tacked on” approach as has sometimes been the experience of the past which assumes that the existing township (Gawler) can essentially absorb the new community (Hewett) and service its residents sufficiently. It is important that the Hewett scenario is not repeated, particularly as it relates to the Concordia development. The Concordia development may commence construction in the coming 3-5 year period and, as outlined above, is forecast to increase population in the community by some 20,000 residents. While community infrastructure and a retail precinct is planned for this development, this will require significant investment in infrastructure and resources - the timing is likely to be out of sync with community desires and is unlikely to deliver the totality of infrastructure requirements for the community. Due to location, the future Concordia community will heavily rely upon the services provided by and within the Town of Gawler. Council already delivers a significant number of services (library, administration centre, community centres etc.) and it makes sense that this type of community infrastructure is not duplicated less than 1 km away. If Concordia is integrated within the Town of Gawler, this will allow government and the private industry to generate efficiencies through coordinated planning and service delivery and enable Council to provide more comprehensive and competitive services to our community. Greater economies of scale will be achieved, resulting in improved commercial arrangements and ultimately improving the value for money proposition for Council and the community. Service delivery
Page 10 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 12 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 efficiencies will be achieved as one Council will be responsible for its Community of Interest, rather than two Councils servicing their respective areas even though this may result in Town of Gawler servicing one side of the road and a neighbouring council servicing the other. The proposed boundary adjustment will allow the Town of Gawler to enable, amongst other things, greater integration in the areas of hard infrastructure, waste services and maintenance activities, soft infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails which the subject communities already rely upon. Consolidation of local government administrative services will generate the economies of scale that will more likely assist in the cost of such services being reduced better enabling one Council, as opposed to two Councils, achieving reductions in rates that residents and business have to pay.
2. Proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers As outlined above, due to proximity, the future Concordia community will rely on the services and infrastructure that the Town of Gawler provides and will inherently form part of the Gawler Community of Interest. The inclusion of Concordia formally within the Town of Gawler will enable the future Concordia residents to have a strong voice within the community (by having appropriate representation in local decision making) and financially contribute towards the services and infrastructure utilised and enjoyed by the community. This will benefit the entire Gawler Community of Interest as it will provide greater equity for current Gawler rate payers who have been heavily servicing a Community of Interest much larger than its current rate base and will provide Council with greater capacity to deliver improved services and infrastructure to the growing Gawler community (current and future proposed rate payers) and the region. Cost of living pressures being reduced, by one Council being able to achieve the economies of scale in service delivery, will more than likely materialise by keeping the pressure down of council rates thus benefiting current and future residents, which would otherwise not be realised.
3. A council should have a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently This principle has been addressed in the response below.
4. A council should offer its community a reasonable range of services delivered on an efficient, flexible, equitable and responsive basis Town of Gawler has undertaken due diligence in the form of a high level financial analysis as part of its boundary reform investigations which is provided as Attachment 2 for information. Town of Gawler is confident that the proposed inclusion of the Areas of Interest will not materially impact Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure and services to the Gawler community and the region. If anything the generation of economies of scale will enable greater efficient and effective service outcomes to result. The Town of Gawler invests heavily in servicing and representing its community and, for many years, providing for a community that is much larger than its LGA. While this has provided a great opportunity to showcase Gawler and all it has to offer, it has also put strain on Gawler’s rate payers with Council investing in significant infrastructure and services which benefit not only its rate paying residents but other non- rate paying members of our greater community, including: • Public Libraries. • Roads and infrastructure. • Parks, gardens, bike tracks and playgrounds. • Sporting precincts. • Waste, recycling and environmental management. • Community services such as youth and community development, environmental health and safety.
Page 11 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 13 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
• Community infrastructure such as the Aquatic Centre and recreation precincts. The inclusion of the planned Concordia development within the Town of Gawler will enable a truly integrated community and remove any requirement to duplicate services available less than 1km away (should Concordia remain with Barossa Council). This will result in greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies creating additional opportunity for investment, resulting in further improvements (in an integrated manner) to the services and facilities on which the community already rely.
5. A council should facilitate effective planning and development within an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis As outlined above, a planned, organised way forward is preferred rather than a “tacked on” approach as has been the experience of the past which has occurred on the assumption that the existing township (Gawler) can essentially absorb the new community and service its residents sufficiently.
The Concordia Land Trust controls approximately 612 hectares of land within Concordia, which represents 63% of the Growth Area. Concordia Land Management is pursuing the re-zoning of the Concordia Land and its vision is to:
“Create for Concordia, a master planned, resilient community with an urban form and morphology that captures and preserves the verdant, natural character of the Gawler hills, blended with the unique, historic and community identity of the existing Gawler Township.
Concordia will form a logical, natural and sequential extension to the existing Gawler Township, will maintain and enhance the primacy of the Gawler town centre to fulfill its latent potential as a true regional city and will retain the Barossa’s important primary production function and unique landscape character”1.
Furthermore, Concordia Land Management states that:
“Concordia will strengthen Gawler’s future as a leading regional centre, offering residents the very best in contemporary health care, education, government services and shopping choice. Just 730 metres from the retail heart of this historic rural town, Concordia will provide the missing piece of the Gawler town-planning puzzle within the prescribed Urban Growth Boundary for Metropolitan Adelaide.
Overtime, the site will transform into a master planned, resilient community with an urban form and morphology that captures and preserves the verdant natural character of the Gawler Hills, blended with the unique historic and community identity of the existing Gawler Township.”2
It should be noted that Concordia Land Management acknowledges that “the location and positioning of the Concordia Growth Area, being both an extension of Gawler and a gateway to the Barossa, places it in a unique position to potentially address the needs of the local economies in the region, and strengthen both the Gawler and Barossa economies.”3
The inclusion of Concordia within the Town of Gawler will enable a planned approach which will result in greater integration in the areas of hard infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails, which will be created and enhanced in line with community needs.
1 https://concordialand.com.au/ 7 August 2019 2 https://concordialand.com.au/concordia-and-gawler/ , 7 August 2019 3 https://concordialand.com.au/concordia-and-the-barossa/, 7 August 2019
Page 12 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 14 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
In addition to the above, further efficiencies can be realised and appreciated by the private sector through consistent policies and procedures. Often differences exist between development and council policy and procedures that are applicable to areas which are essentially identical in nature and adjacent to one another, with the Springwood Development a recent example (see Section 3.3 below). A boundary realignment would give the region one council to oversee all administrative functions streamlining processes, making Gawler a “one-stop-shop” for the Gawler growth region for policy and administration issues and support. Consistent policy and administration through one council will lead to improved overall confidence in the Council and lead to more business investment and improve economic and employment outlook for the area.
6. A council should be in a position to facilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes The Town of Gawler takes environmental considerations seriously and holds new development to a high standard. The Town of Gawler was in fact one of the first Councils in Australia to declare a climate emergency and as a result are in the process of developing a Climate Emergency Action Plan. The Climate Emergency Action Plan will identify the most strategic opportunities and actions that should be delivered at an appropriate scale within an elevated timeframe, providing immediate, effective and ongoing action with consideration for both Council corporate actions and Council actions to support the community. Amongst numerous strategic documents the Town of Gawler has commissioned the development of a Council wide Biodiversity Management Plan to provide strategic guidance in managing assets of high biodiversity value. This has included identifying areas of high priority for revegetation action, threats to existing biodiversity assets and opportunities for future biodiversity enhancement. Further environmentally focused strategies and guiding documents developed by Council include the Town of Gawler Stormwater Management Plan and the Town of Gawler Environmental Management Plan. Combined these documents allow Council to place environmental considerations at the forefront of our assessment process and ensure development is sympathetic of the natural environment. The Town of Gawler is located where the North and South Para Rivers meet to form the Gawler River. The natural environment plays an integral part of our town’s identity and character and is something the local community feels passionately about. As outlined in Section 2.4 above, Concordia, as a future Community of Interest, is already a consideration within Town of Gawler’s planning, however the proposed boundary change will formalise this position and enable truly strategic and holistic way of sustainably planning for the future of our community and the environment.
7. A council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations There are many factors which contribute towards the recognition of a Community of Interest, some are tangible and easy to identify/measure while others are more difficult to substantiate and, although intangible, are still felt through the community and are equally important. These factors include: value systems, identify, beliefs and sense of belonging; where people, live, work and play; and governance (representing the interests of the community). This is further illustrated in Section 2.2 of this document. Due to proximity, Concordia residents will join local churches, community groups and sporting clubs, utilise the retail and service precincts, participate in community events, attend schools and enjoy the many recreation and open space facilities within Gawler, inherently forming part of the Gawler Community of Interest.
Page 13 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 15 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
It is important that this Community of Interest is formalised within the Town of Gawler LGA so that Council can effectively plan for and represent this community.
8. A council area should incorporate or promote an accessible centre (or centres) for local administration and services As outlined above, at its closest point, the planned Concordia development is only 730m from Murray Street, Gawler’s Town Centre, and accessible to the future Concordia community.
Town of Gawler provides quality Customer Service at various locations to deliver all the functions undertaken by Town of Gawler.
The Gawler Administration Centre, located at 43 High Street Gawler East provides a full suite of Customer Service functions from general enquiries, payments of rates, fees and expiation notices, cemeteries administration through to planning and development enquiries. This is also the head office for Council.
The Gawler Civic Centre, located at 89 Murray Street, in the heart of Gawler, provides a customer service transaction point through the Library which allows general enquiries, payment of rates, dog registrations and expiation notices. The Civic Centre also provides Youth Programs in the purposely designed Youth Space.
Each of the above locations are utilised to support Community Engagement during public consultation programs and management. Other Customer Service points support the functions of the specific facillity eg Gawler Sports and Community Centre (Nixon Tce Gawler), Gawler Aquatic Centre (Victoria Tce & Main North Rd Gawler) and Council’s Works Depot (Paxton St Willaston).
In addition, the Town of Gawler website provides access to information and provides for online lodgement of development applications and is a payment gateway for customers available 24/7.
In contrast, Concordia is more than 9km from Lyndoch, the closest township within the Barossa Council and 30km from Nuriootpa, the location of the Barossa Council office.
9. The importance within the scheme of local government to ensure that local communities within large council areas can participate effectively in decisions about local matters This principle is addressed in the response below.
10. Residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term) The Town of Gawler is currently represented by the Mayor and 10 Area Councillors. Council’s total representation quota (the number of electors for each Councillor) is 1:1,605 (17,659 electors)4, which is relatively consistent with the Statewide average representation quota of 1763 and the quotas of local and similar size councils to Gawler as outlined in the table below.
4 http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Representation%20Quotas%202018-19.pdf
Page 14 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 16 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Based on the above information, Town of Gawler is of the view that the inclusion of the proposed Areas of Interests, including the future development of Concordia, will not have a material impact on representation requirements in the short-to-mid-term. Town of Gawler is also of the view that due to proximity (Concordia being less than 1km from Gawler and 30km from Nuriootpa), the inclusion of Concordia within the Town of Gawler will promote greater participation by Concordia residents in local matters including community consultation and decision making, as well as attendance at community and Council meetings and events. Council’s Representation Review period is currently scheduled for October 2020 - October 2021. Previous advice received from the Boundaries Commission is that it is not clear whether this boundary proposal will have an impact Council’s representation review. It is further noted that the matter of representation reviews is under consideration as part of the Local Government Reform process.
11. A scheme that provides for the performance of functions and delivery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change Town of Gawler, in partnership with its regional partners, is already collaborating in a number of areas including:
• Joint funding arrangements through Regional Development Australia, Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains. • Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority. • Barossa Regional Procurement Group. • Barossa Regional Procurement IT Group. • Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority. • Health Services – Country Public Health Network. • Library Services – with Adelaide Plains Council. • Animal Management Services – sharing of the dog pound with Light Regional Council. • Environmental Health Inspectorial Services – ad-hoc support arrangement with Light Regional Council and Adelaide Plains Council. • Information Technology Services (Light Regional Council from 2018 - 2020). • Human Resource Management (with Barossa Council from 2016 - 2019, now provided on an ad-hoc basis). • Dog Park – Light Regional Council contributing to management/maintenance costs.
The benefits of regional collaboration are acknowledged and opportunities for further collaboration to advance our communities continue to be explored. However, limitations of this approach due to conflicting priorities and policies must also be acknowledged. Town of Gawler believes that through the boundary reform process the proposed boundary adjustments will enable greater efficiencies and provide Council with the capacity to deliver on the needs and desires of its Community of Interest in the most effective way.
Page 15 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 17 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
3.2 Hewett (Area 2) The suburb of Hewett commenced development in the early 2000s and is approximately 144 hectares in size and comprises in the vicinity of 900 homes and 2,500 residents. Although Hewett is now almost entirely urbanized, there remains several pockets yet to be developed.
Situated in the Light Regional Council, Hewett is located in excess of 30 kilometres from Light Regional Council’s principle service centre of Kapunda. In comparison, Hewett is located adjacent the Gawler suburb of Willaston and just two kilometres from the Gawler Town Centre.
Include the entire suburb of Hewett (highlighted in purple above) which is currently located within the Light Regional Council.
Page 16 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 18 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Town of Gawler provides the following information in respect to how this proposed boundary adjustment meets the principles under section 26 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1999.
1. The resources available to local communities should be used as economically as possible while recognising the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within a community The Light Regional Council suburb of Hewett, due to its close proximity to Gawler, has relied on the large offering of services and infrastructure provided by the Town of Gawler since it was established approximately twenty years ago. Like Concordia, consolidation of Hewett into the Town of Gawler will enable economic efficiencies to be achieved resulting in improved commercial arrangements and ultimately improving the value for money proposition for Council. Service delivery efficiencies will be achieved as one Council will be responsible for its Community of Interest, rather than two Councils servicing their respective areas even though this may result in Town of Gawler servicing one side of the road and a neighbouring council servicing the other. The proposed boundary adjustment will allow the Town of Gawler to enable, amongst other things, greater integration in the areas of hard infrastructure, waste services and maintenance activities, soft infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails which the subject communities already rely upon. Consolidation of local government administrative services will generate the economies of scale that will more likely assist in the cost of such services being reduced better enabling one Council, as opposed to two Councils, achieving reductions in rates that residents and business have to pay.
2. Proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers The Hewett community relies on the services and infrastructure that the Town of Gawler provides and inherently forms part of the Gawler Community of Interest. The formal inclusion of Hewett within the Town of Gawler will enable Hewett residents to have a strong voice within the community (by having appropriate representation in local decision making) and financially contribute towards the services and infrastructure utilised and enjoyed by the community. This will benefit the entire Gawler Community of Interest as it will provide greater equity for current Gawler rate payers who have been heavily servicing a Community of Interest much larger than its current rate base and will provide Council with greater capacity to deliver improved services and infrastructure to the growing Gawler community (current and future proposed rate payers) and the region. While current residential rates in the dollar and the impact on residents from the Areas of Interest have been quoted in opposition to Council’s proposal, the Town of Gawler considers any speculation in this regard to be premature. It is important to note the limitations in comparing the General Rates applied between one Council and another given the considerable differences that invariably apply between Councils, including, but not limited to, the following factors: • Different demographics and characteristics. • Different long term goals and strategies. • Different Rating methodologies (e.g. % of revenue derived from different land uses (e.g. Residential vs Commercial Rates, etc.), Minimum Rate vs Fixed Charge). • Different range of services and/or different service levels for a particular service. • Age/Condition of Fixed Asset stock (e.g. the condition and age profile of a Council’s asset portfolio may currently require a higher investment in asset replacement/renewal and/or upgrades, thereby influencing depreciation and investment income / finance charges).
Page 17 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 19 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Cost of living pressures being reduced by one Council being able to achieve the economies of scale in service delivery will more than likely materialise by keeping the pressure down of council rates thus benefiting current and future residents, which would otherwise not be realised. Given the complexities of this matter, Council is of the expectation that a full review of General Rates will be undertaken during the boundary reform process taking into consideration community consultation and to be informed by the outcomes of any investigation.
3. A council should have a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently This principle is addressed in the response below.
4. A council should offer its community a reasonable range of services delivered on an efficient, flexible, equitable and responsive basis Town of Gawler has undertaken due diligence in the form of a high level financial analysis as part of its boundary reform investigations which is provided as Attachment 2 for information. Town of Gawler is confident that the proposed inclusion of the Areas of Interest will not materially impact Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure and services to the Gawler community and the region. If anything the generation of economies of scale will enable greater efficient and effective service outcomes to result. The Town of Gawler invests heavily in servicing and representing its community and, for many years, providing for a community that is much larger than its LGA. While this has provided a great opportunity to showcase Gawler and all it has to offer, it has also put strain on Gawler’s rate payers with Council investing in significant infrastructure and services which benefit not only its rate paying residents but other non- rate paying members of our greater community, including:
• Public Libraries. • Roads and infrastructure. • Parks, gardens, bike tracks and playgrounds. • Sporting precincts. • Waste, recycling and environmental management. • Community services such as youth and community development, environmental health and safety. • Community infrastructure such as the Aquatic Centre and recreation precincts. The above services and infrastructure benefits a community much wider than its rate payers, including the Hewett community located just two kilometres from the Gawler Town Centre, as opposed to 30 kilometres from Light Regional Council principle office. Due to Hewett’s proximity to Gawler, the Light Regional Council has not needed to heavily invest in services and infrastructure for the Hewett community. With the exception of some parks, gardens and playgrounds, the only other community infrastructure constructed by Light Regional Council has been within Hewett Centre - a “purpose built, not for profit community and function centre providing a central meeting place for those living in the Hewett area, Light District Council and beyond”5. It is noted that Gawler service clubs such as Kiwanis Gawler and Rotary Gawler/Light regularly utilise this function centre for meetings, providing further examples of how Hewett and Gawler are intrinsically linked. The formal inclusion of Hewett within the Town of Gawler will enable a truly integrated community and result in greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies creating additional opportunity for investment, resulting in further improvements (in an integrated manner) to the services and facilities on which the community already rely.
5 http://hewettcentre.com.au/about-us-2/ 12 November 2019
Page 18 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 20 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
5. A council should facilitate effective planning and development within an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis Town of Gawler is seeking to establish a planned, organised way forward in its approach to planning and development for its community. Although Hewett is now almost entirely urbanized, there remains several pockets which are yet to be developed. The inclusion of Hewett within the Town of Gawler will enable greater integration in planning for hard infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails.
In addition to the above, further efficiencies can be realised and appreciated by the private sector through consistent policies and procedures. Often differences exist between development and council policy and procedures that are applicable to areas which are essentially identical in nature and adjacent to one another.
The Town of Gawler can create efficiencies in this regard, seek greater integration with a town in which this community will consider themselves apart of and, as a result, engender greater confidence in the market and seek to promote more opportunity for investment and job creation.
6. A council should be in a position to facilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes The Town of Gawler takes environmental considerations seriously and holds new development to a high standard. The Town of Gawler was in fact one of the first Councils in Australia to declare a climate emergency and as a result are in the process of developing a Climate Emergency Action Plan. The Climate Emergency Action Plan will identify the most strategic opportunities and actions that should be delivered at an appropriate scale within an elevated timeframe, providing immediate, effective and ongoing action with consideration for both Council corporate actions and Council actions to support the community. Amongst numerous strategic documents the Town of Gawler has commissioned the development of a Council wide Biodiversity Management Plan to provide strategic guidance in managing assets of high biodiversity value. This has included identifying areas of high priority for revegetation action, threats to existing biodiversity assets and opportunities for future biodiversity enhancement. Further environmentally focused strategies and guiding documents developed by Council include the Town of Gawler Stormwater Management Plan and the Town of Gawler Environmental Management Plan. Combined these documents allow Council to place environmental considerations at the forefront of our assessment process and ensure development is sympathetic of the natural environment. The Town of Gawler is located where the North and South Para Rivers meet to form the Gawler River. The natural environment plays an integral part of our town’s identity and character and is something the local community feels passionately about. As outlined in Section 2.4 above, Hewett as a current Community of Interest, is already a consideration within Town of Gawler’s planning, however the proposed boundary change will formalise this position and enable a truly strategic and holistic way of sustainably planning for the future of our community and environment.
7. A council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations There are many factors which contribute towards the recognition of a Community of Interest, some are tangible and easy to identify/measure while others are more difficult to substantiate and, although intangible, are still felt through the community and are equally important. These factors include: value systems, identify, beliefs and sense of belonging; where people, live, work and play; and governance
Page 19 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 21 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
(representing the interests of the community). This is further illustrated in Section 2.2 of this document. Residents of Hewett are already considered part of the Gawler community. Many work in Gawler, their children go to school in Gawler, shop in Gawler precincts and join Gawler sporting teams and competitions. In recent years, two residents of Hewett have been awarded Australia Day honours due to their contribution to the Gawler community. Hewett and Gawler are intrinsically linked and it is one community. It is important to formalise this through boundary reform so that Council can effectively plan for and represent the community so Hewett residents can be involved in key decisions that impact the services and infrastructure they enjoy.
8. A council area should incorporate or promote an accessible centre (or centres) for local administration and services As outlined above, at its closest point Hewett is only two kilometres from Murray Street, Gawler’s Town Centre. In contrast, Hewett is located in excess of 30km from Light Regional Council’s principle service centre of Kapunda.
Town of Gawler provides quality customer service at various locations to deliver all the functions undertaken by Town of Gawler.
The Gawler Administration Centre, located at 43 High Street Gawler East provides a full suite of Customer Service functions from general enquiries, payments of rates, fees and expiation notices, cemeteries administration through to planning and development enquiries. This is also the head office for Council.
The Gawler Civic Centre, located at 89 Murray Street in the heart of Gawler, provides a customer service transaction point through the Library which allows general enquiries, payment of rates, dog registrations and expiation notices. The Civic Centre also provides Youth Programs in the purposely designed Youth Space.
Each of the above locations are utilised to support Community Engagement during public consultation programs and management. Other Customer Service points support the functions of the specific facillity eg Gawler Sports and Community Centre (Nixon Tce Gawler), Gawler Aquatic Centre (Victoria Tce & Main North Rd Gawler) and Council’s Works Depot (Paxton St Willaston).
In addition, the Town of Gawler website provides access to information and provides for online lodgement of development applications and is a payment gateway for customers available 24/7.
9. the importance within the scheme of local government to ensure that local communities within large council areas can participate effectively in decisions about local matters This principle is addressed in the response below.
10. residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term) The Town of Gawler is currently represented by the Mayor and 10 Area Councillors. Council’s total representation quota (the number of electors for each Councillor) is 1:1,605 (17,659 electors)6, which is relatively consistent with the Statewide average representation quota of 1763 and the quotas of local and similar size councils to Gawler as outlined in the table below.
6 http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Representation%20Quotas%202018-19.pdf
Page 20 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 22 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Based on the above information, Town of Gawler is of the view that the inclusion of the proposed Areas of Interests, including Hewett, will not have a material impact on representation requirements in the short-mid-term. Town of Gawler is also of the view that due to proximity (Hewett being two kilometres from Gawler and 30km from Kapunda), the inclusion of Hewett within the Town of Gawler will promote greater participation by Hewett residents in local matters such as community consultation and decision making, as well as attendance at community and Council meetings and events. Council’s Representation Review period is currently scheduled for October 2020 - October 2021. Previous advice received from the Boundaries Commission is that it is not clear whether this boundary proposal will have an impact Council’s representation review. It is further noted that the matter of representation reviews is under consideration as part of the Local Government Reform process.
11. A scheme that provides for the performance of functions and delivery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change Town of Gawler, in partnership with its regional partners, is already collaborating in a number of areas including:
• Joint funding arrangements through Regional Development Australia, Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains. • Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority. • Barossa Regional Procurement Group. • Barossa Regional Procurement IT Group. • Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority. • Health Services – Country Public Health Network. • Library Services – with Adelaide Plains Council. • Animal Management Services – sharing of the dog pound with Light Regional Council. • Environmental Health Inspectorial Services – ad-hoc support arrangement with Light Regional Council and Adelaide Plains Council. • Information Technology Services (Light Regional Council from 2018 - 2020). • Human Resource Management (with Barossa Council from 2016 - 2019, now provided on an ad-hoc basis). • Dog Park – Light Regional Council contributing to management/maintenance costs.
The benefits of regional collaboration are acknowledged and opportunities for further collaboration to advance our communities continue to be explored. However, limitations of this approach due to conflicting priorities and policies must also be acknowledged. Town of Gawler believes that through the boundary reform process the proposed boundary adjustments will enable greater efficiencies and provide Council with the capacity to deliver on the needs and desires of its community of interest in the most effective way.
Page 21 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 23 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
3.3 Kalbeeba (including Springwood) (Area 3) The suburb of Kalbeeba is largely zoned to accommodate primary production activities. However, there are two sections of the suburb which are zoned otherwise (Rural Living and Residential) and directly abut the Town of Gawler. The pockets accommodating Rural Living comprise 147 properties situated in the Barossa Council, with a section of this land falling within the urban growth boundary. The other section of Kalbeeba, which is zoned residential, is part of the Springwood Development, Gawler East. Due to its terrain and accessibility it is anticipated that the land situated within the Barossa Council will accommodate approximately 130 allotments. It is noted that the Barossa Council has written to Town of Gawler regarding this Springwood part of Kalbeeba seeking that the Town of Gawler consider taking this area on given its location and integrated nature with the Springwood community. The Town of Gawler is happy to consider this area’s incorporation into its community. The reasons for this, as detailed below, form effectively the same basis for which Concordia and Hewett suburbs should also form part of Gawler.
Page 22 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 24 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Includes two areas from within the suburb of Kalbeeba (highlighted in purple above). These areas include the northern sections which are currently zoned for Rural Living as well as a portion of land which is in fact a part of the Springwood Development in Gawler East. Town of Gawler provides the following information in respect to how this proposed boundary adjustment meets the principles under section 26 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1999.
1. The resources available to local communities should be used as economically as possible while recognising the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within a community The land within the Barossa Council suburb of Kalbeeba which is zoned as Rural Living and Residential directly abuts the Town of Gawler and forms a natural extension to Gawler East. Due to proximity, residents of the Kalbeeba Area of Interest relies on the large offering of services and infrastructure provided by the Town of Gawler. This will also be the case for the future residents of the Springwood development which is currently situated within the Barossa Council. The consolidation of the Kalbeeba Area of Interest into the Town of Gawler, will enable economic efficiencies to be achieved resulting in improved commercial arrangements and ultimately improving the value for money proposition for Council. Service delivery efficiencies will be achieved as one Council will be responsible for its Community of Interest, rather than two Council’s servicing their respective areas even though this may result in Town of Gawler servicing one side of the road and a neighbouring council servicing the other. The proposed boundary adjustment will allow the Town of Gawler to enable, amongst other things, greater integration in the areas of hard infrastructure, waste services and maintenance activities, soft infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails which the subject communities already rely upon. Consolidation of local government administrative services will generate the economies of scale that will more likely assist in the cost of such services being reduced better enabling one Council, as opposed to two Councils, achieving reductions in rates that residents and business have to pay
2. Proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers The inclusion of the Kalbeeba Area of Interest formally within the Town of Gawler will enable current and future residents to have a strong voice within the community (by having appropriate representation in local decision making) and financially contribute towards the services and infrastructure utilised and enjoyed by the community.
Page 23 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 25 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
This will benefit the entire Gawler Community of Interest as it will provide greater equity for current Gawler rate payers who have been heavily servicing a Community of Interest much larger than its current rate base and will provide Council with greater capacity to deliver improved services and infrastructure to the growing Gawler community (current and future proposed rate payers) and the region. In addition, the proposed inclusion of the Barossa Council’s component of Springwood within the Town of Gawler will be beneficial from an overall governance perspective. This will benefit all parties, resulting in better utlisation of resources, efficient development management and will result in a single point of service for residents and commercial operators. While current residential rates in the dollar and the impact on residents from the Areas of Interest have been quoted in opposition to Council’s proposal, the Town of Gawler considers any speculation in this regard to be premature. It is important to note the limitations in comparing the General Rates applied between one Council and another, given the considerable differences that invariably apply between Councils, including, but not limited to, the following factors: • Different demographics and characteristics. • Different long term goals and strategies. • Different Rating methodologies (e.g. % of revenue derived from different land uses (e.g. Residential vs Commercial Rates, etc.), Minimum Rate vs Fixed Charge). • Different range of services and/or different service levels for a particular service. • Age/Condition of Fixed Asset stock (e.g. the condition and age profile of a Council’s asset portfolio may currently require a higher investment in asset replacement/renewal and/or upgrades, thereby influencing depreciation and investment income / finance charges). Cost of living pressures being reduced by one Council being able to achieve the economies of scale in service delivery will more than likely materialise by keeping the pressure down of council rates thus benefiting current and future residents, which would otherwise not be realised. Given the complexities of this matter, Council is of the expectation that a full review of General Rates will be undertaken during the boundary reform process taking into consideration community consultation and to be informed by the outcomes of any investigation.
3. A council should have a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently This principle is addressed in the response below.
4. A council should offer its community a reasonable range of services delivered on an efficient, flexible, equitable and responsive basis Town of Gawler has undertaken due diligence in the form of a high level financial analysis as part of its boundary reform investigations which is provided as Attachment 2 for information. Town of Gawler is confident that the proposed inclusion of the Areas of Interest will not materially impact Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure and services to the Gawler community and the region. If anything the generation of economies of scale will enable greater efficient and effective service outcomes to result. The Town of Gawler invests heavily in servicing and representing its community and, for many years, providing for a community that is much larger than its LGA. While this has provided a great opportunity to showcase Gawler and all it has to offer, it has also put strain on Gawler’s rate payers with Council investing in significant infrastructure and services which benefit not only its rate paying residents but other non- rate paying members of our greater community, including:
• Public Libraries. • Roads and infrastructure. • Parks, gardens, bike tracks and playgrounds. • Sporting precincts.
Page 24 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 26 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
• Waste, recycling and environmental management. • Community services such as youth and community development, environmental health and safety. • Community infrastructure such as the Aquatic Centre and recreation precincts. The above services and infrastructure benefits a community much wider than its rate payers, including the Kalbeeba Area of Interest. Due to Kalbeeba’s proximity to Gawler, the Barossa Council has not needed to heavily invest in services and infrastructure for this community. Rather it has been the Gawler Council and its community who have delivered the array of services to which the Kalbeeba community has benefitted from relative to being part of the Gawler community. The formal inclusion of the Kalbeeba Area of Interest within the Town of Gawler will enable a truly integrated community and result in greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies creating additional opportunity for investment, resulting in further improvements (in an integrated manner) to the services and facilities on which the community already rely.
5. A council should facilitate effective planning and development within an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis Town of Gawler is seeking to establish a planned, organised way forward in its approach to planning and development for its community.
This is particularly important for the Springwood Development. The vast majority of the Springwood Development resides within the Town of Gawler’s local government boundary, with the exception of approximately 20% of the land area, which resides within the Barossa Council LGA. It would be beneficial from an overall governance perspective if this development resided in one LGA and Town of Gawler is best positioned in this regard.
It is important to note that the Gawler Council and Barossa Council have over the past number of years worked collaboratively in the planning for this and other parts of the Springwood Estate relative to the form and function of the estate that forms part of the greater Springwood development. However, there have been differences in policy and direction relative to infrastructure (particularly hard infrastructure) provision which has been frustrating, time consuming and costly for the parties involved. In particular the drafting and processing of infrastructure agreements between the parties. Compromises have been reached allowing progress to be more recently achieved however this particular example demonstrates the difficulties where new developments occur in areas covered by more than one Council jurisdiction. It is further noted that Barossa Council had resolved that it would initially not participate in the execution of the related development deeds but preferred that this area of their Council area be the subject of a boundary reform with the Town of Gawler, to which the administration is now recommending that it be proceed with, as outlined in the following resolution from the 16 April 2019 Barossa Council meeting:
Page 25 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 27 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
The fact that that Barossa Council resolved not to sign an infrastructure deed for what the Town of Gawler considered as necessary for the purposes of facilitating orderly and economic development is a case in point as to the preferred model of having one Council responsible for the oversight of any one development precinct.
Since the above resolution it is noted that progress has been achieved with the Barossa Council agreeing to sign an infrastructure deed but limiting the parameters of the deed to the provision of social infrastructure not hard (road) infrastructure.
From an overall governance perspective, the inclusion of the Kalbeeba Area of Interest within the Town of Gawler will result in the better utlisation of resources, efficient development management for Council and further efficiencies can be realised and appreciated by the private sector through consistent policies and procedures applicable to areas which are essentially identical in nature.
The inclusion of the Kalbeeba Area of Interest formally within the Town of Gawler will enable greater integration in planning for hard infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails. This will engender greater confidence in the market and seek to promote more opportunity for investment and job creation.
6. A council should be in a position to facilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes The Town of Gawler takes environmental considerations seriously and holds new development to a high standard. The Town of Gawler was in fact one of the first Councils in Australia to declare a climate emergency and as a result are in the process of developing a Climate Emergency Action Plan. The Climate Emergency Action Plan will identify the most strategic opportunities and actions which should be delivered at an appropriate scale within a timeframe that is elevated, providing immediate, effective and ongoing action with consideration for both Council corporate actions and Council actions to support the community.
Page 26 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 28 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Amongst numerous strategic documents the Town of Gawler has commissioned the development of a Council wide Biodiversity Management Plan to provide strategic guidance in managing assets of high biodiversity value. This has included identifying areas of high priority for revegetation action, threats to existing biodiversity assets and opportunities for future biodiversity enhancement. Further environmentally focused strategies and guiding documents developed by Council include the Town of Gawler Stormwater Management Plan and the Town of Gawler Environmental Management Plan. Combined these documents allow Council to place environmental considerations at the forefront of our assessment process and ensure development is sympathetic of the natural environment. The Town of Gawler is located where the North and South Para Rivers meet to form the Gawler River. The natural environment plays an integral part to our town’s identity and character and is something the local community feels passionately about. As outlined in Section 2.4 above, as a future Community of Interest, the Kalbeeba Area of Interest is already a consideration within Town of Gawler’s planning, however the proposed boundary change will formalise this position and enable truly strategic and holistic way of sustainably planning for the future of our community and the environment.
7. A council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations There are many factors which contribute towards the recognition of a Community of Interest, some are tangible and easy to identify/measure while others are more difficult to substantiate and, although intangible, are still felt through the community and are equally important. These factors include: value systems, identify, beliefs and sense of belonging; where people, live, work and play; and governance (representing the interests of the community). This is further illustrated in Section 2.2 of this document. The Kalbeeba Area of Interest has been identified for inclusion within the Town of Gawler primarily from a Community of Interest perspective, as it forms an extension to Gawler East. Residents of Kalbeeba are already considered part of the Gawler community. Many residents work in Gawler, their children go to school in Gawler, shop in Gawler precincts and join Gawler sporting teams and competitions. Kalbeeba and Gawler are intrinsically linked and we are one community. It is important that this is formalised through boundary reform so that Council can effectively plan for and represent this community and Kalbeeba residents can be involved in key decisions that impact the services and infrastructure that they enjoy.
8. A council area should incorporate or promote an accessible centre (or centres) for local administration and services At its closest point, Kalbeeba is less than three kilometres from Murray Street, Gawler’s Town Centre. In contrast, Kalbeeba is more than 25km from Nuriootpa, the location of the Barossa Council office.
Town of Gawler provides quality Customer Service at various locations to deliver all the functions undertaken by Town of Gawler.
The Gawler Administration Centre, located at 43 High Street Gawler East provides a full suite of Customer Service functions from general enquiries, payments of rates, fees and expiation notices, cemeteries administration through to planning and development enquiries. This is also the head office for Council.
The Gawler Civic Centre, located at 89 Murray Street in the heart of Gawler, provides a customer service transaction point through the Library which allows general enquiries, payment of rates, dog registrations and expiation notices. The Civic Centre also provides Youth Programs in the purposely designed Youth Space.
Page 27 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 29 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Each of the above locations are utilised to support Community Engagement during public consultation programs and management. Other Customer Service points support the functions of the specific facillity eg Gawler Sports and Community Centre (Nixon Tce Gawler), Gawler Aquatic Centre (Victoria Tce & Main North Rd Gawler) and Council’s Works Depot (Paxton St Willaston).
In addition, the Town of Gawler website provides access to information and provides for online lodgement of development applications and is a payment gateway for customers available 24/7.
9. The importance within the scheme of local government to ensure that local communities within large council areas can participate effectively in decisions about local matters This principle is addressed in the response below.
10. Residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term) The Town of Gawler is currently represented by the Mayor and 10 Area Councillors. Council’s total representation quota (the number of electors for each Councillor) is 1:1,605 (17,659 electors)7, which is relatively consistent with the Statewide average representation quota of 1763 and the quotas of local and similar size councils to Gawler as outlined in the table below.
Based on the above information, Town of Gawler is of the view that the inclusion of the proposed Areas of Interests, including the Kalbeeba Area of Interest will not have a material impact on representation requirements in the short-mid-term. Town of Gawler is also of the view that due to proximity (Kalbeeba being less than three kilometres from Gawler and more than 25km from Nuriootpa), the inclusion of Kalbeeba within the Town of Gawler will promote greater participation by Kalbeeba residents in local matters such as community consultation and decision making, as well as attendance at community and Council meetings and events. Council’s Representation Review period is currently scheduled for October 2020 - October 2021. Previous advice received from the Boundaries Commission is that it is not clear whether this boundary proposal will have an impact Council’s representation review. It is further noted that the matter of representation reviews is under consideration as part of the Local Government Reform process.
11. A scheme that provides for the performance of functions and delivery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change
7 http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Representation%20Quotas%202018-19.pdf
Page 28 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 30 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Town of Gawler, in partnership with regional partners are already collaborating in a number of areas including:
• Joint funding arrangements through Regional Development Australia, Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains; • Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority • Barossa Regional Procurement Group • Barossa Regional Procurement IT Group • Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority • Health Services – Country Public Health Network • Library Services – with Adelaide Plains Council. • Animal Management Services – sharing of the dog pound with Light Regional Council • Environmental Health Inspectorial Services – ad-hoc support arrangement with Light Regional Council and Adelaide Plains Council. • Information Technology Services (Light Regional Council from 2018 - 2020) • Human Resource Management (with Barossa Council from 2016 - 2019, now provided on an ad-hoc basis) • Dog Park – Light Regional Council contributing to management/maintenance costs The benefits of regional collaboration are acknowledged and opportunities for further collaboration to advance our communities continue to be explored. However, limitations of this approach due to conflicting priorities and policies must also be acknowledged. Town of Gawler believes that through the boundary reform process the proposed boundary adjustments will enable greater efficiencies and provide Council with the capacity to deliver on the needs and desires of its community of interest in the most effective way.
Page 29 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 31 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
3.4 Gawler Belt (Area 4) The suburb of Gawler Belt is approximately 1000 hectares in size and as of the 2016 census contains a population of 942 people. The township is located adjacent to the suburb of Willaston (Town of Gawler). The suburb is zoned largely for Rural Living, however the northern section of the suburb also contains land within primary production and industry zones. In addition, a section of Gawler Belt has been rezoned to residential as part of the Roseworthy Development Plan Amendment (DPA) and lies within Gawler Belt and is in the urban growth boundary. It is proposed that the Rural Living section of Gawler Belt be included within the Town of Gawler and that the area that has been rezoned as residential as part of the Roseworthy DPA should remain aligned with Roseworthy which is within the Light Regional Council.
Include the section of Gawler Belt which encompasses the existing rural living community (highlighted in purple above). This land is currently located within the Light Regional Council.
Page 30 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 32 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Town of Gawler provides the following information in respect to how this proposed boundary adjustment meets the principles under section 26 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1999. 1. The resources available to local communities should be used as economically as possible while recognising the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within a community The Light Regional Council suburb of Gawler Belt, due to its close proximity to Gawler, relies on the large offering of services and infrastructure provided by the Town of Gawler. Consolidation of Gawler Belt into the Town of Gawler, will enable economic efficiencies to be achieved resulting in improved commercial arrangements and ultimately improving the value for money proposition for Council. Service delivery efficiencies will be achieved as one Council will be responsible for its Community of Interest, rather than two Council’s servicing their respective areas even though this may result in Town of Gawler servicing one side of the road and a neighbouring council servicing the other. The proposed boundary adjustment will allow the Town of Gawler to enable, amongst other things, greater integration in the areas of hard infrastructure, waste services and maintenance activities, soft infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails which the subject communities already rely upon. Consolidation of local government administrative services will generate the economies of scale that will more likely assist in the cost of such services being reduced better enabling one Council, as opposed to two Councils achieving reductions in rates that residents and business have to pay.
2. Proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers The Gawler Belt community relies on the services and infrastructure provided by the Town of Gawler and inherently forms part of the Gawler Community of Interest. The formal inclusion of Gawler Belt within the Town of Gawler will enable Gawler Belt residents to have a strong voice within the community (by having appropriate representation in local decision making) and financially contribute towards the services and infrastructure utilised and enjoyed by the community. This will benefit the entire Gawler Community of Interest as it will provide greater equity for current Gawler rate payers who have been heavily servicing a Community of Interest much larger than its current rate base and will provide Council with greater capacity to deliver improved services and infrastructure to the growing Gawler community (current and future proposed rate payers) and the region. While current residential rates in the dollar and the impact on residents from the Areas of Interest have been quoted in opposition to Council’s proposal. Town of Gawler considers any speculation in this regard to be premature. It is important to note the limitations in comparing the General Rates applied between one Council and another, given the considerable differences that invariably apply between Councils, including, but not limited to, the following factors: • Different demographics and characteristics. • Different long term goals and strategies. • Different Rating methodologies (e.g. % of revenue derived from different land uses (e.g. Residential vs Commercial Rates, etc.), Minimum Rate vs Fixed Charge). • Different range of services and/or different service levels for a particular service. • Age/Condition of Fixed Asset stock (e.g. the condition and age profile of a Council’s asset portfolio may currently require a higher investment in asset replacement/renewal and/or upgrades, thereby influencing depreciation and investment income / finance charges). Cost of living pressures being reduced by one Council being able to achieve the economies of scale in service deliver, will more than likely materialise by keeping the pressure down of council rates thus benefiting current and future residents, which would otherwise not be realised.
Page 31 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 33 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Given the complexities of this matter, Council is of the expectation that a full review of General Rates will be undertaken during the boundary reform process taking into consideration community consultation and to be informed by the outcomes of any investigation.
3. A council should have a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently This principle is addressed in the response below.
4. A council should offer its community a reasonable range of services delivered on an efficient, flexible, equitable and responsive basis Town of Gawler has undertaken due diligence in the form of a high level financial analysis as part of its boundary reform investigations which is provided as Attachment 2 for information. Town of Gawler is confident that the proposed inclusion of the Areas of Interest will not materially impact Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure and services to the Gawler community and the region. If anything the generation of economies of scale will enable greater efficient and effective service outcomes to result. The Town of Gawler invests heavily in servicing and representing its community and, for many years, providing for a community that is much larger than its LGA. While this has provided a great opportunity to showcase Gawler and all it has to offer, it has also put strain on Gawler’s rate payers with Council investing in significant infrastructure and services which benefit not only its rate paying residents but other non- rate paying members of our greater community, including:
• Public Libraries. • Aquatic Centre. • Roads and infrastructure. • Parks, gardens, bike tracks and playgrounds. • Sporting precincts. • Waste, recycling and environmental management. • Community services such as youth and community development, environmental health and safety. • Community infrastructure such as the Aquatic Centre and recreation precincts. The above services and infrastructure benefits a community much wider than its rate payers, including the Gawler Belt community, at its closest point is located less than two kilometres from the Gawler Town Centre, as opposed to over 30km from Light Regional Council’s principal office. Due to Gawler Belt’s proximity to Gawler, the Light Regional Council has not needed to heavily invest in services and infrastructure for the Gawler Belt community. The formal inclusion of Gawler Belt within the Town of Gawler will enable a truly integrated community and result in greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies creating additional opportunity for investment, resulting in further improvements (in an integrated manner) to the services and facilities on which the community already rely.
5. A council should facilitate effective planning and development within an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis Town of Gawler is seeking to establish a planned, organised way forward in its approach to planning and development for its community. The inclusion of a portion of Gawler Belt within the Town of Gawler will enable greater integration in planning for hard infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails.
Due to proximity, Gawler Belt has been included within Council’s considerations relating to stormwater management and has been incorporated into the Draft Gawler and Surrounds Stormwater Management Plan, further demonstrating Gawler Belt’s link to the Town of Gawler.
Page 32 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 34 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
In addition to the above, further efficiencies can be realised and appreciated by the private sector through consistent policies and procedures. Often differences exist between development and council policy and procedures that are applicable to areas which are essentially identical in nature and adjacent to one another.
The Town of Gawler in this regard can create efficiencies, seek greater integration with a town in which this community will consider themselves apart of and as a result engender greater confidence in the market and seek to promote more opportunity for investment and job creation.
6. A council should be in a position to facilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes. The Town of Gawler takes environmental considerations seriously and holds new development to a high standard. The Town of Gawler was in fact one of the first Councils in Australia to declare a climate emergency and as a result are in the process of developing a Climate Emergency Action Plan. The Climate Emergency Action Plan will identify the most strategic opportunities and actions that should be delivered at an appropriate scale within an elevated timeframe, providing immediate, effective and ongoing action with consideration for both Council corporate actions and Council actions to support the community. Amongst numerous strategic documents the Town of Gawler has commissioned the development of a Council wide Biodiversity Management Plan to provide strategic guidance in managing assets of high biodiversity value. This has included identifying areas of high priority for revegetation action, threats to existing biodiversity assets and opportunities for future biodiversity enhancement. Further environmentally focused strategies and guiding documents developed by Council include the Town of Gawler Stormwater Management Plan and the Town of Gawler Environmental Management Plan. Combined these documents allow Council to place environmental considerations at the forefront of our assessment process and ensure development is sympathetic of the natural environment. The Town of Gawler is located where the North and South Para Rivers meet to form the Gawler River. The natural environment plays an integral part of our town’s identity and character and is something the local community feels passionately about. As outlined in Section 2.4 above, as a future Community of Interest, Gawler Belt is already a consideration within Town of Gawler’s planning, however the proposed boundary change will formalise this position and enable truly strategic and holistic way of sustainably planning for the future of our community and the environment. 7. A council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations There are many factors which contribute towards the recognition of a Community of Interest, some are tangible and easy to identify/measure while others are more difficult to substantiate and, although intangible, are still felt through the community and are equally important. These factors include: value systems, identify, beliefs and sense of belonging; where people, live, work and play; and governance (representing the interests of the community). This is further illustrated in Section 2.2 of this document. Gawler Belt forms a natural extension to Gawler, and has inherently become part of the township. There are no public facilities or services located in this area and the community rely heavily upon the Town of Gawler in this regard. Residents of Gawler Belt are already considered part of the Gawler community. Many work in Gawler, their children go to school in Gawler, shop in Gawler precincts and join Gawler sporting teams and competitions.
Page 33 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 35 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Furthermore, Xavier College is located in Gawler Belt and with over 800 enrolments in 20188, and provides education to many of Gawler’s young people, reflected in the following statement “We are in partnership with the families in the Gawler and surrounding region, developing and nurturing our young people in a safe, welcoming environment.”9 Consistent with the rationale provided for Hewett, this proposed boundary adjustment will formalise the already existing Community of Interest and provide the residents of Gawler Belt with a stronger voice in the community regarding the delivery of services and infrastructure. It will also greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies. Due to proximity, Gawler Belt has been included within Council’s considerations relating to stormwater management and has been incorporated into the Draft Gawler and Surrounds Stormwater Management Plan, further demonstrating Gawler Belt’s link to the Town of Gawler. 8. A council area should incorporate or promote an accessible centre (or centres) for local administration and services; As outlined above, at its closest point, Gawler Belt is located less than two kilometres from Murray Street, Gawler’s Town Centre. In contrast, Gawler Belt is located in excess of 30km from Light Regional Council’s principal service centre of Kapunda.
Town of Gawler provides quality Customer Service at various locations to deliver all the functions undertaken by Town of Gawler.
The Gawler Administration Centre, located at 43 High Street Gawler East provides a full suite of Customer Service functions from general enquiries, payments of rates, fees and expiation notices, cemeteries administration through to planning and development enquiries. This is also the head office for Council.
The Gawler Civic Centre, located at 89 Murray Street in the heart of Gawler, provides a customer service transaction point through the Library which allows general enquiries, payment of rates, dog registrations and expiation notices. The Civic Centre also provides Youth Programs in the purposely designed Youth Space.
Each of the above locations are utilised to support Community Engagement during public consultation programs and management. Other Customer Service points support the functions of the specific facillity eg Gawler Sports and Community Centre (Nixon Tce Gawler), Gawler Aquatic Centre (Victoria Tce & Main North Rd Gawler) and Council’s Works Depot (Paxton St Willaston).
In addition, the Town of Gawler website provides access to information and provides for online lodgement of development applications and is a payment gateway for customers available 24/7.
9. The importance within the scheme of local government to ensure that local communities within large council areas can participate effectively in decisions about local matters This principle is addressed in the response below.
10. Residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term) The Town of Gawler is currently represented by the Mayor and 10 Area Councillors. Council’s total representation quota (the number of electors for each Councillor) is 1:1,605 (17,659 electors)10, which
8 Xavier College, 2018 Annual Report to Community via http://www.xavier.catholic.edu.au/ 9 http://www.xavier.catholic.edu.au/who-we-are, 20 August 2019 10 http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Representation%20Quotas%202018-19.pdf
Page 34 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 36 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 is relatively consistent with the Statewide average representation quota of 1763 and the quotas of local and similar size councils to Gawler as outlined in the table below.
Based on the above information, Town of Gawler is of the view that the inclusion of the proposed areas of interests, including a portion of Gawler Belt will not have a material impact on representation requirements in the short-mid-term. Town of Gawler is also of the view that due to proximity (Gawler Belt being less than 2km from Gawler and 30km from Kapunda), the inclusion of Gawler Belt within the Town of Gawler will promote greater participation by Gawler Belt residents in local matters such as community consultation and decision making, as well as attendance at community and Council meetings and events. Council’s Representation Review period is currently scheduled for October 2020 - October 2021. Previous advice received from the Boundaries Commission is that it is not clear whether this boundary proposal will Council’s representation review as this would be dependent on the timing of the proposal and the nature of any recommendations. It is further noted that the matter of representation reviews is under consideration as part of the Local Government Reform process.
11. A scheme that provides for the performance of functions and delivery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change Town of Gawler, in partnership with regional partners are already collaborating in a number of areas including:
• Joint funding arrangements through Regional Development Australia, Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains. • Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority. • Barossa Regional Procurement Group. • Barossa Regional Procurement IT Group. • Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority. • Health Services – Country Public Health Network. • Library Services – with Adelaide Plains Council. • Animal Management Services – sharing of the dog pound with Light Regional Council. • Environmental Health Inspectorial Services – ad-hoc support arrangement with Light Regional Council and Adelaide Plains Council. • Information Technology Services (Light Regional Council from 2018 - 2020). • Human Resource Management (with Barossa Council from 2016 - 2019, now provided on an ad-hoc basis). • Dog Park – Light Regional Council contributing to management/maintenance costs. The benefits of regional collaboration are acknowledged and opportunities for further collaboration for the benefit of our communities continue to be explored. However, limitations of this approach due to conflicting priorities and policies must also be acknowledged. Town of Gawler believes that through
Page 35 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 37 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 the boundary reform process the proposed boundary adjustments will enable greater efficiencies and provide Council with the capacity to deliver on the wants and needs of its Community of Interest in the most effective way.
Page 36 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 38 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
3.5 Evanston Park (Area 5) Evanston Park is primarily situated within the Town of Gawler, with the remainder of the suburb situated within the City of Playford. The current boundary is an arbitrary line that has been drawn from Alexander Avenue to Potts Road and onto Eckerman Avenue and intercepts nine properties. Town of Gawler proposes that the boundary should be adjusted to include all of the land situated in Evanston Park. This potential boundary change will impact 24 properties currently situated within the City of Playford.
Include the remaining area of the Evanston Park suburb which is located in the City of Playford (highlighted in purple above). Town of Gawler provides the following information in respect to how this proposed boundary adjustment meets the principles under section 26 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1999. 1. The resources available to local communities should be used as economically as possible while recognising the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within a community As outlined above, there are nine properties within Evanston Park situated both in the Town of Gawler and City of Playford. Properties which intercept multiple council boundaries can create inefficiencies as well as frustration for residents who are paying Council rates in two Council areas. In addition instances where these land owners are seeking to undertake development, they require permission from both Councils and in some instances this is elevated to the State Government for assessment. Town of Gawler considered the merits of an Administrative Proposal e.g. “to correct an anomaly that is, in the opinion of the Commission, generally recognised e.g. where the boundary intercepts one or more privately owned properties”, to rectify this issue.
Page 37 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 39 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
However, ultimately Town of Gawler is of the view that the inclusion of the land situated in Evanston Park as the most appropriate option. Service delivery efficiencies will be achieved as one Council will be responsible for its Community of Interest, rather than two Council’s servicing their respective areas even though this may result in Town of Gawler servicing one side of the road and a neighbouring council servicing the other. The proposed boundary adjustment will allow the Town of Gawler to enable, amongst other things, greater integration in the areas of hard infrastructure, waste services and maintenance activities, soft infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails which the subject communities already rely upon. Consolidation of local government administrative services will generate the economies of scale that will more likely assist in the cost of such services being reduced better enabling one Council, as opposed to two Councils, achieving reductions in rates that residents and business have to pay.
2. Proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers For the nine properties that intercept two council boundaries, the proposed change will remove frustrations associated with interacting with two LGAs and streamline development processes. The formal inclusion of all land situated within Evanston Park within the Town of Gawler will enable those impacted residents to have a stronger voice within the community (by having appropriate representation in local decision making) and financially contribute towards the services and infrastructure utilised and enjoyed by the community. This will benefit the entire Gawler Community of Interest as it will provide greater equity for current Gawler rate payers who have been heavily servicing a Community of Interest much larger than its current rate base and will provide Council with greater capacity to deliver improved services and infrastructure to the growing Gawler community (current and future proposed rate payers) and the region. While current residential rates in the dollar and the impact on residents from the Areas of Interest have been quoted in opposition to Council’s proposal, the Town of Gawler considers any speculation in this regard to be premature. It is important to note the limitations in comparing the General Rates applied between one Council and another, given the considerable differences that invariably apply between Councils, including, but not limited to, the following factors: • Different demographics and characteristics. • Different long term goals and strategies. • Different Rating methodologies (e.g. % of revenue derived from different land uses (e.g. Residential vs Commercial Rates, etc.), Minimum Rate vs Fixed Charge). • Different range of services and/or different service levels for a particular service. • Age/Condition of Fixed Asset stock (e.g. the condition and age profile of a Council’s asset portfolio may currently require a higher investment in asset replacement/renewal and/or upgrades, thereby influencing depreciation and investment income / finance charges). Cost of living pressures being reduced, by one Council being able to achieve the economies of scale in service delivery, will more than likely materialise by keeping the pressure down of council rates thus benefiting current and future residents, which would otherwise not be realised. Given the complexities of this matter, Council is of the expectation that a full review of General Rates will be undertaken during the boundary reform process taking into consideration community consultation and to be informed by the outcomes of any investigation.
3. A council should have a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently This principle is addressed in the response below.
Page 38 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 40 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
4. A council should offer its community a reasonable range of services delivered on an efficient, flexible, equitable and responsive basis Town of Gawler has undertaken due diligence in the form of a high level financial analysis as part of its boundary reform investigations which is provided as Attachment 2 for information. Town of Gawler is confident that the proposed inclusion of the Areas of Interest will not materially impact Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure and services to the Gawler community and the region. If anything the generation of economies of scale will enable greater efficient and effective service outcomes to result. The Town of Gawler invests heavily in servicing and representing its community and, for many years, providing for a community that is much larger than its LGA. While this has provided a great opportunity to showcase Gawler and all it has to offer, it has also put strain on Gawler’s rate payers with Council investing in significant infrastructure and services which benefit not only its rating paying residents but other non- rate paying members of our greater community, including:
• Public Libraries. • Roads and infrastructure. • Parks, gardens, bike tracks and playgrounds. • Sporting precincts. • Waste, recycling and environmental management. • Community services such as youth and community development, environmental health and safety. • Community infrastructure such as the Aquatic Centre and recreation precincts. The above services and infrastructure benefits a community much wider than its rate payers, including the entire Evanston Park community. The formal inclusion of all land situated within Evanston Park within the Town of Gawler will enable a truly integrated community and result in greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies creating additional opportunity for investment, resulting in further improvements (in an integrated manner) to the services and facilities on which the community already rely.
5. A council should facilitate effective planning and development within an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis Town of Gawler is seeking to establish a planned, organised way forward in its approach to planning and development for its community. From an overall governance perspective, the inclusion of all land situated within Evanston Park, within the Town of Gawler will result in the better utlisation of resources, efficient development management for Council and further efficiencies can be realised and appreciated by the private sector through consistent policies and procedures applicable to areas which are essentially identical in nature. The Town of Gawler in this regard can create efficiencies, seek greater integration with a town in which this community will consider themselves apart of and as a result engender greater confidence in the market and seek to promote more opportunity for investment and job creation.
6. A council should be in a position to facilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes The Town of Gawler takes environmental considerations seriously and holds new development to a high standard. The Town of Gawler was in fact one of the first Councils in Australia to declare a climate emergency and as a result are in the process of developing a Climate Emergency Action Plan. The Climate Emergency Action Plan will identify the most strategic opportunities and actions that should be delivered at an appropriate scale within an elevated timeframe, providing immediate, effective and
Page 39 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 41 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 ongoing action with consideration for both Council corporate actions and Council actions to support the community. Amongst numerous strategic documents the Town of Gawler has commissioned the development of a Council wide Biodiversity Management Plan to provide strategic guidance in managing assets of high biodiversity value. This has included identifying areas of high priority for revegetation action, threats to existing biodiversity assets and opportunities for future biodiversity enhancement. Further environmentally focused strategies and guiding documents developed by Council include the Town of Gawler Stormwater Management Plan and the Town of Gawler Environmental Management Plan. Combined these documents allow Council to place environmental considerations at the forefront of our assessment process and ensure development is sympathetic of the natural environment. The Town of Gawler is located where the North and South Para Rivers meet to form the Gawler River. The natural environment plays an integral part of our town’s identity and character and is something the local community feels passionately about. As outlined in Section 2.4 above, as a future Community of Interest, Evanston Park is already a consideration within Town of Gawler’s planning, however the proposed boundary change will formalise this position and enable truly strategic and holistic way of sustainably planning for the future of our community and the environment.
7. A council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations There are many factors which contribute towards the recognition of a Community of Interest, some are tangible and easy to identify/measure while others are more difficult to substantiate and, although intangible, are still felt through the community and are equally important. These factors include: value systems, identify, beliefs and sense of belonging; where people, live, work and play; and governance (representing the interests of the community). This is further illustrated in Section 2.2 of this document. Residents of Evanston Park are already considered part of the Gawler community. Many work in Gawler, their children go to school in Gawler, shop in Gawler precincts and join Gawler sporting teams and competitions. It is important to formalise this through boundary reform so that Council can effectively plan for and represent this community and all Evanston Park residents can be involved in key decisions that impact the services and infrastructure t they enjoy. Consistent with the rationale provided for Hewett and Gawler Belt, this proposed boundary adjustment will formalise the already existing Community of Interest and provide the impacted residents with a stronger voice in the community regarding the delivery of services and infrastructure. It will also greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies.
8. A council area should incorporate or promote an accessible centre (or centres) for local administration and services. At its closest point, the Evanston Park Area of Interest is approximately 10km from Murray Street within Town of Gawler. In contrast, Evanston Park is approximately 17km from the City of Playford.
Town of Gawler provides quality Customer Service at various locations to deliver all the functions undertaken by Town of Gawler.
The Gawler Administration Centre, located at 43 High Street Gawler East provides a full suite of Customer Service functions from general enquiries, payments of rates, fees and expiation notices, cemeteries administration through to planning and development enquiries. This is also the head office for Council.
The Gawler Civic Centre, located at 89 Murray Street in the heart of Gawler, provides a customer service transaction point through the Library which allows general enquiries, payment of rates, dog
Page 40 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 42 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 registrations and expiation notices. The Civic Centre also provides Youth Programs in the purposely designed Youth Space.
Each of the above locations are utilised to support Community Engagement during public consultation programs and management. Other Customer Service points support the functions of the specific facillity eg Gawler Sports and Community Centre (Nixon Tce Gawler), Gawler Aquatic Centre (Victoria Tce & Main North Rd Gawler) and Council’s Works Depot (Paxton St Willaston).
In addition, the Town of Gawler website provides access to information and provides for online lodgement of development applications and is a payment gateway for customers available 24/7.
9. The importance within the scheme of local government to ensure that local communities within large council areas can participate effectively in decisions about local matters This principle is addressed in the response below.
10. Residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term) The Town of Gawler is currently represented by the Mayor and 10 Area Councillors. Council’s total representation quota (the number of electors for each Councillor) is 1:1,605 (17,659 electors)11, which is relatively consistent with the Statewide average representation quota of 1763 and the quotas of local and similar size councils to Gawler as outlined in the table below.
Based on the above information, Town of Gawler is of the view that the inclusion of the proposed areas of interests, will not have a material impact on representation requirements in the short-mid- term. Town of Gawler is also of the view that the inclusion of the Evanston Park Area of Interest within the Town of Gawler will promote greater participation by all Evanston Park residents in local matters such as community consultation and decision making, as well as attendance at community and Council meetings and events. Council’s Representation Review period is currently scheduled for October 2020 - October 2021. Previous advice received from the Boundaries Commission is that it is not clear whether this boundary proposal will Council’s representation review as this would be dependent on the timing of the proposal and the nature of any recommendations. It is further noted that the matter of representation reviews is under consideration as part of the Local Government Reform process.
11 http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Representation%20Quotas%202018-19.pdf
Page 41 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 43 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
11. A scheme that provides for the performance of functions and delivery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change Town of Gawler, in partnership with regional partners are already collaborating in a number of areas including:
• Joint funding arrangements through Regional Development Australia, Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains. • Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority. • Barossa Regional Procurement Group. • Barossa Regional Procurement IT Group. • Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority. • Health Services – Country Public Health Network. • Library Services – with Adelaide Plains Council. • Animal Management Services – sharing of the dog pound with Light Regional Council. • Environmental Health Inspectorial Services – ad-hoc support arrangement with Light Regional Council and Adelaide Plains Council. • Information Technology Services (Light Regional Council from 2018 - 2020). • Human Resource Management (with Barossa Council from 2016 - 2019, now provided on an ad-hoc basis). • Dog Park – Light Regional Council contributing to management/maintenance costs. The benefits of regional collaboration are acknowledged and opportunities for further collaboration to advance our communities continue to be explored. However, limitations of this approach due to conflicting priorities and policies must also be acknowledged. Town of Gawler believes that through the boundary reform process the proposed boundary adjustments will enable greater efficiencies and provide Council with the capacity to deliver on the needs and desires of its community of interest in the most effective way.
Page 42 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 44 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
3.6 Reid (Area 6) A section of the suburb of Reid falls into the Light Regional Council. The area is bounded by the Gawler Bypass to the west and the Gawler River to the south and east as can be seen from the map below. The defined boundary traverses Paternoster Road multiple times placing sections within the ownership of the Town of Gawler and Light Regional Council. Town of Gawler is seeking to realign the boundary to the Gawler Bypass. This proposed change will impact one property, currently situated within the Light Regional Council.
Include the remaining area of the Reid suburb which is located in the Light Regional Council (highlighted in purple above). Town of Gawler provides the following information in respect to how this proposed boundary adjustment meets the principles under section 26 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1999.
1. The resources available to local communities should be used as economically as possible while recognising the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within a community Town of Gawler, from an efficiency perspective is already in effect undertaking minor operational works in parts of this area that fall within the Light Regional Council and is seeking to formalise existing arrangements. The defined boundary traverses Paternoster Road multiple times placing sections within the ownership of the Town of Gawler and Light Regional Council. Historically the Town of Gawler has maintained the roadway in both LGAs, albeit the most recent roadway upgrades have
Page 43 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 45 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 been funded by adjoining land developers in Reid as part of external infrastructure provision negotiations, the Town of Gawler delivered these works.
2. Proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers As outlined above, the proposed boundary change will impact one property situated within the Light Regional Council, with the remaining land under the control of Light Regional Council. The formal inclusion of all land situated within Reid within the Town of Gawler will enable those impacted residents to have a stronger voice within the community (by having appropriate representation in local decision making) and financially contribute towards the services and infrastructure utilised and enjoyed by the community. This will benefit the entire Gawler Community of Interest as it will provide greater equity for current Gawler rate payers who have been heavily servicing a Community of Interest much larger than its current rate base and will provide Council with greater capacity to deliver improved services and infrastructure to the growing Gawler community (current and future proposed rate payers) and the region. While current residential rates in the dollar and the impact on residents from the Areas of Interest have been quoted in opposition to Council’s proposal, the Town of Gawler considers any speculation in this regard to be premature. It is important to note the limitations in comparing the General Rates applied between one Council and another, given the considerable differences that invariably apply between Councils, including, but not limited to, the following factors: • Different demographics and characteristics. • Different long term goals and strategies. • Different Rating methodologies (e.g. % of revenue derived from different land uses (e.g. Residential vs Commercial Rates, etc.), Minimum Rate vs Fixed Charge). • Different range of services and/or different service levels for a particular service. • Age/Condition of Fixed Asset stock (e.g. the condition and age profile of a Council’s asset portfolio may currently require a higher investment in asset replacement/renewal and/or upgrades, thereby influencing depreciation and investment income / finance charges). Cost of living pressures being reduced, by one Council being able to achieve the economies of scale in service delivery, will more than likely materialise by keeping the pressure down of council rates thus benefiting current and future residents, which would otherwise not be realised. Given the complexities of this matter, Council is of the expectation that a full review of General Rates will be undertaken during the boundary reform process taking into consideration community consultation and to be informed by the outcomes of any investigation
3. A council should have a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently This principle is addressed in the response below.
4. A council should offer its community a reasonable range of services delivered on an efficient, flexible, equitable and responsive basis. Town of Gawler has undertaken due diligence in the form of a high level financial analysis as part of its boundary reform investigations which is provided as Attachment 2 for information. Town of Gawler is confident that the proposed inclusion of the Areas of Interest will not materially impact Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure and services to the Gawler community and the region. If anything the generation of economies of scale will enable greater efficient and effective service outcomes to result. The Town of Gawler invests heavily in servicing and representing its community and, for many years, providing for a community that is much larger than its LGA. While this has provided a great opportunity to showcase Gawler and all it has to offer, it has also put strain on Gawler’s rate payers with Council
Page 44 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 46 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 investing in significant infrastructure and services which benefit not only its rate paying residents but other non- rate paying members of our greater community, including:
• Public Libraries. • Roads and infrastructure. • Parks, gardens, bike tracks and playgrounds. • Sporting precincts. • Waste, recycling and environmental management. • Community services such as youth and community development, environmental health and safety. • Community infrastructure such as the Aquatic Centre and recreation precincts. The above services and infrastructure benefits a community much wider than its rate payers, including the entire Reid community. The formal inclusion of all land situated within Reid within the Town of Gawler will enable a truly integrated community and result in greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies creating additional opportunity for investment, resulting in further improvements (in an integrated manner) to the services and facilities on which the community already rely.
5. A council should facilitate effective planning and development within an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis Town of Gawler is seeking to establish a planned, organised way forward in its approach to planning and development for its community. From an overall governance perspective, the inclusion of all land situated within Reid, within the Town of Gawler will result in the better utlisation of resources, efficient development management for Council and further efficiencies can be realised and appreciated by the private sector through consistent policies and procedures applicable to areas which are essentially identical in nature. The Town of Gawler in this regard can create efficiencies, seek greater integration with a town in which this community will consider themselves apart of and as a result engender greater confidence in the market and seek to promote more opportunity for investment and job creation.
6. A council should be in a position to facilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes The Town of Gawler takes environmental considerations seriously and holds new development to a high standard. The Town of Gawler was in fact one of the first Councils in Australia to declare a climate emergency and as a result are in the process of developing a Climate Emergency Action Plan. The Climate Emergency Action Plan will identify the most strategic opportunities and actions that should be delivered at an appropriate scale within an elevated timeframe, providing immediate, effective and ongoing action with consideration for both Council corporate actions and Council actions to support the community. Amongst numerous strategic documents the Town of Gawler has commissioned the development of a Council wide Biodiversity Management Plan to provide strategic guidance in managing assets of high biodiversity value. This has included identifying areas of high priority for revegetation action, threats to existing biodiversity assets and opportunities for future biodiversity enhancement. Further environmentally focused strategies and guiding documents developed by Council include the Town of Gawler Stormwater Management Plan and the Town of Gawler Environmental Management Plan. Combined these documents allow Council to place environmental considerations at the forefront of our assessment process and ensure development is sympathetic of the natural environment.
Page 45 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 47 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
The Town of Gawler is located where the North and South Para Rivers meet to form the Gawler River. The natural environment plays an integral part of our town’s identity and character and is something the local community feels passionately about. Reid is already a consideration within Town of Gawler’s planning, however the proposed boundary change will formalise this position and enable truly strategic and holistic way of sustainably planning for the future of our community and the environment.
7. A council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations There are many factors which contribute towards the recognition of a Community of Interest, some are tangible and easy to identify/measure while others are more difficult to substantiate and although intangible are still felt through the community, and are equally important. These factors include: value systems, identify, beliefs and sense of belonging; where people, live, work and play; and governance (representing the interests of the community). This is further illustrated in Section 2.2 of this document. All residents of Reid are already considered part of the Gawler community. Many work in Gawler, their children go to school in Gawler, shop in Gawler precincts and join Gawler sporting teams and competitions. It is important to formalise this through boundary reform so that Council can effectively plan for and represent this community and all Reid residents can be involved in key decisions that impact the services and infrastructure they enjoy. Consistent with the rationale provided for Evanston Park, this proposed boundary adjustment will formalise the already existing Community of Interest and provide the impacted residents with a stronger voice in the community regarding the delivery of services and infrastructure. It will also greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies.
8. A council area should incorporate or promote an accessible centre (or centres) for local administration and services At its closest point, the Reid Area of Interest is approximately two kilometres from Murray Street within Town of Gawler. In contrast, the Reid Area of Interest is located in excess of 30km from Light Regional Council’s principal office in Kapunda.
Town of Gawler provides quality Customer Service at various locations to deliver all the functions undertaken by Town of Gawler.
The Gawler Administration Centre, located at 43 High Street Gawler East provides a full suite of Customer Service functions from general enquiries, payments of rates, fees and expiation notices, cemeteries administration through to planning and development enquiries. This is also the head office for Council.
The Gawler Civic Centre, located at 89 Murray Street in the heart of Gawler, provides a customer service transaction point through the Library which allows general enquiries, payment of rates, dog registrations and expiation notices. The Civic Centre also provides Youth Programs in the purposely designed Youth Space.
Each of the above locations are utilised to support Community Engagement during public consultation programs and management. Other Customer Service points support the functions of the specific facillity eg Gawler Sports and Community Centre (Nixon Tce Gawler), Gawler Aquatic Centre (Victoria Tce & Main North Rd Gawler) and Council’s Works Depot (Paxton St Willaston).
In addition, the Town of Gawler website provides access to information and provides for online lodgement of development applications and is a payment gateway for customers available 24/7.
Page 46 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 48 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
9. The importance within the scheme of local government to ensure that local communities within large council areas can participate effectively in decisions about local matters This principle is addressed in the response below.
10. Residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term) The Town of Gawler is currently represented by the Mayor and 10 Area Councillors. Council’s total representation quota (the number of electors for each Councillor) is 1:1,605 (17,659 electors)12, which is relatively consistent with the Statewide average representation quota of 1763 and the quotas of local and similar size councils to Gawler as outlined in the table below.
Based on the above information, Town of Gawler is of the view that the inclusion of the proposed areas of interests, including Reid will not have a material impact on representation requirements in the short-mid-term. Town of Gawler is also of the view that due to proximity, the inclusion of the Reid Area of Interest within the Town of Gawler will promote greater participation by Reid residents in local matters such as community consultation and decision making, as well as attendance at community and Council meetings and events. Council’s Representation Review period is currently scheduled for October 2020 - October 2021. Previous advice received from the Boundaries Commission is that it is not clear whether this boundary proposal will Council’s representation review as this would be dependent on the timing of the proposal and the nature of any recommendations. It is further noted that the matter of representation reviews is under consideration as part of the Local Government Reform process.
11. A scheme that provides for the performance of functions and delivery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change Town of Gawler, in partnership with regional partners are already collaborating in a number of areas including:
• Joint funding arrangements through Regional Development Australia, Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains. • Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority. • Barossa Regional Procurement Group. • Barossa Regional Procurement IT Group. • Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority. • Health Services – Country Public Health Network.
12 http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Representation%20Quotas%202018-19.pdf
Page 47 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 49 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
• Library Services – with Adelaide Plains Council. • Animal Management Services – sharing of the dog pound with Light Regional Council. • Environmental Health Inspectorial Services – ad-hoc support arrangement with Light Regional Council and Adelaide Plains Council. • Information Technology Services (Light Regional Council from 2018 - 2020). • Human Resource Management (with Barossa Council from 2016 - 2019, now provided on an ad-hoc basis). • Dog Park – Light Regional Council contributing to management/maintenance costs. The benefits of regional collaboration are acknowledged and opportunities for further collaboration for the benefit of our communities continue to be explored. However, limitations of this approach due to conflicting priorities and policies must also be acknowledged. Town of Gawler believes that through the boundary reform process the proposed boundary adjustments will enable greater efficiencies and provide Council with the capacity to deliver on the wants and needs of its Community of Interest in the most effective way.
Page 48 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 50 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
3.7 Hillier (Area 7) A section of the Hillier suburb falls outside of the Town of Gawler boundary. This section is bounded by the Gawler River to the north, Wingate Road to the east, the Northern Expressway to the west and Angle Vale Road to the south.
The section of Hillier which falls within the City of Playford is bounded by Angle Vale Road, the Gawler River to the north and the Northern Expressway, and lies within Playford’s Primary Production Zone. This potential boundary change will impact 23 properties currently situated within the City of Playford.
Include the remaining area of the Hillier suburb which is located in the City of Playford (highlighted in purple above). Town of Gawler provides the following information in respect to how this proposed boundary adjustment meets the principles under section 26 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1999.
1. The resources available to local communities should be used as economically as possible while recognising the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within a community Consistent with its approach for Evanston Park, Town of Gawler is seeking to include the entire suburb of Hillier within the Town of Gawler. Service delivery efficiencies will be achieved as one Council will be responsible for its Community of Interest, rather than Council’s servicing their respective areas even though this may result in Town of Gawler servicing one side of the road and a neighbouring council servicing the other. The proposed boundary adjustment will allow the Town of Gawler to enable, amongst other things, greater integration in the areas of hard infrastructure, waste services and maintenance activities, soft infrastructure, social infrastructure, open space, connectivity and walking and cycling trails which the subject communities already rely upon. Consolidation of local government administrative services will generate the economies of scale that will more likely assist in the cost of such services being reduced better enabling one Council, as opposed to two Councils, achieving reductions in rates that residents and business have to pay.
2. Proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers The inclusion of all land situated within Hillier formally within the Town of Gawler will enable those impacted residents to have a stronger voice within the community (by having appropriate representation in local decision making) and financially contribute towards the services and infrastructure utilised and enjoyed by the community. This will benefit the entire Gawler Community of Interest as it will provide greater equity for current Gawler rate payers who have been heavily servicing a Community of Interest much larger than its current rate base and will provide Council with greater capacity to deliver improved services and
Page 49 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 51 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 infrastructure to the growing Gawler community (current and future proposed rate payers) and the region. While current residential rates in the dollar and the impact on residents from the Areas of Interest have been quoted in opposition to Council’s proposal. Town of Gawler considers any speculation in this regard to be premature. It is important to note the limitations in comparing the General Rates applied between one Council and another, given the considerable differences that invariably apply between Councils, including, but not limited to, the following factors: • Different demographics and characteristics • Different long term goals and strategies • Different Rating methodologies (e.g. % of revenue derived from different land uses (e.g. Residential vs Commercial Rates, etc.), Minimum Rate vs Fixed Charge) • Different range of services and/or different service levels for a particular service • Age/Condition of Fixed Asset stock (e.g. the condition and age profile of a Council’s asset portfolio may currently require a higher investment in asset replacement/renewal and/or upgrades, thereby influencing depreciation and investment income / finance charges). Cost of living pressures being reduced, by one Council being able to achieve the economies of scale in service delivery, will more than likely materialise by keeping the pressure down of council rates thus benefiting current and future residents, which would otherwise not be realised. Given the complexities of this matter, Council is of the expectation that a full review of General Rates will be undertaken during the boundary reform process taking into consideration community consultation and to be informed by the outcomes of any investigation
3. A council should have a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently This principle is addressed in the response below.
4. A council should offer its community a reasonable range of services delivered on an efficient, flexible, equitable and responsive basis Town of Gawler has undertaken due diligence in the form of a high level financial analysis as part of its boundary reform investigations which is provided as Attachment 2 for information. Town of Gawler is confident that the proposed inclusion of the Areas of Interest will not materially impact Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure and services to the Gawler community and the region. If anything the generation of economies of scale will enable greater efficient and effective service outcomes to result. The Town of Gawler invests heavily in servicing and representing its community and, for many years, providing for a community that is much larger than its LGA. While this has provided a great opportunity to showcase Gawler and all it has to offer, it has also put strain on Gawler’s rate payers with Council investing in significant infrastructure and services which benefit not only its rating paying residents but other non- rate paying members of our greater community, including:
• Public Libraries. • Roads and infrastructure. • Parks, gardens, bike tracks and playgrounds. • Sporting precincts. • Waste, recycling and environmental management. • Community services such as youth and community development, environmental health and safety. • Community infrastructure such as the Aquatic Centre and recreation precincts. The above services and infrastructure benefits a community much wider than its rate payers, including the entire Hillier community.
Page 50 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 52 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
The formal inclusion of all land situated within Hillier within the Town of Gawler will enable a truly integrated community and result in greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies that will create additional opportunity for investment, resulting in further improvements (in an integrated manner) to the services and facilities which the community already rely upon.
5. A council should facilitate effective planning and development within an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis Town of Gawler is seeking to establish a planned, organised way forward in its approach to planning and development for its community. More particularly Council has commenced a process to review the rural areas land use zoning provisions in the broader area to which the Hillier is a part of. This precinct of Gawler should be considered in these deliberations given the intrinsic relationship the area has with this greater southern part of Gawler. From an overall governance perspective, the inclusion of all land situated within Hiller within the Town of Gawler will result in the better utlisation of resources, efficient development management for Council and further efficiencies can be realised and appreciated by the private sector through consistent policies and procedures applicable to areas which are essentially identical in nature. The Town of Gawler in this regard can create efficiencies, seek greater integration with a town in which this community will consider themselves apart of and as a result engender greater confidence in the market and seek to promote more opportunity for investment and job creation. 6. A council should be in a position to facilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes The Town of Gawler takes environmental considerations seriously and holds new development to a high standard. The Town of Gawler was in fact one of the first Councils in Australia to declare a climate emergency and as a result are in the process of developing a Climate Emergency Action Plan. The Climate Emergency Action Plan will identify the most strategic opportunities and actions that should be delivered at an appropriate scale within an elevated timeframe, providing immediate, effective and ongoing action with consideration for both Council corporate actions and Council actions to support the community. Amongst numerous strategic documents the Town of Gawler has commissioned the development of a Council wide Biodiversity Management Plan to provide strategic guidance in managing assets of high biodiversity value. This has included identifying areas of high priority for revegetation action, threats to existing biodiversity assets and opportunities for future biodiversity enhancement. Further environmentally focused strategies and guiding documents developed by Council include the Town of Gawler Stormwater Management Plan and the Town of Gawler Environmental Management Plan. Combined these documents allow Council to place environmental considerations at the forefront of our assessment process and ensure development is sympathetic of the natural environment. The Town of Gawler is located where the North and South Para Rivers meet to form the Gawler River. The natural environment plays an integral part of our town’s identity and character and is something the local community feels passionately about. As outlined in Section 2.4 above, as a future Community of Interest, Hillier is already a consideration within Town of Gawler’s planning, however the proposed boundary change will formalise this position and enable truly strategic and holistic way of sustainably planning for the future of our community and the environment.
Page 51 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 53 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
7. A council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations There are many factors which contribute towards the recognition of a Community of Interest, some are tangible and easy to identify/measure while others are more difficult to substantiate and although intangible are still felt through the community, and are equally important. These factors include: value systems, identify, beliefs and sense of belonging; where people, live, work and play; and governance (representing the interests of the community). This is further illustrated in Section 2.2 of this document. Residents of Hillier are already considered part of the Gawler community. Many work in Gawler, their children go to school in Gawler, shop in Gawler precincts and join Gawler sporting teams and competitions. It is important to formalise this through boundary reform so that Council can effectively plan for and represent this community and all Evanston Park residents can be involved in key decisions that impact the services and infrastructure t they enjoy. Consistent with the rationale provided for Hewett, Gawler Belt and Evanston Park, this proposed boundary adjustment will formalise the already existing Community of Interest and provide the impacted residents with a stronger voice in the community regarding the delivery of services and infrastructure. It will also greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies. 8. A council area should incorporate or promote an accessible centre (or centres) for local administration and services Town of Gawler provides quality Customer Service at various locations to deliver all the functions undertaken by Town of Gawler.
The Gawler Administration Centre, located at 43 High Street Gawler East provides a full suite of Customer Service functions from general enquiries, payments of rates, fees and expiation notices, cemeteries administration through to planning and development enquiries. This is also the head office for Council.
The Gawler Civic Centre, located at 89 Murray Street in the heart of Gawler, provides a customer service transaction point through the Library which allows general enquiries, payment of rates, dog registrations and expiation notices. The Civic Centre also provides Youth Programs in the purposely designed Youth Space.
Each of the above locations are utilised to support Community Engagement during public consultation programs and management. Other Customer Service points support the functions of the specific facillity eg Gawler Sports and Community Centre (Nixon Tce Gawler), Gawler Aquatic Centre (Victoria Tce & Main North Rd Gawler) and Council’s Works Depot (Paxton St Willaston).
In addition, the Town of Gawler website provides access to information and provides for online lodgement of development applications and is a payment gateway for customers available 24/7.
9. The importance within the scheme of local government to ensure that local communities within large council areas can participate effectively in decisions about local matters This principle is addressed in the response below.
10. Residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term) The Town of Gawler is currently represented by the Mayor and 10 Area Councillors. Council’s total representation quota (the number of electors for each Councillor) is 1:1,605 (17,659 electors)13, which
13 http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Representation%20Quotas%202018-19.pdf
Page 52 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 54 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 is relatively consistent with the Statewide average representation quota of 1763 and the quotas of local and similar size councils to Gawler as outlined in the table below.
Based on the above information, Town of Gawler is of the view that the inclusion of the proposed areas of interests, including the Hillier are of interest will not have a material impact on representation requirements in the short-mid-term. Town of Gawler is also of the view the inclusion of the Hillier Area of Interest within the Town of Gawler will promote greater participation by all Hillier residents in local matters such as community consultation and decision making, including attendance at community and Council meetings and events. Council’s Representation Review period is currently scheduled for October 2020 - October 2021. Previous advice received from the Boundaries Commission is that it is not clear whether this boundary proposal will Council’s representation review as this would be dependent on the timing of the proposal and the nature of any recommendations. It is further noted that the matter of representation reviews is under consideration as part of the Local Government Reform process. 11. A scheme that provides for the performance of functions and delivery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change Town of Gawler, in partnership with regional partners are already collaborating in a number of areas including:
• Joint funding arrangements through Regional Development Australia, Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains; • Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority • Barossa Regional Procurement Group • Barossa Regional Procurement IT Group • Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority • Health Services – Country Public Health Network • Library Services – with Adelaide Plains Council. • Animal Management Services – sharing of the dog pound with Light Regional Council • Environmental Health Inspectorial Services – ad-hoc support arrangement with Light Regional Council and Adelaide Plains Council. • Information Technology Services (Light Regional Council from 2018 - 2020) • Human Resource Management (with Barossa Council from 2016 - 2019, now provided on an ad-hoc basis) • Dog Park – Light Regional Council contributing to management/maintenance costs The benefits of regional collaboration are acknowledged and opportunities for further collaboration for the benefit of our communities continue to be explored. However, limitations of this approach due to conflicting priorities and policies must also be acknowledged. Town of Gawler believes that through the boundary reform process the proposed boundary adjustments will enable greater efficiencies and
Page 53 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 55 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 provide Council with the capacity to deliver on the wants and needs of its Community of Interest in the most effective way.
Page 54 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 56 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
3.8 Bibaringa (Area 8) and Uleybury (Area 9) The Town of Gawler contains 4 properties in the suburb of Bibaringa, located within Council’s Rural Zone along the eastern boundary. The remainder of Bibaringa falls in the City of Playford with the majority of the suburb being located within the Hills Face Zone.
Additionally the Town of Gawler contains 23 properties in the suburb of Uleybury, also located in Council’s Rural Zone along the eastern boundary. The remainder of Uleybury falls in the City of Playford and within their Hills Face Zone.
The current boundary intercepts 1 property in Bibaringa and a further 3 in Uleybury.
Town of Gawler proposes that council boundaries be re-aligned so that all land situated within Uleybury and Bibaringa be located in the City of Playford, with Bentley Road and Adams Road forming the new boundary. This potential boundary change will impact 4 properties situated in Bibaringa and a further 23 properties situated in Uleybury.
Remove the small area of the Bibaringa suburb which is located in Town of Gawler (highlighted in purple above). Transfer this land to the City of Playford.
Page 55 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 57 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Remove the small area of the Uleybury suburb which is located in Town of Gawler (highlighted in purple above). Transfer this land to the City of Playford. Town of Gawler provides the following information in respect to how this proposed boundary adjustment meets the principles under section 26 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1999.
1. The resources available to local communities should be used as economically as possible while recognising the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within a community As outlined above, there are four properties within Bibaringa and Uleybury situated both in the Town of Gawler and City of Playford. Properties which intercept multiple council boundaries can create inefficiencies as well as frustration for residents who are paying Council rates in two Council areas. In addition, instances where these land owners are seeking to undertake development permission from both Councils is required and in some instances this is elevated to the State Government for assessment. Town of Gawler considered the merits of an Administrative Proposal e.g. “to correct an anomaly that is, in the opinion of the Commission, generally recognised e.g. where the boundary intercepts one or more privately owned properties”, to rectify this issue. The majority of the suburbs of Bibaringa and Uleybury fall within the City of Playford. Consistent with its approach to Evanston Park, Town of Gawler propose that all land situated within Uleybury and Bibaringa be located in the City of Playford. Service delivery efficiencies will be achieved as one Council will be responsible for its Community of Interest, rather than two Council’s servicing their respective areas even though this may result in Town of Gawler servicing one side of the road and a neighbouring council servicing the other.
Page 56 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 58 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Consolidation of local government administrative services will generate the economies of scale that will more likely assist in the cost of such services being reduced better enabling one Council, as opposed to two Councils, achieving reductions in rates that residents and business have to pay.
2. Proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers For the four properties that intercept two council boundaries, the proposed change will remove frustrations associated with interacting with two LGAs and streamline development processes. For the remaining properties, the formal inclusion of all land situated within Bibaringa and Uleybury within the City of Playford will enable those impacted residents to have a stronger voice within their suburbs and the wider community.
3. A council should have a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently Town of Gawler has undertaken due diligence in the form of a high level financial analysis as part of its boundary reform investigations which is provided as Attachment 2 for information. Town of Gawler is confident that the proposed removal of the Bibaringa and Uleybury Areas of Interest will not materially impact Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure and services to the Gawler community and the region. It is not anticipated that the formal inclusion of the 27 properties within the Bibaringa and Uleybury Area of Interest will not materially impact City of Playford’s financial position.
4. A council should offer its community a reasonable range of services delivered on an efficient, flexible, equitable and responsive basis The formal inclusion of all land situated within Bibariga and Uleybury within the City of Playford will enable a truly integrated community for those Areas of Interest. This will also result in greater economies of scale and service delivery efficiencies creating additional opportunity for investment, resulting in further improvements (in an integrated manner) to the services and facilities on which the community already rely.
5. A council should facilitate effective planning and development within an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis From an overall governance perspective, the inclusion of all the land situated in Bibaringa and Uleybury within the City of Playford is likely to result in the better utlisation of resources, efficient development management for Council. In addition, further efficiencies can be realised and appreciated by the private sector through consistent policies and procedures applicable to areas which are essentially identical in nature.
6. A council should be in a position to facilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes The majority of the land within the suburbs of Bibaringa and Uleybury fall within the City of Playford. Town of Gawler considers that the proposed inclusion of the remaining land from these suburbs within the City of Playford will enable a more consistent and holistic approach to the above matters for these areas.
7. A council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations The majority of Uleybury and Bibaringa is already situated within the City of Playford and it is Town of Gawler’s view that this proposed change will enable a truly integrated community for those Areas of Interest.
Page 57 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 59 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
8. A council area should incorporate or promote an accessible centre (or centres) for local administration and services At its closest point, the Bibaringa and Uleybury Area of Interest is approximately 5km from Murray Street within Town of Gawler. In contrast this Area of Interest is approximately 10km from the City of Playford’s Civic Centre. Both Gawler and Playford Councils can provide accessible local administration and services for these Areas of Interest. However for the same reason as outlined above, Town of Gawler is of the view as the majority of Uleybury and Bibaringa is already situated within the City of Playford, this proposed change will enable a truly integrated community for those Areas of Interest.
9. The importance within the scheme of local government to ensure that local communities within large council areas can participate effectively in decisions about local matters The inclusion of the Uleybury and Bibaringa Areas of Interest within the City of Playford will promote greater participation by all residents of those suburbs in local matters such as community consultation and decision making, as well as attendance at community and Council meetings and events.
10. Residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term) The City of Playford is currently represented by the Mayor and 15 Councillors and has a representation quota of 1:3,798 (60,775 electors)14 which is relatively consistent with the quotas of similar size councils. Therefore, Town of Gawler is of the view that the inclusion of the proposed areas of interests, will not have a material impact on representation requirements of City of Playford in the short-mid-term. Furthermore, removal of these Areas of Interest from within Town of Gawler will also not have a material impact on Council’s representation requirements.
11. A scheme that provides for the performance of functions and delivery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change Town of Gawler, in partnership with regional partners are already collaborating in a number of areas including:
• Joint funding arrangements through Regional Development Australia, Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains. • Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority. • Barossa Regional Procurement Group. • Barossa Regional Procurement IT Group. • Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority. • Health Services – Country Public Health Network. • Library Services – with Adelaide Plains Council. • Animal Management Services – sharing of the dog pound with Light Regional Council. • Environmental Health Inspectorial Services – ad-hoc support arrangement with Light Regional Council and Adelaide Plains Council. • Information Technology Services (Light Regional Council from 2018 - 2020). • Human Resource Management (with Barossa Council from 2016 - 2019, now provided on an ad-hoc basis). • Dog Park – Light Regional Council contributing to management/maintenance costs.
14 http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Representation%20Quotas%202018-19.pdf
Page 58 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 60 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
The benefits of regional collaboration are acknowledged and opportunities for further collaboration for the benefit of our communities continue to be explored. However, limitations of this approach due to conflicting priorities and policies must also be acknowledged. Town of Gawler believes that through the boundary reform process the proposed boundary adjustments will enable greater efficiencies and provide Council with the capacity to deliver on the wants and needs of its Community of Interest in the most effective way.
Page 59 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 61 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
ATTACHMENT 1 – AREAS OF INTEREST SUMMARY
Page 60 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 62 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
ATTACHMENT 2 – HIGH LEVEL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS – AREAS OF INTEREST The Table below outlines the indicative ‘high-level’ operating financial analysis, inclusive of a provision for variable, fixed, and semi-fixed costs, in three years’ time. It is conservatively modelled on the communities of interest incurring indexed General Rates based upon their existing Council rates structure. Table …. – Indicative ‘high-level’ Operating analysis from date of Boundary adjustment
$’000s $’000s Operating Revenue: Existing Town of Gawler * 34,000 ‘New’ revenue - Communities of interest (based on indexed 4,810 indicative costs included in the 10 September 2019 report)
TOTAL Operating Revenue 38,810
Operating Expenditure: Existing Town of Gawler * 34,000 ‘New’ expenditure - Communities of interest: Variable costs** 4,270 ‘New’ expenditure - Communities of interest: Other costs – 360 staffing (4.0FTE including on-costs) ‘New’ expenditure – Communities of interest: Other costs – 180 excl. staffing
TOTAL Operating Expenditure 38,810
Net Operating Result – Surplus/(Deficit)** 0 *Based on existing Long Term Financial Plan projection, which assumes financial forecasts for the intervening years are achieved consistent with projections included in the Plan **Based on indexed indicative costs included in the 10 September 2019 report - https://s3-ap- southeast-2.amazonaws.com/tog-public-assets/agendas-minutes/Council/10-09-2019-Council- Agenda-Special.pdf ***An important disclaimer is that the indicative balanced operating result does not provide for any increased interest costs as a result of increased borrowings to fund additional capital works (over and above the value already provided for in the Long Term Financial Plan) towards potential infrastructure backlogs within the Communities of Interest. A further point of consideration is that Council’s existing Long Term Financial Plan is particularly predicated on capping future capital works expenditure to an indexed $6.3m, such that Council will have the capacity to materially reduce its debt over coming years so that it can incrementally increase its future borrowing capacity for its next iconic asset investment (in this regard, earlier this calendar year Council recognised its next iconic projects as being the Karbeethan Reserve redevelopment and a regional Aquatic Centre). It is noted that Council’s Corporate and Community Services Committee at its meeting on 13 November 2019 received update reports on both the Karbeethan Reserve Master Plan and Essex Park Master Plan. The existing Long Term Financial Plan forecasts that, all else being equal, and with enshrined financial discipline, Council will be able to reduce its debt by over $7m between 2020/21 and 2024/25 and, over the same period, reduce its Net Financial Liabilities Ratio from 90% to 57%. Should such targets be realised, the existing Town of Gawler would have accumulated new loan borrowing capacity of approximately $12m as at 30 June 2025 (based on maintaining the Net Financial Liabilities Ratio at 90%, which is within Council’s existing maximum policy position of 100%).
Page 61 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 63 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
However, in the event of various material infrastructure backlogs being acquired from the Communities of Interest, an expanded Town of Gawler could face emerging challenges relative to its capital works program priorities. Such challenges may be further exacerbated by the potential need for capital investment in flood mitigation infrastructure within the Gawler Belt area.
Page 62 of 62
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1C-28JULY2020 PAGE 64 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Ms Karen Redman Mayor Town of Gawler PO Box 130 Gawler SA 5118
Notification of stage 1 potential boundary proposal
Dear Mayor Redman
Thank you for your letter of 3 December 2020 outlining the potential proposal for a boundary change from the Town of Gawler (the Council), as required by the Boundaries Commission’s (the Commission’s) Guideline 3 — Submitting a General Proposal to the Commission.
As you are aware, the intent of the two-stage requirement under Guideline 3 is to enable the Commission to provide advice it considers relevant to a potential general proposal before extensive work is done to fully-develop the proposal.
This advice may assist councils in a decision to proceed to refer a general proposal to the Commission (Stage 2), and also to ensure that matters that the Commission considers important to the proposal are fully covered in this Stage.
At its meeting on 20 January 2020, the Commission considered the Council’s Potential Proposal along with all correspondence received in relation to the potential proposal.
The Commission agreed that the Council may refer a general proposal for the Commission’s consideration if it wishes to do so. Please note that advice from the Commission that a general proposal can be submitted does not guarantee that the proposal will be formally accepted.
When discussing potential proposals, the Commission gives close consideration to the principles contained under section 26 of the Local Government Act 1999 (the Act). These principles are of fundamental importance to boundary change proposals and ultimately form the basis of any recommendation that the Commission may make to the Minister. It is for this reason that the Commission’s Guidelines require prospective initiators to consider these principles at the outset of a potential proposal.
The Commission notes the significant work that the Council has undertaken to develop its potential proposal, including the details of the Community of Interest and consideration of the section 26 principles and how these relate to the identified areas.
The Commission noted the important role that the Council plays in providing services to a developing and expanding region and noted the potential significance of this proposal for the region.
Due to the significant scope of this potential proposal, I bring your attention to Section 30 of the Act and Guideline 2 which outline a simplified pathway for consideration of boundary change proposals that are minor administrative matters. The Council may wish to consider the
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1D-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 option of referring an Administrative proposal to the Commission where proposed boundary changes are minor administrative matters.
As set out in stage 2 of Guideline 3, if the Council wishes to refer a general proposal to the Commission, the Commission recommends that the Council strongly identify how the proposal links to the Section 26 principles. More specifically, the Council may wish to identify the cultural, heritage, shopping, community services, sporting or any other component that the Council identifies that in the Council’s view form the social fabric of the area, for each discrete boundary change that the Council may propose.
The proposal should also include evidence of the consultation process undertaken by the Council with the community and key stakeholders in relation to the proposal. Although the Commission will undertake its own consultation if it decides to investigate a proposal, it is expected that the Council would undertake consultation with identified stakeholders and the community more widely.
As set out in Guideline 3, councils are required to—
Provide a balanced representation of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal Identify stakeholder groups, providing details of the interests and identity of each. Discuss impacts of the proposal on each group, and record any significant opposition known to the applicant council or councils and the basis of this.
The Commission is aware that the Council has received correspondence from the Light Regional Council and businesses in opposition to the proposal. Details of this correspondence and any other significant opposition known to the Council should be included in the Council’s proposal along with information about the support for the proposal.
If the Council refers a general proposal to the Commission, the Commission will assess the proposal in accordance with the Act and guidelines and determine whether to inquire into the proposal or to refuse to.
If the Commission determines to investigate the proposal, the Commission will inform the Council of its decision. In accordance with Guideline 4, information will also be provided on the estimated costs of the investigations, so that the Council can make a final decision whether or not to proceed to the investigations stage. Please note, due to the significance and scale of the potential boundary changes it is expected that the cost of the investigation may not be insignificant.
As set out in Guideline 9, I have notified the councils affected by the potential proposal that the Commission has agreed that the Council may refer a general proposal if the Council wishes to do so.
I also advise that, under the Commission’s publication policy, the information about the potential proposal has been made available at— www.dpti.sa.gov.au/local_govt/boundary_changes
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1D-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
I trust that this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please contact Mr Thomas Rossini in the Office of Local Government on 7109 7443, or [email protected].
Yours sincerely
Bruce Green Chair, SA Local Government Boundaries Commission 10 February 2020
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1D-28JULY2020 PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 1,953 LiG HT
18 May 2020 REGIO NAL COUNCIL
Mr Bruce Green Boundaries Commission GPO Box 2329 Adelaide SA 5001
Dear Mr Green
Re: Structural Reform Proposal
I advise that at the Light Regional Councils Ordinary April meeting held on Tuesday, 28 April 2020, Council resolved to proceed with a submission to the Boundaries Commission, for structural reform.
Light Reqional Council The Light Regional Council includes 46% of the famed Barossa Valley (Seppeltsfield, Marenanga, Greenock, etc) and is located to the north of the greater metropolitan area of Adelaide. The region enjoys the benefits associated with the Barossa Valley together with the richness in mining heritage and premier farming country. Encompassing the townships of Kapunda, Freeling, Greenock, Roseworthy, Wasleys, and the suburb of Hewett, the Light Regional Council is a progressive, growth, regional Council. it takes in a diverse and thriving area of broad acre farming, vimculture (eg. Seppeltsfield) and appealing rural-urban living options. The Council continues to attract important viticultural and agricultural development to the area, along with associated support industries (eg. Ahrens Group, Amcoo. Significant industrial growth contributes to creating additional opportunities for employment and economic development in the area, Light Regional Council's Population as of 2019: 15,359 Area: 1,278 kma
Background Two of our neighbouring Councils have lodged proposals with the Boundaries Commission: . 17 October 2019, The Barossa Council- Stage I Boundary Realignment proposal, . 4 December 2019, the Town of Gawler - Stage I Boundary Change proposal. Both Stage I proposals were accepted by the Boundaries Commission and confirmation to proceed to Stage 2 was provided by the Commission.
Postal Address: PO Box 72, Kapunda, South Australia 5373 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1E-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 Telephone: (08) 85253200 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 Email^ light@lightsa. gnu. ," Principal Omce Website: WWW. lightsa. gov. au Branch Omce 93 Main Street, Kapunda* SA 5373 12 Hanson Street, Freeling, SA 5372 Light Regional CouncilABN: 35455 84162S Light Regional Council at its Tuesday, 10 December 2019 ordinary meeting resolved that letters be sent to The Barossa Council and the Town of Gawler, requesting both Councils defer or withdraw their Boundary Reform Proposals. Preferring all Councils to redirect their time and resources, to collaborate and pursue a Regional Vision, presented to and supported by Regional Development Australia Barossa Gawler Light Adelaide Plains Inc at their Board meeting of 14 August 2019, so as to benefit the region as a whole. The Regional Vision is discussed further below within this proposal, On the 18 February 2020, The Barossa Council resolved not to undertake a formal (stage 2) general submission to the SA Local Government Boundaries Commission at this time but continue to engage with stakeholders informalIy. The Town of Gawler on Tuesday, 25 February 2020. at its February Ordinary meeting resolved to confirm its intention to strategically progress with its proposed Boundary Reforms in demonstration of its commitment to delivering services to its communities of interest, Light Regional Council, at its Tuesday, 28 April2020 ordinary meeting, resolved to proceed with a submission to the Boundaries Commission, for structural reform, citing that the proposal by the Town of Gawler is not in the Region's economic interests and the following resolution being passed: Moved Cr Grain Seconded Cr Kennelly I. That the presentation from the Chief Executive Officer titled Boundary Proposals "Update" be noted and supported. 2. That Light Regional Council acknowledge and appreciate the decision by The Barossa Council (I8.2.20) not to undertake a formal(stage 2) general submission on boundary reform in I^, vour of other Regional priorities at this time. 3. That Light Regional Council express its disappointment of the Town of Gawler s decision (25.2.20) to progress its boundary ratorm proposals to Stage 2 des^to several requests for them to withdraw or defer in the interest of progressing the Regional Vision. 4. That Li^ht Regional Council considers the decision by the Town of Gawler to proceed to be insular and self-serving and not in the Region's economic interests particularly given the recent adverse economic impacts to Australia and our Region due to China-Us Trade Conflicts, bushfires, drought and now the emerging effects of CowD-I9; demandihg a positive Regional response as being articulated in the draft Regional Vision by the Councils of Adelaide Plains, Barossa and the Li^ht Regional Council 5. Given that the Town of Gawler has decided to proceed with its flawed boundary proposals, the Chief Executive Officer of the Light Regional Council ^^ instructed to lodge a (Stage I) submission to the Boundaries Commission proposing 'Regional Structural Reform" in support of the Regional Vision. 6. The Regional Structural Reform' proposal from Light Regional Council to divide the Local Government area under the jurisdiction of the Gawler Council between The Barossa Council, City of Plaitord and Light Regional Council applying the natural water courses of North and South Para and Gawler Rivers as logical boundaries (see Map - Append^^ 73. IG of the Agenda Report) 7. That Light Regional Council considers the 'Regional Structural Reform' package by redeploying the assets and resources currently under the Iurisdibtion of the Town of Gawler wingenerate Regional opportunities, enhance efficient and effective Regional decision-makihg and create a more productive use of the Town of Gawler 'S assets and resources in the interest of the entire Region. 8. That Light Regional Council emphasise that this proposal is to support the residents and ratepayers of the current Town of Gawler, as the Town of Gawler and its heritage will continue and remain a SIgmficant feature of the Region's ft, bric; whilst its local government jurisdiction will be spread over 3 Councils, ' Playford, Barossa and Li^ht Regional Council, providing enjoiencies and productivity in the communities and Region 's interest. APPENDIXCARRIED COUNCIL 13.1E-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission letter 18 May 2020 Page 2 Liaht Regional Council Submission The Light Regional Council would like to proceed with a general proposal, as set out under Chapter 3, Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1999. The intent of Light Regional Council's boundary proposal has a focus on structural reform, providing for regional productivity improvements and strengthening the regional governance and economies of the area by redistributing the Town of Gawler Council area and assets. between the neighbouring Councils of The Barossa Council, City of Playford and the Light Regional Council. The boundaries would then follow the natural geographic features of the North Para, South Para and Gawler Rivers:
Light Regional Council
^ The Barossa Council I,
UGHr I
, ^~ .. ,,,. Co .,:, I\ "c, Q* 8*~ I *,' ,. *^e* ,~ ~a, QV V~ ~" , '^,^, 17 e" \. ^;^. ",.<. ^,. \ \ ^. \ \ 4*. b, *. ,,^ ^, I \ ^, by ,;;;;^ Boundaries Rationale;. Playford Council \ ,,,,^, . Natural Geographic Features \ Water \ ^I North Para River 21 South Pare River 31 Gawler Rivers
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1E-28JULY2020 PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission letter 18 May 2020 Page 3 Distribution of the Town of Gawler's small area into the aforementioned adjoining Councils will result in their increased capacity, allowing regional productivity improvements via better use of Gawler assets and Local Government economies of scale. The proposed structural reform strongly supports the Principles in section 26 of the Local Government Act 7999 (the Act). Primarily: (c) (i) the resources avalable to local communities should be used as economical!y as possible while recognising the desirability of avoid^^g significant divisions within a community; (Ij) proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers, ' (111) a council should have a sufficient resource base to full7/ its functions I^, Irly, effective!y and efficiently; (v) a council should facilitate effective planning and development un'thin an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis, ' (vO a council should be in a position to focilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes, ' (xi, a scheme that provides for the performance of functions and del^^ery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change, ' it will also facilitate in strengthening the outcomes of The Barossa Council, City of Playford and the Light Regional Council, as outlined in Section 7, functions of a Council, in the Act. in particular (a) To plan at the local and regional level for the development and future requirements of its area; (b) To provide services and focil^ties that benefit its area, ^ts ratepayers and residents, and visitors to its area (including general public services or facilities (includrng electribity, gas and water services or focilities), health, well^re or community services or faciMi^s, and cultural or recreational services oriacilities); (9) To promote its area and to provide attractive climate and locations for the development of business, commerce, industry and tourism Structural boundary change, along with delivery of the Regional Vision, aims to deliver beneficial outcomes to the community in a more strategic and efficient way. Efficiencies, productivity and effectiveness can be demonstrated. For example: . With regional support, the function of the Gawler Main Street could be vastly improved and repositioned as the 'Gateway to the Barossa'. . The current Civic Centre could be converted to a regional Headquarters for major business and as a technical centre for the entire region . The City of Playford, with its Regional Commercial Centre could easily absorb the delineated Gawler suburbs (marked yellow on the map) and more effectiveIy and efficiently deliver local government services . Light Regional Council currently delivers exceptional local government services to the Hewett community and with the incorporation of Willaston could deliver those same services more effectiveIy and efficiently to that community.
The Regional Vision The objective of the Regional Vision is to partner with the State and Federal Governments, for investing in an envelope of economic stimulus projects over a I5-year period (2020-2035) that will achieve 3-4% annual economic growth. This is in line with the State Government's "Growth State" plans and would boost the local economy which has averaged only 0.6% annual economic growth over the past decade. The draft Regional Vision focusses on water infrastructure, agriculture, viticulture and tourism industries and leverages significant private sector spend in these sectors as well as planned residential growth (Roseworthy Township Expansion). The total public and private infrastructure spend in the plan is estimated at around $3.5b and would achieve 5.69'0 annual economic growth, creating up to 40,000 jobs over the 15 years to 2035.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1E-28JULY2020 PAGE 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission letter 18 May 2020 Page 4 ,,".,."., a, no'sA ^...^ INFRA5TUCTURE SPEND "infra A. Resident, al 53.5 bill, on "rin-r's, dent, al <52'~ 52.4bij, ,., .., \ I . ^I Tourism *". ^ 'Emergency Services "^.. "...." 51 24 million S 35 mill, on
I'm, E
?Sport$30mj, and ,,,, rerrea n Lag, ,11cs $30 hilum ^ " ,. BARDS5A ^..^ AND , Ware, HIN ERLAND $380m, , . I ^,^ ^'elec. mmunications 510 million Health
$250 .nl""Uric" ring, .use
Bon^,, Transport .^L S I2 0 milli. one'An"e QinP. "r fed"canon. rr"nin and sk, 115 h . ^ADELAIDE '{jinludi"gin, arm^anal $ag ninth. "
On behalf of the Light Regional Council I respectfully seek support for this Stage I proposal. Your approval to proceed to Stage 2 will facilitate a comprehensive consultation process to be undertaken by Light Regional Council with the effected/adjoining Councils related to meaningful structural reform in the economic and productive interests of the Region.
Should you wish to discuss this submission further. please do not hesitate to contact me on telephone 85253200 or Brian Carr. Chief Executive Officer on 85223200 or via email at bcarr@light. sagov. au
Yours sincerely,
. , Mayor Phone: 85253200 Email: bobrien@light. sa. gov. au
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1E-28JULY2020 PAGE 5 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission letter , 8 May 2020 Page 5 Doc ID: 3991/3: 400346: 40,299 ^;^ LiG HT
30 October 2019 REGIONAL COUNCIL Mr Bruce G en I^^2. .UC^., . Chair Boundaries Commission GPO Box 2329 Adelaide SA 5001
Per e-mail: boundaries. commission@sa gov. au
Dear Sir,
Boundary Reform Proposals -Town of Gawler, The Barossa Council and Light Regional Council I refer to the letter to you dated 21 October 2019 with respect to this matter Background Light Regional Council is currently located in a number of identified regions created either by statute or to serve a specific purpose (Table I ). Three of these regions have common boundaries as highlighted in the table.
Table I Current Regions affecting Light Regional Council
Current Regions Legislation Light Regional Barossa, Light and Lower North SA Govt Council Region Greater Adelaide Planning Region PDI Act Character Preservation District (Part) Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Act Barossa, Light and Lower North Regional SA Public Health Act Public Health Planning Legatus I Central LGA Local Government Act Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Natural Resource Management Act Region Regional Development AUS. Barossa Barossa Valley Geographical Indication (Part)
Proposed Regions Northern and Yorke Landscape Region Landscape SA Bill
Common boundaries
Postal Address: PO Box 72, Kapunda, South Australia 5373 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1F-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 Telephone; (08) 85253200 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1 Email: light@lightsa. gov. au Principal Office Website: WWW. lightsa. gov. au Branch Office 93 Main Street, Kapunda, SA 5373 12 Hanson Street, Freeling, SA 5372 Light Regional CouncilABN 35455841625 Town of Gawler Proposals At a Special Council meeting on 10 September 2019, the Town of Gawler (Gawler Council) adopted a 16-part resolution which, amongst related considerations, at part ‘8’ “adopted in principle” the addition of parts of neighbouring council areas to the Gawler Council as the basis for its preparation of a ‘Stage 1’ proposal. The affected areas identified by the Gawler Council for inclusion in its expansion proposals are: The Barossa Council (Barossa Council): – Concordia (Growth Area) and a portion of Kalbeeba (including a part of Springwood). It is noted that the addition of the portion of Springwood to the Gawler Council had been supported by Barossa Council in a resolution on 16 April 2019. City of Playford: – Evanston Park (part) and Hillier. Light Regional Council: - Hewett, Reid and Gawler Belt (portion south of Redbanks/ Edward Roads) and possibly Roseworthy This resolution followed an earlier resolution by the Gawler Council on 28 May 2019 announcing its intentions to progress a boundary reform proposal involving parts of the Barossa Council and Light Regional Council areas. There was no mention of including the City of Playford area at that stage. Barossa Council and Light Regional Council and their affected communities were not consulted prior to the passage of the Gawler Council’s May 2019 resolution. It is not clear whether the City of Playford was consulted prior to the September 2019 Gawler Council resolution. I note that Gawler Council subsequently considered a related motion on 22 October 2019 that sought to halt its pursuit of boundary expansion until the views of parties directly affected had been canvassed further. This motion was narrowly lost (5 to 4). The Barossa Council Proposal On 17 September 2019 The Barossa Council adopted a resolution "instructing the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and lodge a proposal for boundary reform ... as a high priority with a target submission being made by 31 October 2019, or the Chief Executive Officer advise Council of an alternative date if this cannot be achieved at the October meeting of Council”. Simply put, the Barossa Council seeks to add a greater amount, but not all, of the Barossa Geographical Indication (GI) to its area. The Barossa GI extends westwards into the Light Regional Council area to include Freeling, Templers and then land east of Horrocks Highway heading south towards Gawler. In an anomalous feature, Hewett, Gawler East, Gawler South, Concordia and Kalbeeba are all also included in the Barossa GI area. For the purposes of boundary reform, The Barossa Council’s interest in the Light Regional Council area affects and includes Koonunga, Nain, Daveyston, Greenock, Seppeltsfield, Marananga, and the Western Ridge of the Barossa (Gomersal, etc.). This area is shown on the map excerpt below:-
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1F-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 2
Light Regional Council is aware that the Mid Murray Council has similarly been approached by The Barossa Council with respect to a transfer of its parts of the Barossa GI through boundary reform to The Barossa Council. The Barossa Council has provided no reasoning to Light Regional Council for its choice to focus on gaining more of the Barossa GI, other than expressing a preference that as much of the Barossa GI should be contained within one Local Government Area (LGA) (i.e. Barossa Council) as possible. The agenda report considered by The Barossa Council on 17 September 2019 offers a little more: being 1. The Barossa Council supporting and overseeing the majority of the area known as the Barossa GI (Geographical Indication); 2. Bringing together of communities of interest, generally defined as shared cultural, identity, place, social, economic and environmental interests under the banner of one Council driven by the strategic goal of the Barossa GI under one umbrella; 3. Looking for opportunities to better coordinate land use policy, economic development, tourism integration and service across these communities of interest. 4. Potentially looking for efficiencies in service provision. As with all councils, land use policy is being coordinated already by the State Government through its introduction of the Planning and Design Code, which is currently on consultation and will be ‘in place’ by 1 July 2020. Both Barossa and Light Regional Councils already collaborate with regional interests, such as the Regional Development Australia – Barossa membership, providing membership and financial support for the ‘Tourism Barossa Inc.’ and supporting financially and in-kind the ‘Barossa Partnerships’ project (together with State Government). Also, the Adelaide Plains, Barossa, Gawler and Light Regional Councils have been evaluating the establishment of a Joint Planning Board as part of the pilot program commencedAPPENDIX COUNCIL in 2018. 13.1F-28JULY2020 While PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 3 Adelaide Plains has resolved not to proceed at this point in time, the Town of Gawler and the Light Regional Council both committed to proceed with the next step of the project (Business Case development) to further evaluate the opportunities and benefits at their meetings on 25 June 2019. The Barossa Council also later resolved to continue in the project on 20 August 2019, once it had an understanding of the position of the other councils and further related information from State Government. These collaborations address economic development and tourism integration, ostensibly addressing items 2, 3 and 4 of The Barossa Council report of 17 September 2019 (listed above) leaving point 1 as the main aim, being ‘control’ over the majority of the Barossa GI area. Per the ‘barossawine.com’ website, the Barossa GI: (this website is that of the Barossa Grape & Wine Association’s and therefore represents their strong industry views.) …“is an official description of an Australian wine zone, region or sub-region. The GI system is designed to protect the use of the regional name under international law and is governed by the Geographical Indications Committee, overseen by Wine Australia. The Barossa (zone) is located north of the city of Adelaide in South Australia. It comprises two distinct and complementary regions, Barossa Valley and Eden Valley, which were formalised in 1997. High Eden is the only officially declared sub-region. The GI is purely geographic in concept, similar to the European Designation of Origin system.” The Barossa GI is therefore intrinsically linked to the internationally recognised Barossa ‘Brand’. The Barossa Council’s intent then can only be construed as an endeavour to have the majority of the Barossa ‘Brand’ within its boundaries. However, the ‘Barossa’ as both a ‘place’ and a ‘Brand’, stands alone and has no direct relationship with local government boundaries established under the Local Government Act, 1999. As the Council and its legislated functions are quite separate from such considerations, this is a curious motivation and further may also carry with it unintended risks. Further commentary on this is provided in the following sections. Light Regional Council’s Position Light Regional Council sees itself in the position of ‘respondent’ with respect to its neighbour’s ambitions. Light Regional Council has considered the initiatives of its neighbouring Councils at its meetings held on 24 September 2019 and 22 October 2019. Excerpts from the minutes of these meetings relative to this matter are attached (Appendix 1 and 2) for your reference. Simply put, Light Regional Council does not support the actions of its neighbouring councils and sees no basis for the proposals that have been put forward. In contrast, in particular with the Gawler Council, Light Regional Council is united in its position with respect to this issue. It is understood that both Gawler Council and Barossa Council have lodged their respective ‘Stage 1’ proposal submissions for the consideration of the Boundaries Commission. It is the Light Regional Council’s view that each of these proposals is ‘fundamentally flawed’. This submission is provided as per part 3 of the Light Regional Council’s resolution of 22 October 2019 (attached as Appendix 2) with regard to section 29 of the Local Government Act, 1999. Reform Principles Light Regional Council offers the following points with respect to the measure of these proposals against the principles under section 26(1)(c) of the Local Government Act, 1999: (i) the resources available to local communities should be used as economically as possible while recognising the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within a community; Gawler Council Proposals While it has been requested by Light Regional Council, there is no evidence of community support for the Gawler Council proposals either from within the Gawler Council or from the affected areas of Light Regional Council. In fact, the Gawler Council itself is divided in its position on this important issue, based upon its voting record with respect to this matter. Further, there is significant evidence of community opposition to Gawler’s boundary change proposals. From 17 September 2019 to the date hereof, the Gawler CouncilAPPENDIX Facebook COUNCIL page 13.1F-28JULY2020 has PAGE 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 4 had 81 posts from Hewett and Gawler Belt residents expressing their strong opposition to becoming part of the Gawler Council. A sample of these is attached as Appendix 3. Light Regional Council is also aware that Mr. Michael Hickinbotham, Managing Director of the Hickinbotham Group, has written to you separately in opposition to Roseworthy becoming a part of the Gawler Council area or being adversely affected by the changes. Similarly, correspondence received from Mr Joe Oppedisano, Managing Director, Land Vision Group, highlights that significant commercial, community and government services from St Yves at Roseworthy will “provide much needed services to Hewett, Gawler Belt and the greater Light Regional residents” thereby questioning the merits of the Town of Gawler argument (refer Appendix 4). Barossa Council Proposal As with the Gawler Council’s proposals, there is no evidence of community support from Barossa Council or from the areas affected of Light Regional Council. Light Regional Council has previously requested same from The Barossa Council. However, there is significant evidence of community opposition to Barossa Council’s boundary change proposal. So far this has been expressed in submissions from: Mr. Warren Randall – Proprietor/ Executive Chair – Seppeltsfield (who owns approximately 20% of the Barossa) - Appendix 5 Sharyn Rogers – Chairperson – Seppeltsfield Road Business Alliance (representing 28 businesses in the Light Regional Council area and based upon a survey of its membership which revealed very positive support for remaining in the Light Regional Council) - Appendix 6 Martin Pfeiffer – Owner/ Operator Whistler Wines P/L - Appendix 7 At the time of writing, a petition circulating Greenock in opposition to this proposal has 124 signatures - Appendix 8 Copies of these submissions are attached for your information and, more generally, we include for your information various community letters to local media as a sample, expressing objection to both the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council’s boundary proposals, yet the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council still proceed with their proposals (Appendix 9). (ii) proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers; Barossa Council has not articulated these benefits, other than mentioning that it will bring together “communities of interest….under the banner of one Council driven by the strategic goal of the Barossa GI under one umbrella”. As the Barossa Brand is so intrinsically linked with the Barossa GI, Light Regional Council which has 46% of the GI within its area, contends that there are equally risks involved in the approach that The Barossa Council has put forward. Such a vitally significant Brand with international recognition should not be so strongly linked with a local government authority, as its future standing and reputation could also then be linked to the performance of that particular council from that point forwards. Light Regional Council has the view that no Local Government authority ought to hold itself out as owning the ‘Barossa’ name, brand and place. To do so puts the iconic Barossa brand at significant risk. Additionally, it was noted in Mr Warren Randall’s correspondence (refer Appendix 5) to The Barossa Council’s Mayor that there is little, if any, confidence in The Barossa Council when it comes to project delivery such as Bunyip Water. Mr Randall illustrated his point as follows:- “When the regional Gawler Water Reuse project was in jeopardy for lack of a private partner, the councils of Barossa and Gawler walked away. They deserted Light Regional Council and left it to either go it alone or abandon the project. To Light Regional Council’s credit, it worked through the challenge, resolved to borrow the matching funds of $11 million and negotiated an arrangement with Seppeltsfield. Light Regional Council had the vision, the determination and the capability to secure this critical infrastructure for our region. The Barossa Council and Gawler did not. APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1F-28JULY2020 PAGE 5 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 5 The future requires more water re-use infrastructure and strategies to waterproof the Barossa. Performance and history tell us that we cannot have confidence in The Barossa Council’s capacity to deliver this essential aspiration. If there needs to be any boundary adjustments, you will find that many of your ratepayers would prefer to leave Barossa Council and become part of Light Regional Council.” Mayor Bim Lange responded (refer Appendix 10) by stating “we however have a very different view as to the genesis of this project” (Bunyip Water). In order to put the record straight, we sought a note from Mr Chris Kauffman, the independent advisor at the time, who strongly verified the position put forward by Mr Randall (see Appendix 11).
Gawler Council expresses ‘benefit’ as greater representation and opportunity for input into local decision-making. However the data provided by Gawler in the agenda for its meeting held on 24 September 2019 also indicates that an owner of residential land at Hewett would pay more in rates per annum by switching to Gawler Council. (iii) a council should have a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently; The Light Regional Council’s journey has been quite remarkable. Its operating deficit peaked at $3.647m in 2010; and since that time it has implemented various initiatives to improve its operating position to a $1.529m surplus in 2018. Furthermore, its net financial liabilities ratio has significantly improved largely due to its innovative approach to strategic projects, such as Bunyip Water. Similarly, the Light Regional Council Asset Sustainability Ratio has substantially improved and will continue to improve largely due to its Accelerated Infrastructure Project (see Appendix 12). We include for your information comparative financial ratios of Barossa and Gawler. We do not wish to comment specifically on the governance and financial performance of those Councils as the figures speak for themselves. Suffice to say that Light Regional Council takes pride in its governance and financial performance as a leading Regional Council. More generally, Light Regional Council’s financial position is on par, if not better, than its neighbouring Councils; however it would be significantly affected by success of any or both of the Gawler and Barossa Council proposals, as shown below.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1F-28JULY2020 PAGE 6 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 6 Light Regional Council’s rate resource is reduced by 32% leaving a residual of $11.1m while The Barossa Council and the Town of Gawler’s rate revenue will substantially increase as shown below:-
‘the proposal by the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council will substantially erode the Light Regional Council rate base rendering the residual area unsustainable’. With the impending delivery of the Roseworthy Township Expansion by the Light Regional Council, such an economic shift is iniquitous and presents enormous capacity risks on to the Light Regional Council. Shifting boundaries as proposed by Gawler and Barossa Councils within the Region provides no economic or other benefit; it is not structural reform; in fact, it is detrimental to the Region and contrary to the intent of Section 26 of the Local Government Act. (iv) a council should offer its community a reasonable range of services delivered on an efficient, flexible, equitable and responsive basis; Rather than the more ‘centralised’ approaches of the Gawler Council and Barossa Council (featuring one large ‘central’ head office) Light Regional Council integrates into its community by maintaining a presence in Kapunda (Principal Office and Library), Freeling (Branch Office, Library and Depot) Greenock (Library) and at the Hewett Centre. Light Regional Council is already considering a presence that it will provide in the expanded Roseworthy development (see Appendix 13). Light Regional Council has empowered its community, delegating responsibility and providing resources (financial and in-kind) to support the community’s management of the Dutton Park Inc. Sporting Facility, the Freeling Recreation Grounds and the Wasleys Community Group (reference Appendix 15). Council has supported community initiatives, assisting with securing grant funding and managing commercial arrangements to enable the development of the new Kapunda Bowling Club facility at Montefiore Street and the recently opened ($5m) Freeling Agriculture, Recreation and Multi- purpose (FARM) Centre. In a presentation on this matter, the Chief Executive Officer articulated the Light Regional Council’s approach to Community Management (rather than centralised ‘local governance’) in the following points: • A Stable, Skilled and Focused Chamber • An entrepreneurial spirit which manifests itself into strategic outcomes; e.g. Bunyip Water • We put ratepayers and community first by active listening and response. • We apply a culture of unity and inclusiveness • We adopt a community empowerment model which nurtures confidence and responsible partnerships • We deliver a Progressive program guided by our “Growth, Reform, Innovation and Discipline” G.R.I.D. philosophy. APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1F-28JULY2020 PAGE 7 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 7 • The outcomes are driven and delivered by a skilled, empowered and united management team who forge public private partnerships. Light Regional Council has been the main driver of economic stimuli for the entire Region, through:- • $60m External grant funding • $22m Bunyip Water Scheme • $15m Accelerated Infrastructure Program • $5m F.A.R.M Centre • $4m Hewett Community Centre • The Light Regional Council “G.I. part (46%)” has secured $18.2m on Direct Projects and associated projects to the LRC – G.I. part of a further $10.6m, totalling $28.8m. (v) a council should facilitate effective planning and development within an area, and be constituted with respect to an area that can be promoted on a coherent basis; With respect to regulatory planning, since 2010, the Light Regional Council Development Plan has been updated 13 times, including 6 times by the Minister and 7 times by Council. This is comparable with both The Barossa Council and the Town of Gawler. However, attempts to update it further since August 2016 have not been supported by the Department of Planning, Transport & Infrastructure, due to the ongoing Planning Reforms. In addition, this progressive Council has invested in its Economic Development team, developed a Tourism Plan and commenced work on a specific Economic Development Plan in advance of and leading its neighbouring Councils down the path of economic prosperity at limited financial impact to its ratepayers.” Where Light Regional Council has excelled however has been its regional leadership in innovative economic projects, set to continue through initiatives “in the pipeline” including:- Seppeltsfield (“in confidence”) (including Gerald Roberts Road - $4.5m); and Kidman Experience (Kapunda) ($120m Regional Package)
This package is being presented to the Premier (SA) on 4 November 2019. Regional Economic Vision with features:- o Food Export o Regional Airport o Water Reuse – NAIS; VPS; Roseworthy Stormwater; Bunyip and BIL o University of Adelaide o Roseworthy Township Expansion o Wine Export (supported by RDA) – (refer Appendix 14) It is noted that the proposal by The Barossa Council will more than likely create a highly litigious impact on the suite of contracts between the Light Regional Council and Seppeltsfield relating to the sophisticated Bunyip Water Re-Use Scheme. Further, the proposals by the Gawler Council and The Barossa Council significantly adversely impacts on the capacity of Light Regional Council to continue its leadership role and regional economic development including the delivery of the Roseworthy Township Expansion. (vi) a council should be in a position to facilitate sustainable development, the protection of the environment and the integration of land use schemes; The Barossa, Gawler and Light Regional Councils are members of the Gawler River Floodplain Management Authority. APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1F-28JULY2020 PAGE 8 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 8 These Councils are also a part of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Region. It is noted that under the Landscape SA Act 2019, these Councils would each transfer to the ‘Northern and Yorke Landscape Region’. The Councils have previously endeavoured to collaborate on other schemes, such as the Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme (otherwise known as ‘Bunyip Water’). However, negotiations with a private partner fell through and only Light Regional Council advanced a revised model enabling the project to proceed. This has enabled a minimum of 1.6GL per annum to be redirected from the river system to productive viticultural use, saving the equivalent amount from other sources, such as the River Murray. Light Regional Council also stands ready to consider further integration of this scheme. There is presently an arrangement with the Virginia Pipe Scheme in place and potentially opportunities to align with the Northern Area Irrigation Scheme (NAIS) in the future. (vii) a council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations; ‘Communities of interest’ have been referred to in both Gawler Council and Barossa Council reports in the context of their respective proposals. The Barossa Council has described its ‘community of interest’ as those within the Barossa GI with common interests. Gawler has explained its understanding of ‘community of interest’, finding that it “extends well beyond (Gawler’s) current boundary”. Gawler Council has also considered ‘future’ communities of interest expected over the next 20- 30 years amounting to “more than double (its) existing population”. Concluding that people “living in the surrounding Council areas will continue to be drawn to the Town of Gawler for reasons including to utilise Council’s open space, facilities and events”. This has not been demonstrated with data. Gawler Council’s rationale is driven, in particular, by ‘external’ use of its sporting facilities in particular, being the: Gawler Sport and Community Centre Gawler Aquatic Centre (50 metre outdoor) – now at the end of its useful life Essex Park/Showgrounds (16Ha - Master Plan being developed) Karbeethan Reserve (Master Plan being developed) Gawler Council is of the view that these significant recreational precincts serve Gawler and the wider region and that broader communities “who have a vested interest” should be able to participate in the planning process and be “appropriately represented when decisions are made”. Light Regional Council notes that the Gawler Aquatic Centre is a stand-alone business centre and it ought to be self-funding. External users pay to make use of this facility and therefore, the “prices” set for the services provided by the Aquatic Centre need adjusting. This would be comparable to the Starplex at Trinity College, which provides a swimming pool for the wider community which is run as a business. Gawler Council also notes that 33% of its library members reside outside of the region, however the library system is STATEWIDE with State Government subsidies. LRC has a library service under this STATEWIDE system as well. For a further opposing view – regional population ‘balance’ can also be considered, as shown below. Both the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council’s population base is currently at 25,000, whereas the Light Regional Council’s population base will only reach that amount when the Roseworthy Township Expansion is completed. Both the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council have expansion opportunities of about 10,000 each without any boundary changes and will eventually reach 35,000. Furthermore, once the Roseworthy Township Expansion’s commercial centre (St Yves – see Appendix 4) is constructed (2020-2022) most residents north of the GawlerAPPENDIX River COUNCIL will travel 13.1F-28JULY2020 to PAGE 9 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 9 Roseworthy for their shopping needs rather than struggle through the congested Main Street of Gawler (see map Appendix 13)
(viii) a council area should incorporate or promote an accessible centre (or centres) for local administration and services; • Gawler Council has referred to the accessibility of its civic service centre some 2 kilometres from Hewett. However, Gawler’s analysis discounts that a new centre will be provided at Roseworthy. Light Regional Council believes that this new centre will draw a number of patrons from areas north of the North Para and Gawler Rivers, mainly as accessibility will be faster than negotiating Murray Street as stated above.
The Roseworthy Development – Commercial Centre will cater for all residents north of the Gawler River which contradicts the Town of Gawler’s main argument.
(ix) the importance within the scheme of local government to ensure that local communities within large council areas can participate effectively in decisions about local matters;
The Light Regional Council Community Empowerment model may very well be dismantled by The Barossa Council and the Town of Gawler’s proposals due to a lack of understanding of the Light Regional Council and its community culture. The Light Regional Council has a continuous cultural enhancement program which supports the empowerment philosophy. (xi) residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term); Gawler Council contends that it must expand to ensure local communities can participate effectively in decisions about local matters. However the explanation provided in support of this mainly runs to the use of Gawler’s sporting facilities and library. No further information has been provided about impacts with respect to representation, however on a ‘per capita’ basis, Hewett and Gawler Belt residents would have more representation in Light Regional Council now than if APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1F-28JULY2020 they switch to Gawler Council. PAGE 10 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 10 (xii) a scheme that provides for the performance of functions and delivery of services in relation to 2 or more councils (for example, a scheme for regional governance) may improve councils' capacity to deliver services on a regional basis and therefore offer a viable and appropriate alternative to structural change; Successful regional collaboration is already evidenced by: Gawler, Barossa and Light Regional Councils are members of RDA Barossa, the Legatus Group and the Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority Light and Barossa Councils have joint funding arrangements in place with respect to Community Transport, Volunteering and HACC Schemes. Light and Barossa Councils have a joint arrangement in place for CWMS disposal for Neil Avenue near Nuriootpa. The Gawler, Barossa, Adelaide Plains and Light Regional Councils collaborated with State Government to prepare the Barossa, Light and Lower North Region Open Space, Recreation and Public Realm Strategy completed in September 2013. The Gawler, Barossa, Adelaide Plains and Light Regional Councils collaborated on Regional Public Health Planning (Plan dated July 2014) and subsequent reporting per legislation. These councils are presently planning the first review of this Plan. More recently, the Gawler, Barossa, Adelaide Plains and Light Regional Councils have participated in a ‘pilot’ project to evaluate further collaboration through establishing a ‘Joint Planning Board’ under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, 2016. The State Government, Barossa and Light Regional Councils have collaborated with industry representatives to advance the ‘Barossa Partnerships’ initiative since August 2017. The Barossa Regional Procurement Group comprises Adelaide Plains Council, The Barossa Council, Light Regional Council, the Town of Gawler and the Mid Murray Council. Accordingly, there is a strong legacy of regional collaboration that has underpinned the delivery of outcomes for this region.
Conclusion In summary: • The strong opposition from Hewett and Gawler Belt residents, the Seppeltsfield proprietor, Seppeltsfield Road Business Alliance, Whistler Wines and the residents of Greenock demonstrates a failure of the Section 26 test “of avoiding significant divisions within a community”. • To allow the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council’s proposals to proceed will have the impact of dismantling Light Regional Council which is not in the State’s interest as it has been the main driver of economic stimuli for the entire Region; • The proposals by the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council significantly adversely impacts on the capacity of Light Regional Council to continue its leadership role and regional economic development including the delivery of the Roseworthy Township Expansion. • To this point, collaboration has been a strength of the region and the Light Regional Council would like to return to this supportive approach to enabling regional opportunities and outcomes to be delivered at the earliest opportunity with the least amount of distraction. Based upon these key points and the preceding discussion, Light Regional Council believes that the proposals from the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council are fundamentally flawed and accordingly respectfully asks the Boundaries Commission to refuse to inquire into the proposals pursuant to Section 29 of the Local Government Act, 1999 on the grounds that they are not in the public interest. However, in the event that the Commission chooses not to dismiss out-of-hand the proposals from the Town of Gawler and/or The Barossa Council then Light Regional Council requests the opportunity to put forward an “Alternative” based on Structural Reform.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1F-28JULY2020 PAGE 11 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission – 30 October 2019 Page 11 Please do not hesitate to contact us on telephone 85253200 should you wish to discuss the content of this letter further,
Yours sincerely,
9
. <:12' ..,..,....,..,...... ,...... Bill O'Brien Brian Carr Mayor ,,, Chief Executive officer ./ ~.~ _ 4< cc ~Minister Stephen Knoll Mayor and CEO The Barossa Council Mayor and CEO Town of Gawler Mayor and CEO, The Mid Murray Council Mr Michael Hickinbotham, Hickinbotham Group Mr Joe OPPedisano, Land Vision Group Mr Warren Randall, Seppeltsfield wines Ms Sharyn Rogers, Seppeltsfield Road Business Alliance Mr Martin Preiffer, Whistler Wines Elected Members LRC General Managers LRC
Enc.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.1F-28JULY2020 PAGE 12 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.1.1
Boundaries Commission - 30 October 2019 Page t2
TO: Chief Executive Officers
RE: Annual General Meeting – Thursday 29th October 2020
Advance notice is hereby given that the Annual General Meeting of the Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia will be held on Thursday 29 October 2020. Due to the COVID-19 restrictions, the format of this years meeting will be advised closer to the date.
1. Appointment of Council Representative
Section 15(1) of the Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia Act 1983, provides that:-
" Every council is entitled to appoint a person to represent it at a general meeting of the Authority."
As the meetings of the Local Government Association of South Australia will also be held on the above day, it is suggested that the same person be appointed to represent your council on the Association and the Authority.
A form is attached for your convenience to notify us of your representative. (Appendix 1) Please return same to this Authority no later than Friday 21 August 2020.
2. Nominations for Members of the Board
We draw your attention to Section 7(1)(a) of the Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia Act 1983 regarding membership of the board which provides:-
" (a) two are persons elected in accordance with the rules of the Authority;"
and to Section 8(1) which provides:-
" 8. (1) Subject to this section, a representative member of the board holds office for a term of two years commencing on the first day of January in the year next succeeding the year in which he or she was elected or appointed."
Kindly note that in accordance with the Rules of the Authority if more than two persons are nominated an election for two representative members will again be determined by postal ballot. The successful candidates will be declared elected at the Annual General Meeting.
Page 1 of 2
Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.2A-28JULY2020 Suite 1205, 147 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000 PAGE 1 P: 08 8223 1550 F: 08 8223 6085 E: [email protected] W: www.lgfa.com.auAGENDA ABN: 80 ITEM 189 672COUNCIL 209 13.2.2
Nominations are hereby called to fill the two positions provided by Section 7(1)(a) currently held by Ms Annette Martin (City of Charles Sturt) and by Mr Michael Sedgman (The Rural City of Murray Bridge).
Nominations must be lodged at the Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia office not later than 21 August 2020.
For information we advise that Section 7 (2) of the LGFA Act states:-
“At least one member of the board must be a woman and at least one member must be a man”
Our current gender status is 4 men and 2 women, 1 vacancy.
Councils may wish to consider nominating a candidate of each gender.
A nomination form is attached for your convenience. (Appendix 2)
Those councils nominating a Member or Officer may wish to forward separately a brief résumé of their nominee which will later be circulated to all councils with the agenda and ballot paper (if a ballot is required).
A résumé form in the REQUIRED FORMAT is attached for this purpose. (Appendix 3)
3. Notice of Motion
The Rules of the Authority in relation to Annual General Meeting procedures require that a Notice of Motion specifying the resolution which is to be proposed has been given in writing to the Chief Executive Officer not less than forty two days prior to the meeting and to comply with this Rule, it is necessary for Notices of Motion to be submitted to the Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia office on or prior to Friday 21 August 2020.
Member councils are requested to lodge the Notice of Motion in the following manner:-
(a) Notice of Motion (b) Reason (c) Suggested Action
A copy of the appropriate form is attached for your convenience. (Appendix 4)
DAVIN LAMBERT Chief Executive Officer Local Government Finance Authority of SA
7 July 2020
Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.2A-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.2.2
Appendix 1
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
2020 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
I advise that Mayor / Chairperson / Councillor / Officer / or any other person is appointed council representative to the Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia.
Council Name
Mayor / Chairperson / Councillor / Officer Council Delegate (Full Name)
Delegate Home Address
Delegate Email Address
Name of
Chief Executive Officer
Signature of
Chief Executive Officer
Please return completed Appointment of Council Representative Form to [email protected] by CLOSING DATE: Friday 21 August 2020
(or post to Local Government Finance Authority of SA, Suite 1205, 147 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000) APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.2A-28JULY2020 PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.2.2
Appendix 2
NOMINATION FORM
PURSUANT to a Resolution duly passed
The ...... (Name of Council)
hereby nominate ...... (Full Name)
of ......
being a Member or Officer of a Council for election to the board of the Local Government Finance Authority of South Australia as provided by Section 7(1)(a) of the Local Government Finance Authority Act 1983.
Date this ...... day of ...... 2020
...... (Signature of Chief Executive Officer)
and I the person nominated hereby agree to accept such nomination
...... (Signature of Candidate)
Please return completed Nomination Form to [email protected] by CLOSING DATE: Friday 21 August 2020
(or post to Local Government Finance Authority of SA, Suite 1205, 147 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000)
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.2A-28JULY2020 PAGE 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.2.2
Appendix 3 RÉSUMÉ FORM
Name
Address
Telephone
Age (Optional)
Occupation
Current Employer
Qualifications
Current Position in Local Government: Mayor / Chairman / Councillor / Other
Name of Council
Period in Local Government
Other Committees / Bodies of Local Government Involvement:
Past
Present
Please return completed Resume Form to [email protected] by CLOSING DATE: Friday 21 August 2020
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.2A-28JULY2020 (or post to Local Government Finance Authority of SA, Suite 1205, 147 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000) PAGE 5 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.2.2
Appendix 4
NOTICE OF MOTION
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
2020 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
NAME OF COUNCIL: ..…………………….…………………………………………………………………………..
NOTICE OF MOTION:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
REASON:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
SUGGESTED ACTION:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Please return completed Notice of Motion Form to [email protected] by CLOSING DATE: Friday 21 August 2020
(or post to Local Government Finance Authority of SA, Suite 1205, 147 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000) APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.2A-28JULY2020 PAGE 6 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.2.2
P.M.B. No.1 GLEN OSMOND SA 5064, AUSTRALIA
Genetically modified (GM or GMO) tools are a benefit to grain growers – why disadvantage them?
To whom it may concern,
Your council may currently be considering whether to apply to the Primary Industries Minister to impose a GMO moratorium in your region.
Please find this letter in support of the cultivation of genetically modified crops in South Australia, and that to deny farmer's access of these tools is a clear message that you do not trust the science behind GMO's
The moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified crops has hampered progress of Agricultural science in this state, and the flow on effect has hindered the broader agricultural community. More specifically, the benefits to the SA economy, environment & farmers through the cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) technology have proven to be substantial.
Currently consumers, feedlotters and processors can legally import (into SA) and manufacture from GM products. These products are widely available on supermarket shelves. Furthermore, after over 30 years of global, and Australian GM food and fibre production, the global science has proven GM technology is safe. In addition, GM crops have successfully co-existed with conventional farming systems and identity preserved crops.
The delay in farmers & researchers having access to this important tool has placed the South Australian farmer nearly 2 decades behind our interstate counterparts through research capabilities and production improvements. There are several examples of research investments & projects that have gone to interstate colleagues & counterparts, which had the potential to be built & led in SA.
Since the inception of the moratorium, and subsequent extension, the state has seen applications for sites to undertake GM research and studies dwindle. This has hampered the scientific development of Agriculture in SA – once a state that led Agricultural development. This has the potential to further lead to a reduction in trials and research conducted to determine the safety of newer GM technology – which may also disadvantage consumers and the public at large.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3A-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 With respect to grower premiums, a recent study conducted by Mercado has proven that our non-GM production status has not led to increased returns to growers. This study supports a multitude of global studies that have been undertaken since the commercial release of GM crops over 30 years ago. Not only have the economic studies shown that there is no advantage to the state but commodities are trading at a penalty – a cumulative $33 million penalty. The bulk handlers (including WA's CBH, NSW's Graincorp etc) have demonstrated the ability to segregate and market GM products effectively. Marketers & buyers can be confident that through rigorous protocol & testing the level of contamination of non-GM products has been within established safety standards. Although there are slightly increased costs to growers due to segregation, those values are taken into account when growers decide whether to propagate GM or not.
The moratorium was initially supported by a survey that appears limited to a niche of primary producers. This survey was not considered representative of the industry. Since its inception, the evidence for support of the moratorium within the agricultural community of SA has been limited to say the least. In fact during the parliamentary & independent reviews & subsequent surveys, it has been demonstrated that there is strong support for access to this technology & the rights to choose should be returned to the farmer.
It must also be noted that the initial moratorium was based on safety concerns. Given the time since GMO technology has been commercially available, the safety of GM crops has been rigorously tested. The proof has been overwhelming – the technology available to growers can be trusted to be safe for them, the environment & consumers. On the counter to safety concerns, the development of GMO technology such as golden rice (Vitamin A fortification), Omega-3 enriched canola & reduced gluten wheat has the potential to improve health outcomes for consumers.
The science of climate change has been strongly adopted by government and government agencies in Australia. Climate change presents a real risk to Australian farmers. The use of GM and emerging technologies for crop breeding to better manage these present and apparent risks is a must for the industry and society.
GM crops can assist in the creation of a sustainable future through improved crop production, environmental health and a reduction of pesticide applied in the environment. The acceptance of GM technology will also ensure farmers have all the available tools to produce food and fibre crops sustainably and competitively into the future. These improvements in sustainability are not only through improved yields but through reduced farm chemical use and adoption of sustainable farming practices such as improved fertiliser and water use efficiency & reducing tillage.
There is a common misunderstanding that large multinational companies are the only businesses conducting GM research and development. The fact is there are hundreds of government & university based programs that conduct GM research & development, and much of this will make it to market. One particular example from Australia is the Omega-3 GM canola (mentioned above) developed by the CSIRO (in collaboration with the Grains Research Development Corporation (GRDC) and marketed through Nu-Seed). The fact is though, due to stringent and expensive regulations required, the main companies that can afford to commercialise & deliver this technology are the large-multinationals. This does not preclude industry development, and in fact prebreeding investments in a range of grain crops by the GRDC will certainly include GM technology – this would be another direct farmer investment into GM technology – for grower's direct benefit.
Farmers are not forced to use a particular technology or practice, unless legislated to do so. Farmers, like other business owners & managers typically choose to make decisions based on evidence based testing until it is proven. Investment by organisations such as the SA Grains Industry Trust (SAGIT) & the GRDC doesn't give instant green light to a practice change. Farmers can continue to make personal & business decisions to use or not to use technology or practices, and GM will be no different.
The decision for a grower to propagate a GM crop also doesn’t mean organic & conventionally bred crops cannot also be grown. There are protocols for propagation & segregation that mean GM crops can be safety & confidently grown together within the state, and even on the same farm. Although there have been cases taken to court against growers of GM crops, it has been proven that by following the guidelines around production of GM crops the contamination of non-GM food & agricultural products can be avoided, and consumers & marketers can buy with confidence.
For members of your council area that argue the need for the region to remain GMO free to maintain their market access or market premiums, it would be pertinent to ask whether they have truly investigated their market. It may be that they are actually receiving a premium for their produce being GMO free and not the region as a whole. It would be difficult to deny a large industry access to this technology just because of languid marketing.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3A-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 I would like to thank you for the time you have taken to read this letter, and ask that you assist in moving our state and your region forward by supporting the propagation of GM crops in your region.
Please feel free to contact me directly via the number below if you seek further information. The Crop Science Committee members are willing to meet with you as required if particular details or clarification is required.
Best regards,
Current Crop Science Society President, Craig Davis.
Mob: 0447 541 654.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3A-28JULY2020 PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1
Reference: HPE/ B272
29 May 2020
Light Regional Council PO Box 72 KAPUNDA SA 5373
Email; [email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam,
As you may be aware, the Marshall Liberal Government has tabled legislation to lift the Genetically Modified (GM) Food Crops Moratorium and allow GM food crops to be grown on mainland South Australia.
Under the proposed legislation, local councils will have a time-limited ability to apply to be a GM crop cultivation free area. As part of the process, councils will have to engage with the community prior to making application and the whole process will need to be completed within six months after the legislation is assented to. The final decision on the Moratorium continuing remains with the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development.
At its meeting on 19 May 2020, Council resolved that it write to various industry bodies to seek their views on the proposed Bill, and have the responses reported back to Council for further consideration and help inform it position.
Accordingly, I ask that you respond direct to the undersigned on your organisations perspective on GM crops and the proposed amendments.
Your earliest response would be much appreciated.
Yours sincerely
Gary Mavrinac Director Development and Environmental Services
43-51 Tanunda Road (PO Box 867) Nuriootpa SA 5355 Phone (08) 8563 8444 www.barossa.sa.gov.au Email: [email protected] ABN: 47 749 871 215 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3B-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Doc ID: 430449
5 June 2020
Mr. Gary Mavrinac Director Development and Environmental Services The Barossa Council PO Box 867 NURIOOTPA SA 5355
Per e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Gary,
Genetically Modified Food Crops Moratorium Thank you for your letter dated 29 May 2020 enquiring about Light Regional Council’s views with respect to the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2020. I advise that Council received a report for information with respect to this matter at its meeting held on 26 May 2020. I have attached a copy of this for your reference. Based on the discussion at the meeting with respect to this matter, I advise that there is no intention for Council’s management to pursue further action unless it is instructed to do so by the Council. I trust that this advice is of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me on telephone 8525 3200 should you wish to discuss the content of this letter further. Yours faithfully,
Craig Doyle General Manager, Strategy & Development
Postal Address: PO Box 72, Kapunda, South Australia 5373 Telephone: (08) 8525 3200 Email: [email protected] Principal Office Website: www.light.sa.gov.au Branch Office 93 Main Street, Kapunda, SA 5373 APPENDIX12 Hanson COUNCIL Street, 13.3B-28JULY2020 Freeling, SA 5372 Light Regional Council ABN: 35 455 841 625 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1
4466940
Mr Brian Carr Chief Executive Officer Light Regional Council KAPUNDA SA 5373 [email protected]
Dear Mr Carr,
I am writing to you regarding changes to South Australia’s Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 (the Act) through the South Australian Parliament. This Act provides the power to prohibit cultivation of genetically modified (GM) food crops and aligns with the national scheme for regulating gene technology which only allows State Governments to regulate GM food crops where there are risks to markets and trade. Any risks to human health or the environment are managed by the national scheme which is administered by the Commonwealth Government regulator, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. For this reason, the Act is limited in its scope and any concerns relating to health or the environment cannot be used as grounds to apply to be a non-GM designated area under the Act. Please also note that a GM moratorium under the Act only applies to the cultivation of GM food crops. It does not apply to the sale of processed foods made from GM food crops such as canola oil. Recent amendments to the Act lift the GM moratorium in all of South Australia except Kangaroo Island. There is a time limited opportunity for local councils to apply to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development to be declared an area where no GM food crops may be cultivated. The decision to lift the GM Moratorium on mainland South Australia follows extensive public consultation and recommendations from an independent review that evaluated the market and trade benefits, or lack thereof, of the GM moratorium to the South Australian economy and agricultural industries. While local councils have the ability to apply to be a non-GM crop cultivation designated area there is no requirement for councils to make such an application. Section 5A of the Act governs the processes relating to designating council areas. It states the Minister may make a declaration through a notice in the Government Gazette after he has consulted with the GM Crops Advisory Committee established under the Act.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3C-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Councils that wish to make an application must firstly consult with their community, including persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities. Applications and Ministerial declarations can only occur within the first 6 months of the Act coming into operation. This period ends on Sunday 15 November 2020. I would like to provide you with the following guidance should your council choose to apply to the Minister. Applications should: be framed within the scope of the Act i.e. relate to marketing and trade only demonstrate the consultation requirements of the Act have been fulfilled include advice on all views expressed during consultation (in favour or against declaration) and any evidence provided by the community and/or industry relating to the application. Applications can be sent to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Hon Tim Whetstone MP, at [email protected] with a copy to PIRSA at [email protected]. I also request that in order to provide the Minister with sufficient time to fulfil his responsibilities under section 5A of the Act, applications be submitted by 30 September 2020. For more information on GM food crops, background on the GM moratorium and the independent review, please visit www.pir.sa.gov.au. You are also welcome to contact Ms Elena Anear, Assistant Director Strategy and Policy, Agriculture, Food and Wine, PIRSA, by email at [email protected] if you have any further questions.
Yours sincerely
Michelle Edge CHIEF EXECUTIVE
3/6/2020
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3C-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 .MARK PARNELL. Member of the Legislative Council
Mr Brian Carr Chief Executive Officer Light Regional Council 93 Main Street Kapunda SA 5373 [email protected]
10 June 2020
Dear Mr Carr
I am writing to you regarding recent changes to the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004. These changes lift the long-standing moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops on mainland South Australia, however they also provide SA councils with a short window of opportunity to apply to remain a GM-free council area.
If you haven’t done so already, I strongly encourage Council to urgently resolve to undertake a consultation process with your community regarding their views on this question, as required by the Act.
As you may know, the final decision on whether a local council area can remain GM-free will be made by the Minister for Primary Industries. Under the Act, the Minister will only be considering views and evidence relating to impacts on marketing and trade of allowing GM- crops to be grown in the council area, or remaining GM-free.
We know that many food businesses want South Australia to remain GM-free to provide a marketing advantage and point of difference with their competitors. However, as it may be difficult for small local food businesses to undertake a rigorous assessment and provide evidence of marketing advantages for their particular business, I would encourage Council to assist by proactively investigating existing and potential marketing and trade advantages that could be gained for food-related businesses in your council area by remaining GM-free.
Parliament House, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000 (08) 8237 9111 [email protected] www.markparnell.org.au
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3D-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1
I’m advised that when considering an application from a council, the Minister will also be looking at implications of a decision to declare a council area GM-free for areas beyond council boundaries. For this reason, Council may wish to consider a regional approach to this matter, in conjunction with neighbouring councils. I’m also advised by the Minister’s office that the Minister will be relying on the Anderson Report to inform his decisions, so it’s important to note that Anderson’s analysis is disputed by reputable academics. One such critique is by Dr John Paull from the University of Tasmania entitled A Review of the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium and Fourteen Alternative Findings.
Given the short timeframe for this entire process, (with applications to the Minister due by 30 September), and the fact that once this process has been completed there will be no further opportunities to remain GM-free, I encourage Council to act quickly.
Finally, I would add that this issue is important for all council areas, regardless of whether or not canola is currently grown. Whilst canola is the main crop of interest today, the changes to the Act apply to ALL future GM crops, i.e. any type that may be developed in the future. This current opportunity is your only chance to apply to remain GM-free. Once this opportunity has passed, all future decisions about growing GM crops will be made at a national level with no regard to local economic circumstances.
If you require any further assistance, I can be contacted on 08 8237 9111 or at [email protected].
Yours sincerely
Mark Parnell MLC Greens Member of the Legislative Council Parliament of South Australia
PAGE 2
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3D-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1
Mr Brian Carr Chief Executive Officer Light Regional Council PO Box 72 Kapunda SA 5373
By email: [email protected]
17 June 2020
Dear Mr Carr
RE: Consultation on application for designation under the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004
As you may know, local governments will now have a time‐limited ability to apply to retain the moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM food crops for trade and marketing purposes following changes to the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 (‘the Act’).
Grain Producers SA (GPSA) is the peak industry body for South Australian grain growers. GPSA is non‐political and represents producers to government, the community and industry, including grain marketers, exporters, storage and handlers, researchers, and farm input suppliers.
We develop and implement policies and projects that promote the economic and environmental sustainability of South Australian grain growing businesses. GPSA has run a longstanding campaign to give growers freedom of choice in their cropping decisions.
The South Australian grain industry is large and diverse, with an estimated primary production value of $2.5 billion. Our industry is not only a major contributor to the economy, it is a significant export earner for the state. There are more than 4,500 grain farm businesses that span the cropping belt in South Australia. GPSA believes that growers should have the freedom of choice to grow the cereal, legume and oilseed varieties that best fit their farming system, including genetically modified varieties. Removing the GM food crop moratorium from mainland SA will enable producers to have the same freedom of choice as growers from other mainland states.
The Australian grains industry successfully and safely manages a complex value chain, and self regulates through best‐practice farming systems and processes that effectively manage numerous segregations tailored for various markets. As such, growers’ choice to remain GM‐free on their farm will be retained should the moratorium be lifted.
SA’s predominant grain handler, Viterra, has advised GPSA that “Viterra’s position has always been that we can support the choice to grow GM crops by providing handling and quality management expertise and processes to meet the market requirements of handling and segregating both GM and non‐GM commodities.”
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3E-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1
GPSA’s position is not about picking winning production systems, but rather enabling choice for all producers. Enabling grower choice will allow the use of approved GM crop varieties consistent with the remainder of mainland Australian states, and provide a commercial incentive to fund research in GM technology in South Australia.
In line with the Act’s trade and marketing scope, GPSA commissioned an independent economic analysis of price premiums under the moratorium in 2017. This analysis concluded that growers did not receive a marketing advantage as a result of SA’s GM‐free status, and that the only effect of moratorium was to deny the use of safe and effective GM tools.
To assist the Light Regional Council I have taken the liberty of including a short summary of this report and the SA Government’s own high‐level independent economic assessment of the moratorium conducted by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson Review, which you will find attached.
Any local government looking to make an application for designation as a GM cultivation‐free area will have to meet the high threshold set by the findings of these two separate independent economic assessments.
As the peak industry body, GPSA welcomes consultation by Light Regional Council, noting this as an explicit requirement under s5A(2) of the Act before any application is made. We would be pleased to address concerns, identify opportunities, and help your organisation to better understand the significance of this legislative reform to our sector.
Please do not hesitate to contact Grain Producers SA Chief Executive Officer Caroline Rhodes directly at [email protected] or on 1300 734 884.
Yours sincerely,
Wade Dabinett Chair Grain Producers SA
Attachment: Analysis of price premiums fact sheet
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3E-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 FACT SHEET
ANALYSIS OF PRICE PREMIUMS
Under Australia’s nationally consistent under SA’s GM moratorium. The result - the regulatory framework, states are Analysis of price premiums under the South only able to regulate GM varieties Australian GM moratorium - is the most exhaustive analysis produced to date of the for trade and marketing purposes. premiums and discounts achieved by farmers Under the Genetically Modified in South Australia, covering commodities Crops Management Act 2004, local which contribute approximately 63% of the governments will need to prove that a state’s agricultural economy. It is important trade and marketing benefit exists in that thorough research is conducted by experienced industry analysts to substantiate order to be declared a GM cultivation- the presumption of premiums attained by South free area. Australian farmers.
All claims are subject to a time-limited The results demonstrate overwhelmingly that application period and will be assessed the majority of farmers in South Australia on the basis of trade and marketing do not receive a premium as a result of the moratorium. benefits by the Government’s expert GM Crop Advisory Committee. Mecardo’s economic analysis found that the moratorium in South Australia has not led Two separate economic assessments conducted to enhanced premiums over comparable since 2018 have considered whether producers markets to farmers producing the following achieve the often-claimed price premiums as commodities: a result of SA’s prohibition on commercial GM • wheat cultivation. Those reviews, summarised below, • barley have found that producers have not received a • canola price premium as a result of SA’s GM food crop • wine grapes moratorium, and that the only effect was to • wool remove the option of using safe and effective • cattle GM tools licensed by the Commonwealth’s • sheep and lamb. Office of the Gene Technoloigy Regulator (OGTR). The only agricultural commodity with a premium over a comparable market is pork, Any local government looking to make an albeit a very slim premium, and likely based application for designation as a GM cultivation- on supply and demand factors as opposed to free area will have to meet the high threshold the moratorium and subsequent marketing set by the findings of these two separate opportunities. independent economic assessments. Despite GM canola being the only GM crop Summary of the Mecardo Report currently grown in Australia that is likely to be adopted by SA farmers, the additional In 2017 GPSA and the Agricultural Biotechnology agricultural commodities were included in Council of Australia commissioned analysis by this analysis to test the presumption that the market experts Mecardo of price premiums moratorium provides a premium to other South
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3E-28JULY2020 PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Australian agricultural commodities.
At present, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, all have a higher number of organic certifications than South Australia, and all permit the commercial cultivation of GM crops. It is possible to extrapolate on this basis that the cultivation of GM crops in South Australia could operate effectively alongside the organic food production industry, as is the case in other states (see figure 1).
Mecardo’s analysis demonstrates that the moratorium removes the option of utilising innovative agronomic tools, licenced by the OGTR as safe, with little in the way of trade and marketing benefit to the majority of Figure 1: Australian Certified Organic farms by state agricultural producers in South Australia.
Mecardo found no evidence to suggest that the • the moratorium will continue to hurt South repeal of the moratorium, and the introduction Australian producers with (at least) another of GM canola, would lead to any reduction in $5 million cost if the moratorium continues comparable prices to South Australian farmers. until 2025, • GM crops typically use less, rather than A full copy of the Analysis of price premiums more farm chemicals when compared to under the South Australian GM moratorium is conventional crops, available at: www.tinyurl.com/MecardoReport • GM crops can also deliver reduced weed control costs and increased yields, Summary of the Anderson Review • KI growers would be able to preserve their unique non-GM market in the event that the In 2019 the SA Government commissioned moratorium is removed from mainland SA, a high-level independent review of South • South Australia’s moratorium has Australia’s moratorium on the cultivation discouraged both public and private of Genetically Modified (GM) food crops, research and development investment in conducted by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson. this state, This review found that the moratorium has cost • removing the moratorium will attract or SA’s grain industry at least $33 million since retain research dollars, scientists, and post- 2004. graduate students in South Australia, and • segregation protocols (such as those used In addition to the $33 million cost, Professor interstate) ensures the successful co- Anderson’s found that: existence of GM and non-GM crops.
• there is no price premium for grain from A full copy of the Anderson Review is available South Australia despite it being the only at: www.tinyurl.com/AndersonGMReview mainland state with a GM crop moratorium, Fact sheet published 17 June 2020.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3E-28JULY2020 PAGE 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 A Review of the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium and Fourteen Alternative Findings
Prepared by Dr John Paull, March 2019
Abstract The present review of the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium (Anderson, 2019) reveals that the so-called Independent Review is not independent at all and thus it falls at the first hurdle. Kym Anderson is a long term vocal advocate of genetically modified crops and has expressed such views regularly over the past two decades. The Independent Review was commissioned by the South Australian Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development. There were 216 public submissions, of these, 78% (n=168) were for retaining the existing Moratorium, 18% (n=39) were for scrapping the Moratorium, and 4% (n=8) were undecided. 100% of the food available in Australian supermarkets is GM-free which mirrors the sentiments of Australian consumers, which are against GM-food; and Australian supermarkets are all aware of such sentiments. South Australia (SA) has a ‘clean and green’ image. This image serves SA well for food production, trade, tourism, education and migration. GMOs would damage SA’s clean and green and smart image and can thereby be economically detrimental to the state. The Independent Review proposes that GM canola is the sole candidate for uptake were the GM Moratorium to be scrapped. The GM canolas (Round-up ready, TT) proposed for SA are herbicide-dependent crops relying on regimes of multiple toxic herbicide applications. Glyphosate is a carcinogen and triazine is banned in Europe. These are chemicals that are dangerous to the health and wellbeing of animals, including humans, and the environment, and prescribing their use can be expected to increase SA’s health costs and future environmental clean-up costs. GM agriculture is an example of privatising the profits and socialising the costs. Australia is the world leader in organic agriculture and accounts for 51% of the world’s certified organic hectares, and, of this, South Australia is the leading organics state in Australia accounting for 40% of Australia’s certified organic hectares (and 20% of the world’s certified organic hectares). Organic produce sells at a price premium - usually in the range of 10% and 110% (compared to non-organic). This contrasts with GM canola which sells at a price penalty of 7%. These price premiums and price penalties reflect market sentiment - what the market wants and what the market does not want. The GM Moratorium has a social licence and is serving SA well and should be maintained on economic and social grounds. The Independent Review should be rejected.
1
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 The Independent Review is not independent
The author of the Independent Review is a vocal, long term and consistent advocate and proponent of GM crops, dating back over two decades. His extreme views were known or should have been known to the South Australian Government at the time of the appointment of Kym Anderson as reviewer. The known partisanship will always cast a question mark over the credibility of the Independent Review - even before it was submitted.
The perceived bias and the vested interest of the so-called ‘independent reviewer’ in supporting two decades of his own published opinions and analyses should have been sufficient to exclude Kym Anderson from consideration as an ‘independent reviewer’ and, failing that, ought to have been sufficient cause for him to exclude himself.
The views of the Independent Review are reflected in previous publications of the so called ‘independent reviewer’, for example:
Anderson, K., & Nielsen, C. P. (2001). GMOs, Trade Policy, and Welfare in Rich and Poor Countries. In S. Maskus & J. D. Wilson (Eds.), Quantifying the Impact of Technical Barriers to Trade: Can it be Done? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Anderson, K., & Jackson, L. A. (2004). GM Food Crop Technology: Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), Discussion Paper No. 4490, 1-29. Anderson, K., Damania, R., & Jackson, L. A. (2004). Trade, Standards, and the Political Economy of Genetically Modified Food. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, WPS 3395, 1-30. Anderson, K., Jackson, L. A., & Nielsen, C. P. (2005). Genetically Modified Rice Adoption: Implications for Welfare and Poverty Alleviation. Journal of Economic Integration, 20(4), 771-788.
Finding 1: The Independent Review is not independent at all. The Independent Review is written by a vocal and long term advocate of GMOs and GM-crops, and in addition it contains errors of fact from the outset (see Finding 2) and it should be disregarded in its entirety.
2
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 The majority of submissions supported retaining the SA GM Moratorium
The Independent Review states that “Community attitudes to the moratorium were captured in the 216 submissions received by the Reviewer” (Anderson, 2019, p.xii).
Of 216 public submissions, 78% (n=168) were for retaining the existing Moratorium, 18% (n=39) were for scrapping the Moratorium, and 4% (n=8) were undecided (Anderson, 2019, p.xii) (see Figure 1 below).
Of these 216 submissions, only 45 appear on the PIRSA web site (pir.sa.gov.au). Of these selected 45 submissions made available on-the-web, the majority are undated. Of the 45 submissions made available on-the-web, 36% (n=16) appear to be for retaining the Moratorium, 60% (n=27) for scrapping it, and 4% (n=2) are indeterminate. This appears to be a biased selection of the submissions and without any declared rationale for that bias.
Despite the data that the Independent Review reports, the false claim is made therein that: “the majority of submissions … favour the immediate removal of South Australia’s moratorium on GM crop production and transport (Finding 2.3)” (Anderson, 2019, p.xii). This is a false and misleading claim which is entirely inconsistent with the data (see Figure 1 below).
Abandon Moratorium 18% Ambivalent 4%
Retain Moratorium 78%
Figure 1. There were 216 submissions to the Independent Review, of these, 78% (n=168) were for retaining the existing GM Moratorium, 18% (n=39) were for scrapping the GM Moratorium, and 4% (n=8) were undecided (author's graph; data source: Anderson, 2019).
Finding 2: The majority (78%) of submissions supported retaining the existing SA GM Moratorium. The Independent Review falsely reports the contrary.
3
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 There are no GM foods on Australian supermarket shelves
In Australia, food with GM ingredients must be labelled as such. The result is that there are no such food items on Australian supermarket shelves (Figure 2).
This is a reflection of consumer sentiment in Australia - consumers do not want to buy or eat GM foods - they have been characterised as ‘frankenfoods’. It also reflects a recognition by Australian supermarket chains that a GM label on a food item would spell its death knell.
The consequence of this is that markets for GM produce must be sought overseas. GM foods are sold into markets that lack GM-labelling requirements, markets where the consumers are left in the dark regarding the provenance of ingredients. Why would SA consider facilitating such a deceitful trick on foreign consumers? There may be some economic karmic flow-back from pursuing such a route.
Non-GM 100%
Figure 2: The food offerings on Australian supermarket shelves are 100% non-GM.
Finding 3: Australian supermarkets do not stock GM-foods because they are aware that Australian consumers have rejected such ‘frankenfoods’.
4
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 South Australia enjoys a clean and green image
SA enjoys an enviable reputation as a clean and green and smart place to be doing business. It has a reputation that many countries and regions around the world can admire and aspire to (Figure 3).
Figure 3: SA is known around the world for its clean and green and smart image (source: australiachinafriendship.com.au/south-australias-green-environment/).
Finding 4: South Australia enjoys a clean and green and smart image which is important for tourism, trade, investment, education and migration. The GM Moratorium supports the image of clean and green and smart, and scrapping the GM Moratorium would undermine that image and its economic benefits.
5
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 5 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Consumers of the world reject GM foods
There is no consumer demand for GM food. For consumers, GMOs are an unwanted intrusion into their diet and food selections, and GM offerings are to be avoided. This sentiment is not just prevalent amongst Australian consumers.
In the largest study of its kind, 23,000 consumers in 17 countries were quizzed about their food preferences. A consumer voice against GMOs was present in all 17 countries (GfK, 2017) (see Figure 4).
60% 60 Consumers seek GMO-free 49% 49% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45 43% 43% 41% 36% 37% 37% 33% 31% 32% 30 28%
“GM-free is important” 15
0 UK Italy USA Brazil Spain China Japan Russia France Mexico Canada Belgium Australia Germany Argentina Netherlands South Korea
Figure 4: Percentage of consumers in 17 countries who stated that “GM-free is important” in making their food choices (author's graph; data source: GfK, 2017).
Finding 5: Around the world, there is strong consumer sentiment against GMO food. As a consequence, there are economic price penalties for GM crops and growing what consumers do not want.
6
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 6 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 The price penalty for GM canola
The only GM crop that the Independent Review considers for uptake in SA is GM canola (Anderson, 2019).
GM canola attracts a price penalty (see Figure 5). The figures presented in the Independent Review (Fig.10, p.29) are a selection of the available data and are rather oddly attributed as “personal communication” (p.52) despite the prices being in the public domain and published regularly. The price penalty for GM canola is 7.2% (Figure 5). There is a consistent price penalty for WA GM canola, across years and grain depots (Taylor, 2019) (Figure 5).
AU$575 GM canola Albany GM canola Kwinana Non-GM canola Albany Non GM canola Kwinana
AU$550 non-GM canola
AU$525
AU$500
Price per tonne GM canola
AU$475
AU$450 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Figure 5: Average annual price per tonne of GM canola versus non-GM canola for grain delivered in WA (Kwinana and Albany) (author’s graph; data source: Taylor, 2019).
Finding 6: There is a price penalty for growing GM crops. The average price penalty for GM canola in WA is 7.2%.
7
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 7 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Australia is a minor player in GM agriculture
GM agriculture is dominated by just three countries, USA, Brazil and Argentina, which together account for 83% of the world’s GM agriculture hectares. Australia accounts for less than half of one percent of the world’s GM agriculture hectares (0.47%) (ISAAA, 2017). Australia is a very minor player in the world of GM agriculture (Figure 6).
This agrees with the data of the Independent Review which appear as Appendix 1 (Anderson, 2019, p.41).
Australia 0.5%
Rest 5% Pakistan 2% Paraguay 2% India USA Argentina 6% 13% 42%
Brazil 28%
Figure 6: GM agriculture is concentrated in just three countries, USA, Brazil and Argentina, and Australia is a very minor GMO player (author's graph; data source: ISAAA, 2017).
Finding 7: GM agriculture is concentrated in just three countries, USA, Brazil and Argentina. Australia is a very minor player in the world of GM agriculture.
8
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 8 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Segregation is a failure
The Independent Review in its Finding 3.3 claims that “The experience of GM canola production and marketing in other mainland stages (sic) over the past decade reveals that segregation and identity preservation protocols and practice codes can and do ensure the successful coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in Australia” (Anderson, 2019, p.21). This is wishful thinking.
Segregation of GM and non-GM crops has failed in Western Australia and elsewhere. Considerable evidence was presented to that effect to the WA Parliamentary Inquiry, Mechanisms for compensation for economic loss to farmers in Western Australia caused by contamination by genetically modified material (see: www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/ commit.nsf; Swinbourne, 2019).
The WA Parliamentary Inquiry was convened because of the spectacular failure of GM segregation as witnessed in the Marsh v Baxter case. In that case an organic farm was contaminated with GM canola. The organic farm lost its organic certification because of the contamination. This resulted in economic losses of $85,000 to the organic farm, a figure that was agreed between the parties and which accounted for the price premiums for organic that were forfeited. The legal expenses for this case were in the order of $2 million (Paull, 2015). Such figures are outside the capacity of the average farmer to endure; it was eventually revealed that Monsanto was funding the GM farmer’s legal costs. The Marsh v Baxter case evidenced the failure of GM-segregation and the disproportionality of the damages suffered versus the legal-system costs of pursuing a claim.
Marsh v Baxter is not the only incident in WA where an organic farm has lost its certification due to GM contamination. However, as the WA Parliamentary Inquiry were at pains to point out in their questioning, there is a “chilling” impact of the Marsh v Baxter case in keeping contamination out of the public and legal gaze (www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/ commit.nsf).
Witnesses to the WA Inquiry revealed that due to GM contamination of canola in WA, the response has been to redefine the grain grade of ‘non-GM’ so that, at least in WA, it no longer means ‘GM-free’, as might be expected, but rather it means something less. Since the introduction of GM canola into WA, the grade, ‘non-GM’, has been redefined to allow GM- contamination up to the level of 0.9% GM before it loses its ‘non-GM’ classification.
There is a price penalty in WA of downgrading produce to ‘GM’ of approximately 7.2%, hence this ‘work-around’ of re-defining terms. This ploy also facilitates a GM-contaminated batch of grain in WA being re-birthed as ‘non-GM’ by adding a sufficient dilution of GM-free grain to bring the contamination level down below the contamination threshold of 0.9%.
This is an unsatisfactory ‘work around’. A glass of milk contaminated to 0.9% with, for example, petrol, detergent, arsenic, iron filings or whatever is rather obviously unacceptable.
In Canada, the failure of segregation has meant that almost all canola in Canada is graded as GM. The Canada Canola Council then propagates the alchemic fiction that “canola oil made from GM seed is conventional canola oil” (CCC, 2017).
Finding 8: Segregation of GM and non-GM canola has failed in WA and overseas. This failure has been glossed over in WA by redefining ‘non-GM’ as GM-contaminated to an extent not exceeding 0.9%.
9
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 9 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Glyphosate is carcinogenic
GM Roundup Ready canola is dependent on multiple applications of the herbicide glyphosate. Multiple applications of this herbicide are prescribed to a single crop of GM canola, including a final dose close to harvest time when the crop is swathed (where the head of grain is decapitated from the body of the plant).
Glyphosate is a carcinogen (OEHHA, 2019). Glyphosate does not stay ‘on the farm’. It contaminates water, air, soil, plants and animals. It is ingested by adults and children via various routes including via food and beverages (Cook, 2019) (Figures 7 & 8).
A gardener was recently awarded US$289 million in damages for cancer caused from spraying glyphosate (Bellon, 2018). There are a further 9,300 plaintiffs reportedly seeking redress for glyphosate health damage and with more to come (Bender, 2018). 51 50 43 40 36
30
20 (ppb) in wines
10 5 5 Glyphosate concentration 0 Merlot Moscato Cab Sauvignon Argentina Organic US Organic Figure 7: Glyphosate in wine (author's graph; data source: Cook, 2019).
50 50
40 31 30 30 27 25 21 20 20 19 (ppb) in beers 10 6
Glyphosate concentration 0 0 Miller Coors Corona Guiness Tsingtao Heineken Budweiser Stella Artois Stella Peak Organic Smith's Organic Figure 8: Glyphosate in beer (author's graph; data source: Cook, 2019).
Finding 9: GM RR canola is glyphosate dependent. Glyphosate is carcinogenic. More glyphosate means more cancer and that means more health costs for SA. Contaminated beer and wine can have negative economic consequences and damage exports. Glyphosate lawsuits can be an economic drain on the SA economy.
10
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 10 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Consumers don’t want pesticides
There is strong global consumer demand for organic food. For consumers, pesticides and GMOs are unwanted intrusions into their diet and food selections. Many consumers are aware that a sure way to avoid GMOs is to buy organic. Organic standards exclude GMOs. Such sentiments are not just prevalent amongst Australian consumers.
In the largest study of its kind, 23,000 consumers in 17 countries were quizzed about their food preferences. A consumer voice for organic and against GMOs was present in all 17 countries (GfK, 2017) (see Figures 4 and 9).
60% 58% 52% 49% 50% 46% 41% 42% 40% 36% 34% 35% 31% 28% 29% 29% 30% 26% 27% 24% 22% 20% “Organic is important” 10%
0% UK Italy USA Brazil Spain China Japan Russia France Mexico Canada Belgium Australia Germany Argentina Netherlands South Korea
Figure 9: Percentage of consumers in 17 countries who stated that “Organic is important” in making their food choices (author's graph; data source: GfK, 2017).
Finding 10: Around the world, there is strong consumer sentiment for organic food (and against GM food). There are economic rewards for growing what consumers want.
11
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 11 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Australia leads the world in Organic Agriculture
Australia leads the world in organic agriculture (Paull & Hennig, 2016) (Figure 10). World organic agriculture has been growing at 12% per annum for the past two decades (Figure 11). Australia accounts for 51% of the world’s certified organic hectares (Willer & Lernoud, 2019). GMOs are a threat to organic agriculture, they are the ‘cane toads’ (invasive species) of clean and green agriculture (Paull, 2015, 2018).
Figure 10: World density-equalizing map of global organic agriculture (based on certified organic hectares per country) (Paull & Hennig, 2016). 70,000,000 ha
60,000,000 ha
50,000,000 ha
40,000,000 ha
30,000,000 ha
20,000,000 ha
10,000,000 ha World Certified Organic Agriculture Certified Organic World 0 ha 2011 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 02.2000 08.2000
Figure 11: Global organic agriculture has been growing at 12% per annum for the past two decades (year reported) (author’s graph; data sources: Willer & Yussefi, 2000 to Willer & Lernoud, 2019).
Finding 11: Australia is the world leader in organic agriculture and accounts for 51% of the world’s certified organic hectares. This is a great agricultural and economic success story. GMOs put organics at existential and economic risk.
12
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 12 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Australian Organic Agriculture is growing at 22% per annum
In Australia, organic agriculture has been growing at 22% per annum (compounding) for the past five years (Figure 12). It is a great success story. World demand for organics continues to grow and the demand frequently outstrips supply.
China, Russia and India have recognised the value of producing food that consumers want to buy and for which consumers are willing to pay a premium. China has experienced its ‘organic revolution’ (Paull, 2007) and is now a major world exporter of organic food. Russia’s Vladimir Putin has recognised the massive economic, trade and environmental advantages for Russia in converting to organic and banning GMOs (RT, 2014, 2017a, 2017b). India has one whole state converted to 100% organic and at least another eleven states are looking to replicate this achievement (Paull, 2017).
40,000,000 ha
30,000,000 ha
20,000,000 ha
10,000,000 ha Australia Certified Organic Agriculture Australia Certified Organic
0 ha 2011 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2.2000 8.2000
Figure 12: Australia’s organic agriculture has been growing at 22% per annum (compounding) for the past five years (year reported) (author’s graph; data sources: Willer & Yussefi, 2000 to Willer & Lernoud, 2019).
Finding 12: Organic agriculture in Australia is growing at 22% per annum. This is a great agricultural and economic success story. To allow GMOs to put organics at risk for the sake of something that global consumers do not want would be economic stupidity.
13
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 13 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 South Australia leads the country in Organic Agriculture
South Australia leads the country in organic agriculture (Paull & Hennig, 2018). Forty percent of Australia’s certified organic hectares is located in SA. The map of organics in Australia is dominated by the SA presence (Figure 13).
For the sake of producing some cheap GM canola it would be stupid to put South Australia’s organics success story at economic risk.
Figure 13: South Australia accounts for 40% of Australia’s organic hectares (Paull & Hennig, 2018).
Finding 13: South Australia leads the country in organic agriculture (based on certified organic hectares). This is a great agricultural and economic success story. Allowing GMOs in SA would put organics at existential and economic risk. That would be economically stupid given that here is a price premium for organic produce and an economic penalty for GMO produce.
14
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 14 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 No Social Licence for GMOs
The majority (78%) of submissions to the Independent Review were in favour of maintaining the GM Moratorium. The Independent Review claims that “Community attitudes to the Moratorium were captured in the 216 submissions” and this is not disputed by the present author.
The conclusion to be drawn is that, on the available evidence, there is no social licence for scrapping SA’s existing GM Moratorium. The social licence is for maintaining the present GM Moratorium.
The SA GM Moratorium is consistent with the clean and green and smart image of SA (Figure 14). It would be foolhardy, contentious and socially disruptive to scrap the GM Moratorium, it would create uncertainty for the agriculture and food sector and would precipitate consumer, resident, trade buyer, and visitor push back with the attendant economic forfeits and costs.
SA Clean, Green and Smart
Figure 14: South Australia enjoys a clean and green and smart image.
Finding 14: There is no social licence for GMOs. The SA GM Moratorium is consistent with the clean and green and smart image of SA and warrants being maintained for its social, environmental, health, education, trade and economic benefits.
15
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 15 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Conclusions and findings
The Independent Review fails because it is not ‘independent’ as it claims but is rather a partisan document apparently constructed to support the pre-existing views of its author, views that have already been expressed over the past two decades and are blindly in favour of genetically modified organism crops (GMOs). The opinion of the present reviewer is that the author of the Independent Review ought to have properly stood down for reasons including his vested interest in maintaining and propagating his own long standing pro-GM viewpoints.
The Independent Review fails to report that the vast majority (78%) of submissions are strongly in favour of retaining the existing GM Moratorium in SA (the Independent Review erroneously claims the contrary result which is inconsistent with its own raw data). This front-end failure of the Independent Review casts a cloud over any and all of the claims from thereon, many of which are ambit claims that can not readily (or at all) be checked.
The Independent Review fails to evaluate the broad economic and societal impacts of the subject. Instead, the Independent Review takes a very narrow and blinkered productionist view. The Independent Review fails to acknowledge the fact that consumers of the world do not want GM food. The Independent Review glosses over the fact that GM farmers get hit with a price penalty for their GM produce when they take it to market, and so, despite self-serving multi-national hype , economically they start ‘behind the eight ball’.
The Independent Review makes no attempt to measure the negative economic impacts that scrapping the GM Moratorium would have on the clean and green and smart image of SA. The GM Moratorium is a point of difference for SA, a bragging point for SA, and it is a visible and a tangible validator of SA’s claim to being clean and green and smart.
The Independent Review is a partisan document which falls short of meeting its brief, and its findings deserve to be questioned, scrutinised and ultimately rejected.
The 14 findings of the present review follow:
Finding 1: The Independent Review is not independent at all. The Independent Review is written by a vocal and long term advocate of GMOs and GM-crops, and in addition it contains errors of fact from the outset (see Finding 2) and it should be disregarded in its entirety.
16
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 16 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Finding 2: The majority (78%) of submissions supported retaining the existing SA GM Moratorium. The Independent Review falsely reports the contrary. Finding 3: Australian supermarkets do not stock GM-foods because they are aware that Australian consumers have rejected such ‘frankenfoods’.
Finding 4: South Australia enjoys a clean and green and smart image which is important for tourism, trade, investment, education and migration. The GM Moratorium supports the image of clean and green and smart, and scrapping the GM Moratorium would undermine that image and its economic benefits.
Finding 5: Around the world, there is strong consumer sentiment against GMO food. As a consequence, there are economic price penalties for GM crops and growing what consumers do not want.
Finding 6: There is a price penalty for growing GM crops. The average price penalty for GM canola in WA is 7.2%.
Finding 7: GM agriculture is concentrated in just three countries, USA, Brazil and Argentina. Australia is a very minor player in the world of GM agriculture.
Finding 8: Segregation of GM and non-GM canola has failed in WA. This failure has been glossed over by redefining ‘non-GM’ as GM-contaminated to an extent not exceeding 0.9%.
Finding 9: GM RR canola is glyphosate dependent. Glyphosate is carcinogenic. More glyphosate means more cancer and that means more health costs for SA. Contaminated beer and wine can have negative economic consequences and damage exports. Glyphosate lawsuits can be an economic drain on the SA economy.
Finding 10: Around the world, there is strong consumer sentiment for organic food (and against GM food). There are economic rewards for growing what is consumers want.
Finding 11: Australia is the world leader in organic agriculture and accounts for 51% of the world’s certified organic hectares. This is a great agricultural and economic success story. GMOs put organics at existential and economic risk.
Finding 12: Organic agriculture in Australia is growing at 22% per annum. This is a great agricultural and economic success story. To allow GMOs to put organics at risk for the sake of something that global consumers do not want would be economic stupidity.
17
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 17 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Finding 13: South Australia leads the country in organic agriculture (based on certified organic hectares). This is a great agricultural and economic success story. Allowing GMOs in SA would put organics at existential and economic risk. That would be economically stupid given that here is a price premium for organic produce and an economic penalty for GMO produce.
Finding 14: There is no social licence for GMOs. The SA GM Moratorium is consistent with the clean and green and smart image of SA and warrants being maintained for its social, environmental, health, education, trade and economic benefits.
References
Anderson, K. (2019). Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium. Adelaide: Report to the SA Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Developement. Bellon, T. (2018). Monsanto ordered to pay $289 million in world's first Roundup cancer trial. Reuters, August 11. Bender, R. (2018). Bayer hit by more lawsuits over safety of Roundup weedkiller. The Wall Street Journal, November 13. CCC. (2017). Canola: The Myths Debunked. Winnipeg: Canola Council of Canada (CCC). Cook, K. (2019). Glyphosate in Beer and Wine. Sacramento, CA: California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Education Fund. GfK. (2017). Decision Factors on What to Eat or Drink: Global GfK Survey (October 2017). London: GfK (Growth from Knowledge). ISAAA. (2017). Pocket K No.16: Biotech Crop Highlights in 2016. Manila: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). OEHHA. (2019). Glyphosate. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Paull, J. (2007). China's organic revolution. Journal of Organic Systems, 2(1), 1-11. Paull, J. (2015). The threat of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to organic agriculture: A case study update. Agriculture & Food, 3, 56-63. Paull, J. (2017). Four new strategies to grow the organic agriculture sector. Agrofor International Journal, 2(3), 61-70.
18
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 18 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Paull, J. (2018). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as Invasive Species. Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development, 4(3), 31-37. Paull, J., & Hennig, B. (2016). Atlas of Organics: Four maps of the world of organic agriculture. Journal of Organics, 3(1), 25-32. Paull, J., & Hennig, B. (2018). Maps of Organic Agriculture in Australia. Journal of Organics, 5(1), 29-39. RT. (2014). Duma seeks moratorium on GMO production in Russia. 26 February. Moscow: rt.com. RT. (2017a). Putin vows to make Russia major supplier of organic food to Asia-Pacific Region. 11 November. Moscow: rt.com. RT. (2017b). Russia looks to become leading organic food exporter as Europe sees future in GMO. 20 September. Moscow: rt.com. Swinbourne, M. (2019). Mechanisms for compensation for economic loss to farmers in Western Australia caused by contamination by genetically modified material. Perth: Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, Parliament of Western Australia. Taylor, L. (2019). Average cash price for Can1 and Cag1 for each port zone (figures supplied). Perth: Daily Grain. Willer, H., & Lernoud, J. (Eds.). (2019). The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2019: Frick, Switzerland: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) & Bonn: IFOAM-Organics International. Willer, H., & Yussefi, M. (Eds.). (2000). Organic Agriculture World-Wide: Statistics and Perspectives. Bad Durkheim, Germany: Stiftung Ökologie & Landbau (SÖL).
Dr John Paull March 2019 [email protected]
Submission for: GM Moratorium Report Consultation GPO Box 1671 Adelaide SA 5001 Email: [email protected]
19
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3F-28JULY2020 PAGE 19 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 STOP GM CROPS BECOMING PART OF THE SA LANDSCAPE
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3G-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Please protect your region to ensure it remains a GM-free Crop Zone. Councils have until SEPTEMBER 30 to consult citizens and apply to the State Government to remain a GM-free Crop Zone.
Date: 02/07/2020
To Mayor O’Brien and Councillors of Light Regional Council Light Regional Council PO Box 72 KAPUNDA SA 5373
Dear Mayor O’Brien and Councillors,
Please, I urge you to do everything you can to ensure that Council areas across South Australia remain GM-free Crop Zone. Losing South Australia’s GM-free status and reputation for high quality GM-free food products will disrupt food markets and deny many trade benefits state-wide.
I realise not all Council regions will be directly impacted by the lifting of the GM moritorium. However, we are all South Australians and have a responsibiltiy to look out for one another. By all of the South Australian Councils standing together on this issue we will create a stronger voice to ensure the South Australian landscape remains GM-Free, while securing future benefits for many South Australian communities.
I request your council to embrace the GM-free Crop Zone review process and to marshal community resources to apply for and establish a GM-free Crop Zone in your council area.
PLEASE RESOLVE TO: • consider retaining your council as a GM-free Crop Zone; • consult all members of your community, “including persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities”; • gather evidence of the present and future benefits and costs of remaining GM-free vs the potential benefits and costs of allowing GM crops to be grown; • show a marketing advantage for primary producers, food producers, manufacturers and the community from remaining GM-free; • provide evidence of positive marketing or trade benefits for local businesses from remaining a GM-free Crop Zone.
EVIDENCE OF GM-FREE BENEFITS: The GM-free moratorium has brought many food industry benefits since 2004, including: • substantial price premiums and preferential market access; • lower production costs, without segregation and identity preservation being needed; • no recalls or market disruptions from GM contamination, as US wheat and lucerne caused; • domestic and export market reputations for high quality non-GM products.
In contrast, adopting GM crops like canola would have marginal, unquantified, and speculative benefits. Kangaroo Island farmers and processors will remain GM-free under the government’s deal. They earn big premiums for the island’s GM-free grains and beverages, in local and export markets, so were allowed to keep reaping GM-free rewards. KI Pure Grain told the government’s Anderson Inquiry,
“The potential direct cost to KIPG and the KI Grain Growers is the loss of demand for our Non-GM Canola which presently stands at approximately $3,025,000. Additionally, … there is potential to lose further sales of other grains marketed as ‘GM Free’ which would add to this loss.” 1
Unit 6/3 Mount Barker Road, Stirling, SA 5152 South Australia | +61 8 7231 7700 | www.nasaa.com.auAPPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3G-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 With a plan to support of GM-free marketing and trade promotion, the whole of South Australia could reap similar rewards.
The Palsystem Consumers’ Co-operative Union of Japan noted in their submission that to meet their strict non-GM policy, they bought canola and honey only from Kangaroo Island bringing $6 million annually into the Island’s economy. They added,
“In order to further develop our economic contribution for both Kangaroo Island and the whole of South Australia, we are currently working on a plan to expand our range and volume of non-GM products, but the extension of the moratorium is critical to this plan.” 2
Another Japanese Consumer Co-operative, Coop Shizenha, which supplies only GM-free products to its 142,000 members told the inquiry,
“Our turnover is expected to reach AUD$233 million this fiscal year [2018]” and we “hope that we can contribute further to your economy by purchasing agricultural products cultivated in South Australia and Kangaroo Island as the only remaining Non-GM cultivation area of your country.”
The Government commissioned the Anderson Review with short term and narrow Terms of Reference, so the report made shaky assumptions, excluded relevant information, and ignored unfavourable data. As a GeneEthics submission pointed out:
“Australian non-GM canola has earned premiums in Europe since 2006 and the GM canola discounts continue to be significant. CSIRO team leader Dr Sandra Eady and Australian Export Grains Innovation Centre chief economist Ross Kingwell confirmed that ‘We’ve achieved a $100 million per year premium for our farmers, given the extra $20-$40/tonne paid for Australian non-GM Australian canola.” 3
Reflecting the strong demand for non-GM grains, especially in the EU, in the week ending June 5, 2020, GM canola was discounted $95/tonne in WA, compared with non-GM varieties, $39/tonne in Port Melbourne, and up to $39/tonne in rural NSW.
SHOPPERS DON’T WANT GM FOODS Swinburne University’s (2017) national survey of attitudes to new technologies found Australians are uncomfortable with genetically modified (GM) foods.
Many Australian food processors responded to customer demand, and supply non-GM products to major supermarkets, including Coles which said:
In recognition of our customers’ strong preference for non-GM foods, all Coles Housebrand food products (over 2700 products) are formulated using non-GM ingredients. 4 and Woolworths:
Woolworths own brand products do not use genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Our requirements on GM ingredients are articulated to our own brand suppliers in our Brand Guidelines and Woolworths Quality Assurance (WQA) Standard. 5
Shoppers in key export markets such as Europe, Japan and the USA also prefer GM-free foods. In the absence of effective GM labelling laws, non-GMO and GM-free labelled products are now among the fastest growing markets.
Unit 6/3 Mount Barker Road, Stirling, SA 5152 South Australia | +61 8 7231 7700 | www.nasaa.com.auAPPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3G-28JULY2020 PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 LIFTING THE GM BAN COULD DESTROY FUTURE WHEAT MARKETS AND TRADE Without South Australia’s GM crop moratorium, GM wheat may be grown here, with Gene Technology Regulator approval. There is no commercial GM wheat anywhere in the world, as markets say they will cancel wheat orders from any area growing GM wheat.6
A 2011 Grain Growers Limited report suggested Australia’s key export markets (80% by value) will not buy GM wheat now or in the foreseeable future. In addition to this, “The domestic flour and feed millers did not consider that GM wheat would be accepted for Australian food production in the foreseeable future. It was considered that this was driven by consumer preference.7
I wish to thank you for time and also pass on my appreciation in advance for your council taking action to ensure the South Australian landscape remains GM-Free.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Gower, General Manager NASAA Organic
1 KI Pure Grain (2018) Submission to Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium. 2 Atsushi Ishida, Chairman of the Board, Palsystem Consumers’ Co-operative Union (2018) Submission regarding review of GM crop cultivation by the South Australian Government 3 Locke S. Australian canola for European biodiesel emits half the greenhouse gas of fossil fuels, ABC Rural, 19 December 2017. 4 Coles (2009) Coles Community and Sustainability Report 2009, http://www.coles.com.au/Portals/0/content/swf/about_coles/CommSusRpt/Report.pdf 5 Woolworths: Genetically Modified (GM) Foods, http://www.woolworthslimited.com.au/page/A_Trusted_Company/Responsibile_Sourcing/Genetically_ Modified_GM_Foods/ 6 No appetite for Australian GM wheat, January 2013. 7 Grain Growers (2011) What the world wants from Australian wheat.
Unit 6/3 Mount Barker Road, Stirling, SA 5152 South Australia | +61 8 7231 7700 | www.nasaa.com.auAPPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3G-28JULY2020 PAGE 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #1 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020 Some Premiums for Non-GM Crops
x The KI Pure Grains group of farmers who applied successfully for GMO status so they can keep earning premiums for their GM-free grains and beverages, in local and export markets. ‘KI Pure Grain told the government’s Anderson Inquiry,
“The potential direct cost to KIPG and the KI Grain Growers is the loss of demand for our Non-GM Canola which presently stands at approximately $3,025,000. Additionally, … there is potential to lose further sales of other grains marketed as 'GM Free' which would add to this loss.”[i]
With a plan and support GM-free marketing and trade promotion, the whole of South Australia could reap similar rewards.
‘The Palsystem Consumers' Co-operative Union of Japan’ noted in their submission to the GM enquiry that to meet their strict non-GM policy, they bought canola and honey only from Kangaroo Island bringing $6 million annually into the Island's economy. They added,
“In order to further develop our economic contribution for both Kangaroo Island and the whole of South Australia, we are currently working on a plan to expand our range and volume of non-GM products, but the extension of the moratorium is critical to this plan.”[ii]
Another Japanese Consumer Co-operative, Coop Shizenha, which supplies only GM-free products to its 142,000 members told the inquiry,
“Our turnover is expected to reach AUD$233 million this fiscal year [2018]” and we “hope that we can contribute further to your economy by purchasing agricultural products cultivated in South Australia and Kangaroo Island as the only remaining Non-GM cultivation area of your country.”
[i] KI Pure Grain (2018) Submission to Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium. https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/336457/SA_GM_Food_Crop_Moratorium_Independent_Review_Submission _-_Kangaroo_Island_Pure_Grain.pdf [ii] Atsushi Ishida, Chairman of the Board, Palsystem Consumers' Co-operative Union (2018) Submission regarding review of GM crop cultivation by the South Australian Government https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/336465/SA_GM_Food_Crop_Moratorium_Independent_Review_Submission _-_PAL_System.pdf
x CSIRO team leader Dr Sandra Eady and Australian Export Grains Innovation Centre chief economist Ross Kingwell told the rural media, "Australia achieved a $100 million per year premium for our farmers, given the extra $20-$40/tonne paid for Australian non-GM Australian canola.”
x In the week ending June 5, 2020, GM canola was discounted $95/tonne in WA (Kwinana) compared with non-GM varieties, $39/tonne in Port Melbourne, and up to $39/tonne in rural NSW.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #4 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
Summary of market info from Tasmanian GM review 2019
Notes
x Austrade, commissioned a survey in December 2018 of the attitudes towards GMO by key importers and distributors of Tasmanian food, including seafood, in China, Japan and Korea. These three markets accounted for 47 per cent of Tasmania’s total export value for the food sector in 2017- Austrade suggested the results should be considered, prima facie, representative of the broader industry and consumer attitude towards GMOs in these respective markets.
x Tasmanian beef is also actively promoted producers as GMO-free as part of a suite of attributes used in its marketing, including hormone free, antibiotic free and certified humane. In 2017-18, beef was Tasmania’s most valuable international food export, representing $210 million out of a total food export value of $740 million. Three quarters of its beef is specifically marketed as ‘non-GMO’.
x Submissions from the State’s food, agriculture, aquaculture, food service and tourism industries noted the importance of the Tasmanian Brand to their business and how it is used as leverage for market access and to achieve price premiums
x The co-operative ODFA markets its milk as non-GMO, grass-fed and Certified Organic and these attributes are essential components of its brand and pricing strategies, with an increasing number of consumers willing to purchase organic dairy products at the premium price.
x International Milk Processor/marketer Fonterra has recently developed a segregated milk pool in New Zealand for non-GMO certified products and these products are achieving a greater market share and/or price premium in some international markets. The company identified Tasmania as a potential source for non-GMO milk.
x Currently the moratorium affords Tasmanian agri-food and agri-tourism businesses the opportunity, free of charge, to market Tasmania-grown product as GMO-free by virtue of its Tasmanian provenance.
x As noted in the Fruit Growers Tasmania submission, the moratorium removes the need for these businesses to continuously demonstrate proof-of-freedom from GMO contamination.
x A consequence of the decision to deregulate SDN-1 gene editing in Australia is that it is likely to lead to such organisms entering Australian agricultural production systems and supply chains. The task of demonstrating freedom from these unidentified and untraceable organisms to markets and customers that may view them as unapproved GMOs will become increasingly difficult, and may result in a loss of premiums for Australian agri-food exports in some markets.
x Greenham Tasmania’s submission provided evidence of the marketing and price benefits of Tasmania’s GMO moratorium to the business, noting that the State’s GMO-free status is a key part of its marketing program. All of the company’s beef production is sold as ‘Tasmanian’ while three quarters is also specifically marketed as ‘non-GMO’. A number of Greenham’s major customers in the United States, worth a combined total of $60–$80 million per annum, actively seek to purchase beef certified as non-GMO by global certifier the Non-GMO Project. These products reportedly command a price premium that is reflected in the higher price paid to Greenham’s 1,800 Tasmanian suppliers, estimated at an additional $125 per animal over and above conventional cattle prices.8 Testimonials from several of Greenham’s customers demonstrate the importance of the GMOfree attribute to their purchasing decision. For example CHOMPS, an American manufacturer of beef sticks marketed as ‘grass-fed’ and ‘non-GMO’, stated that: “We proudly call out the Non-GMO project [certification] on our consumer packaging and the certification is one of the main reasons we enjoy a rising demand for our products. If we could not source non-GMO material from Greenham, it would have a considerable impact on our business and plans for future growth. We would strongly encourage the Government to maintain the moratorium. It is a unique point of difference for all of Tasmania’s natural food products”. The importance of Greenham’s provenance story was also reinforced by one
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 112 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #4 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
of its Tasmanian customers, beef jerky producer KOOEE! which stated that: “Any downgrade in the perceived quality of Greenham Tasmania meat would cause complications for KOOEE! and reduce our ability to differentiate ourselves from cheaper offerings made interstate”. The submission from Tasmania Feedlot Pty Ltd, which finishes approximately 18,000-20,000 Angus steers per annum for Japan’s largest retailer, the Aeon Group, highlighted the importance of Tasmania’s GMO-free status to the State’s reputation as a clean, green and safe producer of premium beef. The company indicated that any change to Tasmania’s GMO-free status would likely have a negative effect on its business: “Our Japanese meat buyers as representatives of our customers have indicated that they will have a lot of difficulty selling our beef in Japan if we are unable to continue to guarantee that inputs to that beef are free from GM material. The worst case scenarios is that our business may not be able to operate in Tasmania with the consequential loss of direct jobs, indirect employment and export dollars into the Tasmanian economy.”
x The ODFA noted that the organic dairy industry is being increasingly led by consumer demand for “products and production methods that are variously sustainable, humane, organic, biodynamic, natural, clean/green, and paddock-to-plate”. Tasmania Feedlot Pty Ltd observed the importance of consumer perception over actual technology: “We have learnt over more than 40 years of dealing with the Japanese consumers that they regard as important the perception related to any aspect of the food production system rather than the actual technical or scientific impacts. Tasmania with its ‘island status’ and clean and green image is regarded by Japan as a very safe producer of food. Therefore any introduction of GM crops into Tasmania, even though those crops may not be used directly by our operation, may be perceived by Japanese consumers as creating a risk to our food production system”.
x The Tasmanian Beekeepers Association Inc, Tasmania’s peak industry body, also referred to the importance of consumer perception, noting that their competitiveness in world markets would be diminished if the State was to lose its GMO-free status. The current moratorium allows Tasmanian honey to be sold in domestic and international markets as ‘GMO-free’. Losing this ability would be extremely harmful to the $8 million honey industry.24
x The submission from Wine Tasmania noted that the Commonwealth Wine Australia Regulations 2018 and Australian Grape and Wine Genetically Modified Organisms Policy do not permit any GMOs to be utilised in the growing or making of Australian wine. However, it also noted that the moratorium is seen as a complementary aspect of the State’s reputation and brand. Lifting the moratorium could impact on the Tasmanian Brand in particular markets, which could affect Tasmanian wine sales. The submission supported retention of the moratorium and noted that there may be benefits for individual sectors, products and the Tasmanian Brand if the State’s GMO-free status was more widely promoted.
x 3.1.4 Expanding non-GM markets - According to Cargill, the world’s largest manufacturer of processed food components, non-GMO is one of the fastest growing claims in the food industry. With its GMO-free status, there is potential for Tasmania to take advantage of this rapidly expanding market, capitalising on the positive image of non-GM food products and a general wariness of GM products. ‘GMO-free’ packaging and marketing is uncommon in Australia, since consumers largely take the non-GM status of their food for granted. However, in the USA where GM products are more prevalent in the food chain, this claim can be used as a point of difference in marketing; for example, the submission from Greenham Tasmania noted that its US customers specifically call out the non-GM status of their products. This insight into US marketing strategies may provide a glimpse of how the non-GM claim may increase in importance and relevance as the number of GM products in the Australian food chain increases. Around 26 submissions made reference to the growing demand for non-GM and organic food products, and the accompanying expansion of organic farming practices.
x Dr John Paull of the University of Tasmania presented data showing that over the past 19 years, the global organic agriculture industry has grown at 12 per cent per year, with particularly rapid growth of 22 per cent per year in Australia over the past five years.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 113 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #4 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
x Several submissions discussed surveys and polls; a Choice Australia poll (2016) reported that 84 per cent of Australians are concerned about eating food with GM ingredients.
McDonald’s goes non-GM (in the U.K.)
“That’s What Makes McDonald’s” says: ‘Our free range eggs…come from hens fed on a non-GM diet and are free from artificial colorants…We’d like to reassure you that we don’t use any GM products or ingredients containing GM material in our food’.
McDonalds NZ Website: ‘Good news - our fries and hash browns come from 100% real, natural potato. Our suppliers, McCain and Simplot, both have a policy of no genetically modified potatoes in any of their products.’
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 114 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #7 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
The cost of GM contamination
Summary of information contained in the fully referenced paper NEW AND EXISTING GM CROPS: IN SEARCH OF EFFECTIVE STEWARDSHIP AND COEXISTENCE by Colin A. Carter and Guillaume P. Gruère published in NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. 4, No. 1
We must look at USA's record to see the realities of growing GM crop varieties as more crop varieties are approved by the Australian Gene Regulator and many new varieties will be released into the environment without oversight because of recent deregulation of GM by the Federal Government.
In practice, the of segregation of grain varieties is extremely expensive and neither the seed companies nor the regulators, nor the governments, nor the growers, nor the shippers, nor the merchants have been prepared or able to make it work reliably.
The public of the World essentially does not want to eat GM food or products from animals fed GM feed. Despite government allowances for GM contamination (often called co-mingling of grain) ranging from 0-5% by importing nations, failure after failure to keep GM out of Non GM food chains have been recorded
Major Co-mingling incidents have occurred in over 20 countries - not counting Australia that has had a number of relatively co-mingling incidents including with crops and animals, given the very few GM crop varieties grown in Australia.
------
In the United States, where GM crops were first planted on a large scale, coexistence has seen major failures . Despite the successful commercialization of GM crops, significant gaps remain in the regulatory system regarding accidental contamination from both regulated and deregulated GM crops.
While the safety of GM crops has been the primary focus of regulatory efforts, the proper handling of confined field trials of regulated crops is being increasingly questioned, after costly failures Furthermore, no visible effort has been undertaken by the U.S. government to comprehensively address the growing issue of GM/non-GM coexistence for deregulated crops(nor has Australia). Recent court cases have highlighted the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) failure to account for the economic effects of GM crops on 'non-adopters' when approving new GM crops.
In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction, halting the production of GM alfalfa pending the USDA’s completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), including an assessment of the economic effects on non-adopters such as organic producers.
The 9th Circuit Court affirmed the permanent injunction. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the District Court abused its discretion in issuing the permanent injunction, which erroneously prevented the USDA from partially deregulating GM alfalfa before completing an EIS.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 252 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #7 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
Once an EIS was completed in 2011, the USDA granted unconditional approval of GM alfalfa, approving it without any restrictions such as buffer zones. The USDA said it only had authority to establish conditions for planting GM alfalfa if there are safety risks. In other words, the agency said that it had little authority to consider whether or not a GM crop poses economic harm to an organic crop, for example, because of co-existence risks.
Recently, the USDA has discussed possible measures to ensure the coexistence of GM and non-GM foods in the market chain but it has not implemented any regulatory procedures leading to progress in this area.
In short, the federal Government is seems relatively unconcerned about the farmers and food consumers, allowing them to fight out their respective problems with each other and the GM seed companies without effective legislation or regulation (as per Australia; well demonstrated by the Marsh vs Baxter case in WA. Ed). But the issue goes all the way to the international marketplace, sometimes virtually destroying export markets for a commodity for years.
Co-mingling Cases
StarLink corn developed by Aventis (later Syngenta) and Liberty Link (LL) rice epitomise the weak government oversight and poor stewardship by crop science companies which caused enormous losses for U.S. farmers.
StarLink was an insect-resistant 'Bt' corn that was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1998 for commercial production for animal feed but not for human consumption. because it contained Cry9C, a protein that might cause allergic reactions in some humans. This approval represented a unique split license approach to deregulation – all other GM crops had been approved for use in food and feed together.
In 2000 the Washington Post reported that StarLink material was found in Kraft Food’s taco shells and Kraft soon announced a voluntary withdrawal of all taco shell products from grocery stores. This led to recalls of hundreds of food products domestically. Soon after, StarLink corn was discovered in snack foods and animal feed in Japan. South Korea and Canada, where StarLink corn was discovered in both food and animal feed.The East Asian market shifted its demand for corn imports away from the U.S. and towards other countries (such as China)
But given the dominance of the U.S. in the international corn market major importers like Japan had few alternatives apart from continuing to import from the U.S. while working out an arrangement for a new testing protocol for detecting StarLink GMOs and dealing with low levels of unintended commingling. In fact, by December 2000, a few months after Starlink was discovered in the food supply, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) quickly developed a new testing procedure to assure Japan that any further corn imported from the United States would not contain detectable StarLink material. Ultimately the US and Japan had reached an agreement on export inspections.
There were four main reasons why the StarLink commingling episode was not as costly to U.S. farmers as it could have been. First, corn imports into Japan were primarily for feeding animals. Second, at the time there was no mandatory requirement in Japan that animal feed be free of unapproved GMOs. Third, Japan had no alternative source to handle all of its corn import needs outside of the United States. Fourth, the Japanese government had a very 'practical' approach to
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 253 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #7 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
GMO labelling, as a way to minimize scandals and keep the price premium for non-GMOs at a reasonable level.
It required mandatory labelling when GM material accounts for 5% or more of the total weight and allowed presence of non-GM labels at the same tolerance level, if produced with identity preservation. Exemptions to Japan’s labelling requirements included feedstuffs, alcoholic beverages, and processed foods such as soya sauce, corn flakes, and other vegetable oils.
What was important in the StarLink case is that, as part of a new regulation requiring safety assessment for GM animal feed implemented on April 1st 2003, the Japanese government set a 1% tolerance for the unintentional commingling of GMOs in feed approved in other countries but not yet approved in Japan.
Even though a relatively small share of U.S. corn acreage was planted with StarLink, it contaminated the U.S. corn crop and the world corn market because the U.S. is the world’s largest producer and exporter of corn, accounting for about 40 percent of global output and 65 percent of world corn exports at the time.
The StarLink commingling episode was disruptive because a relatively large share of the market had zero tolerance for its use, and zero tolerance is virtually impossible to attain in the U.S. commodity trade system. Lin, Price and Allen analyzed the negative impact on U.S. corn exports due to the StarLink issue. They identified an 11% decline in U.S. exports to Japan through March 2001, narrowed to 7% by mid-April 2001 and ultimately to 6% for the marketing year. The StarLink “split license” was flawed regulation from the beginning and was discontinued by the EPA. The U.S. grain handling system was clearly not prepared to handle split licensing and, as a result, StarLink easily became co-mingled with non-StarLink corn and found its way into U.S. and foreign food products and bulk export cargoes. Apart from the general market decline the incident caused a loss of roughly $500 million to corn growers who did not grow Star-link. However, in a class action settlement, counsel representing U.S. corn farmers who grew non-Starlink corn between 1998 and 2002 settled for $110 million.
Starlink was withdrawn from sale and testing for its contaminating genes stopped in 2008. A billion dollar mistake for the World.
Despite the fallout from the StarLink co-mmingling episode, and changes in EPA procedures, the 2011 deregulation by USDA of a biofuel corn developed by Syngenta (Event 3272) seemed premature. Even with no proven health risks, introducing a non-food GM crop into the largely mixed corn commodity chain could create domestic challenges to the starch industry and possible trade disruptions, especially knowing that post-approval management rules and oversight have not changed since the StarLink case.
'Liberty link' rice
The United States is a significant participant in the overall world rice market, ranking among the top five rice-exporting nations in the world. Consequently, foreign markets are an important driver of prices received by U.S. rice farmers. GM Liberty Link long-grain rice—including LLRICE 601 and LLRICE 604—was developed by Aventis to address weed control problems. These varieties were developed to be herbicide tolerant, resistant to glufosinate, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Liberty
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 254 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #7 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
herbicide. As part of the approval process, Liberty Link rice field trials were conducted by Louisiana State University in collaboration with Bayer CropScience from 1999 through 2001 but the rice varieties did not go through the complete USDA deregulations.
Five years after these field trials, in August 2006, these unapproved varieties were detected in a cargo of rice shipped to the EU, one of the most important U.S. markets for long-grain rice. This immediately affected the predominant type of rice grown in the southern states. The USDA announced that unapproved GM rice (Liberty Link LL601) was found in shipments of U.S. long-grain rice, and the carrier variety was soon found to be a very popular variety named Cheniere. In March 2007, there was a further setback to the rice industry when the USDA announced that an additional popular variety of long-grain rice, Clearfield CL131, was found to contain another Liberty Link variety, Bayer’s unapproved LL604 rice. In total, Cheniere and CL131 represented about 30% of the Southern long-grain rice acreage in 2006. These varieties could not be planted in 2007 to avoid rice contamination, which could have caused additional financial losses for rice farmers, not to mention problems with seed availability for non-contaminated varieties. In response to the USDA announcement that LLRice had contaminated shipments, the EU swiftly imposed measures to minimize the amount of contaminated rice entering the EU food supply. U.S. farmers export approximately 50% of their long-grain rice, so foreign tolerance levels for adventitious presence of GM material are very important. The EU was a significant importer of U.S. rice but this trade came to a virtual halt following the Liberty Link contamination (see Figure 2). The EU has zero tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM gene groups ('events') like LL601 and as of 2011 Bayer had not applied for import authorization of LL601 in the EU.130
The EU “emergency measures” on LLRice remained in place for almost 4 years. Upon lifting the emergency measures on April 19, 2010, the Member States of the European Commission voted to: continue random testing for the absence of that organism in rice products. After the emergency measures were lifted, the U.S. rice industry began the difficult process of seeking to regain the important EU market, but significant hurdles remained. It is noteworthy that once the emergency measures were removed, “random testing” for LL601 remained in the EU and there is no doubt that
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 255 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #7 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
additional testing in the future (independent of the mandatory random testing) will continue on a commercial basis. Apart from individual testing by commercial buyers, member states may also continue their own testing. This means that there are three potential testing roadblocks to the export of U.S. rice to the EU: random testing as per the EC directive, commercial testing as per customer demands, and member state testing in response to consumer demand & the EU’s zero tolerance directive. While the April 19, 2010 vote served to remove legally binding emergency measures, it did not eliminate the commercial stigma associated with the LLRice “contamination” of the U.S. rice supply. In the almost five years that U.S. rice was prohibited from import to the EU, other countries, such as Thailand and Uruguay, essentially took over the market and established commercial relationships. It will take significant time for the U.S. industry to regain those relationships and build up exports to the level they were before the contamination. There remains concern in the EU over unapproved LLRice turning up in food products. This loss of export has not been compensated by additional exports to other destinations. Overall, more than 80% of the U.S. exports to the EU were lost since the beginning of the 2006-07 marketing year. Removal of the emergency measures was a necessary, but insufficient, condition to regain what the U.S. rice industry lost due to the contamination. As of early 2011, the total judgments and settlement imposed on Bayer in a few cases amounted to an estimate $250 million. Four hundred and fifty separate lawsuits were launched against the company. On July 1, 2011, Bayer finally agreed to pay $750 million in compensation to rice farmers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas to settle these lawsuits; nowhere near what was lost
------
South Australian councils can avoid joining this unfortunate circus and enable their areas to benefit from growing premium prices for pure food and fibre by showing our Minister for Primary Industries the marketing and trade benefits of Non-GM status. See other pages on this website for information about contacting your Council now. We only have one brief window of opportunity to remain GM-free.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 256 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #9 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
PO Box 859 • Gawler • South Australia 5118 • Tel/Fax 08 8522 6450
Web: www.foodforest.com.au Email: [email protected]
ABN 32 825 934 985
Date: 9 July 2020
Memo to: Light Council
Attention: Craig Doyle
Re: Evidence relating to the possible effect of Light Council becoming a Non-GMCrop area
I write to follow-up my email to the Mayor of 16 June, to which I don't believe I have had any answer. I share a boundary with Light Council and have a very real interest in the Council's response to the Minister of Primary Industries' offer to accept and application for Light to become a NON GMCrop area. I believe the issues below warrant public discussion in the interests of the prosperity of the Council area.
I am pleased to be able to share compelling evidence and logic that your council will be advantaged in trade and marketing by applying for and being granted the right to become a Non-GM Crop area
x Data presented in the 2020 Department of Primary Industries Enterprise Planning Guide, virtually a farmers 'bible' in terms of planning crops for the next season, shows clearly that GM Canola is significantly less profitable (in terms of Gross margins over 5 years of data) than naturally bred cultivars, right across SA. x Data presented in the Anderson Report commissioned by the Liberal Government to show the higher profitability of GM canola over existing open pollinated (non GM) varieties was put into question in a scientific paper from the Journal of Pasture Science 2016 (specifically about SA cropping areas) which showed that open pollinated canola was more profitable in lower rainfall areas. This was ignored in the report. x Data within the Anderson Report confirmed that farmers growing Non-GM canola were receiving a substantial premium for Non-GM canola on Kangaroo Island x Actual market reports for the sale of canola from Australian ports show that Non GM canola provides constant premia over GM canola sometimes rising to almost $100 per tonne x Food businesses wanting to produce Non GM products will find ingredients more difficult to get or more expensive if GM is adopted more widely; on the other hand they will have more market access if they remain Non-GM.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 259 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #9 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
x Data from world markets confirm that the market for Non GM Crops is growing rapidly (>17%) x Surveys of populations worldwide show that most people do not want to eat GM food x Key users of grain in Australia will not use GM grain in their value adding processes x The segregation of GM crops from Non GM crops has been shown to fail regularly overseas and also in Australia x The Independent Parliamentary review of the release of GM crop cultivars into the environment pointed out more than 20 failures and obstacles in the Regulation of GM crops x The multi-million dollar Non-GM/Organic South Australian beef export market could be compromised by GM 'contamination' (not to mention other meat, milk and grain crops) as livestock having eaten GM feed are disqualified from certified Non GM status domestically and in some export markets . x More GM cultivars including cereals are planned for release into the environment, potentially threatening the status of South Australia's beer, pasta, biscuits, flour and stockfeed. x The term 'GM Crops' is broad and could lead to losses of potential markets and premia for many crop types (including horticultural crops). x The loss of SA's overall clean, green image and the difficulty of assuring patrons of shops, restaurants and wineries that food is free of GM ingredients will likely cause higher costs and a lack of confidence in potential tourists x Most consumers of wine are unaware of the wine industry's self imposed ban on GM inputs. They need to be told that wine comes from Non-GM areas as well as excluding GM yeasts. This can be viewed as a market advantage to a whole BRANDED Non-GM region. x Buyers of SA products may well demand independent certification of Non-GM status if the bulk of the State is GM, putting extra costs back onto the producer x Organic farmers with neighbours growing GM may lose certification of all or part of their crops due to the proximity of GM crops. x There is no legislation to handle problems caused by the commercial incompatibility of GM and Non-GM crops. The Marsh test case in WA found that the organic grower was not entitled to any compensation for proven contamination of his land by a neighbouring crop. It is thus important to establish large contiguous areas of land that are Non-GM, with councils combining to create viable BRANDED areas. x Genetic modification is an inexact science, in which DNA is only one of the players. The concept of a lab technician simply snipping a chunk from a DNA sequence or neatly adding a chunk of DNA, like movie editing is a gross simplification. RNA is a major player and there are others such as prions, all of which have roles in determining the nature of the organism created. This is borne-out in the many 'mistakes' that have been made, where genetic material has been accidentally transferred from one cultivar to another, causing the loss of multi-million dollar markets to farmers in the USA. x Millions of Government dollars have been removed from natural plant breeding programs in the pursuit of engineered plants that are resistant to pests , diseases or herbicides through GM, but weeds, pathogens and insects are all capable of mutation and, often quite quickly, find their way around the relatively simple blocking mechanisms usually inserted by GM,
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 260 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #9 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
because of the constant selective pressure (for adaptation) exerted by monoculture farming. eg Over 60 weeds are now resistant to Roundup x Farmers are required to pay high prices for the seed of GM cultivars that have specific resistances or other qualities, but the base cultivar that was chosen to be 'modified', is often maladapted to the specific environmental conditions in which a farmer is growing the crop. x Farmers are also required to sign and pay for 'technology agreements' through which they are locked into using certain herbicides from which the seed supplier is directly profiting. Australian farmers pay the GM seed providers at a higher rate than farmers in most other countries because they are judged to be more wealthy. These costs eat into the gross margins (profitability) of GM crops. The keeping or sale of seed for planting is forbidden and aggressively enforced . Farmers are taken to court for breaches, both systematic and accidental. x Some GM seed companies (eg NuSeed) currently pay farmers a bounty on each tonne of grain produced to artificially make-up for the lower profitability of crops grown using their seed. Such 'promo' bounties can be withdrawn at any time.
The above points do not take into account the proven negative impacts of GM crops on: x human and animal health x effects on the environment including soil biology and water resources (including potable water) x A good website for basic research into the advantages of being a Non-GM area is https://non-gmoreport.com x I attach some key papers and reports mentioned above and am happy to provide further resources demonstrating the potential future losses that would be caused by leaving your council as a GM zone, which it now is.
I write as an individual, but I am a member of a group concerned about this GM situation. The group comprises Local Government councillors, agricultural technologists and researchers, grain crop experts, a nutritionist, epidemiologist, veterinary surgeon, chef and people who have a deep knowledge of the history of GM crops in health, economic and community impact. A number of the group are expert in the field of genetics.
The Minister went to some trouble to point out that it would be logical for adjacent councils to communicate and apply in similar terms if their communities and businesses had compatible situations. I gather that Gawler and Barossa (as well as Playford, Adelaide Hills and Onkaparinga) have decided to consult with their communities and I sincerely hope that Light allows democracy and transparency to get a run too.
I am happy to expand on the above and send further reference as required. I am also willing to address council or meetings to clarify this important issue
Yours sincerely
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 261 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #9 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
Graham Brookman
Joint Managing Director
0407771985
Who am I? Graham Brookman is Joint Managing Director of The Food Forest, Australia's largest producer of certified organic pistachios and grower of 150 types of food and wine. He is qualified in Agricultural Technology and Teaching (University of Adelaide). The Food Forest's properties are all in Greater Adelaide, at Hillier. Mr Brookman has been Presiding Member of the Gawler Council's DAP for some years and has great interest in the future of food growing and value-adding in Playford and Light as well as Gawler. through membership of the irrigation water action group within the Northern Adelaide Plains Food Cluster.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 262 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Attachment #10 to Brookman Food Forest Email of 10 July 2020
PO Box 859 • Gawler • South Australia 5118 • Tel/Fax 08 8522 6450
Web: www.foodforest.com.au Email: [email protected]
ABN 32 825 934 985
Date: 9 July 2020
Memo to: Light Council
Attention: Craig Doyle
Re: Evidence relating to the possible effect of Light Council becoming a Non-GMCrop area
I write to follow-up my email to the Mayor of 16 June, to which I don't believe I have had any answer. I share a boundary with Light Council…
DUPLICATION OF ‘ATTACHMENT 9’ OF APPENDIX 13.3H
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3H-28JULY2020 PAGE 263 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Jamie Wilson PO Box 92 Balaklava SA 5461 [email protected]
Light Regional Council
Dear Mayor and elected Council Members,
Recently the Minister for Agriculture – Hon. Tim Whetstone passed regulations to allow the cultivation of GM crops in South Australia, and allowing councils to prove an economic advantage to remain GM Free. This is following 2 years of public consultation through an independent review, select committee inquiry and public meetings.
As an agronomist that covers your region I have a vast knowledge and experience in crop and pasture production for the agronomic and economic performance of growers. As someone that has studied plant science I can see no reason for opposition of GM crops.
I am sure that the council will have been inundated with opponents of GM technology requesting you oppose the production of GM crops in your council region however GM crops are administered federally by the Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). Prior to commercial release all GM crops must undertake onerous safety testing by both of these federal bodies. To date since GM crops have been produced in Australia there has been no adverse effects in 25 years in Australia and 30 years globally.
There will be strong opposition from the organic industry but it could be argued that the introduction of GM crops would increase the value of the organic produce if the market is prepared to pay and would allow a marketing difference for that niche portion of the market. So, the introduction of GM crops would therefore increase the value of this sector. These sectors have continued to be viable in every other state where GM crops are grown and have successfully co-existed and both industries operate in unilaterally. As both industries use different supply chains for their markets the management of identity preservation is easily managed.
The 16 years of delay in GM technology in South Australia has seen a reduction in agricultural research in SA as the genetic scientists have drifted to NSW and Victoria where the research can be undertaken, this cost is immeasurable. An independent report has shown that the lack of GM technology for SA growers has cost the industry approximately $33M report link attached below (https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/339225/Independent_Review_of_the_South_ Australian_GM_Food_Crop_Moratorium.pdf )
GM technology is rapidly changing and there are a large range of GM uses currently undergoing infield testing for performance and regulatory approval. These include abiotic stresses (drought and frost), salinity tolerance, bio-fortification and many more. There are not only GM crops undergoing testing but many other end uses and plant based vaccines that are GM. The traits that are being developed go far beyond herbicide tolerance and include increased Omega oils in safflower and canola, algae for biofuel and plastics, tree crops such as eucalyptus and poplar trees. Currently under development and commercialisation are GM yeasts for wine and beer production, GM pastures for livestock production and GM wheat with improved water use efficiency.
Below is a list of current GM traits commercial available around the world, this does not include the huge range of traits that are in development or undergoing regulatory testing. These have a far wider benefit for a large range of crops. Many of the human health developments are GM based as well. For example, insulin is produced using GM technology.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3I-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1
Commercial GM Traits List
• Abiotic Stress Tolerance • Altered Growth/Yield • Disease Resistance • Herbicide Tolerance • Insect Resistance • Modified Product Quality • Pollination control system
GM crops have been globally increasing in area since their introduction. Being introduced in 1996 and 1.7 million hectares to 2018 global production reaching 191.7 million hectares. This indicates several key points 1) Economic return – if there was not an economic return farmers wouldn’t be growing 2) Market Acceptance – if markets didn’t accept GM crops there would be no market available for the produce
Many countries around the world including Australia’s trading partners have GM crops registered and have GM crop production. The European Union and China both accept GM crops and China has a range of crop crops in production. Many other Asian countries also produce and accept GM crops and are a very important part of food security for developing countries. The link below shows the countries producing GM crops in 2018. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/
The consultation process that was undertaken in South Australia showed a majority support for the production of GM crops in South Australia. I fully support the introduction of GM crops in South Australia and request the council supports the propagation of GM crops in your region.
Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or would like further information on GM crop production.
Regards
Jamie Wilson
0407 796 202
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.3I-28JULY2020 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.3.1 Economic Development Plan 2020-2030
Report prepared for Light Regional Council
July 2020
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1
lucid /’lu:sid/
adjective
1. expressed clearly; easy to understand
2. bright or luminous
Document Control Job Name: Economic Development Plan 2020-2030
Client: Light Regional Council
Client Contact: Kieren Chappell
Version Control Version Date Authorisation Draft v1 11/11/2019 MC Draft v2 31/01/2020 MC Draft v3 16/03/2020 MC Draft v4 1/04/2020 MC Draft v5 22/04/2020 MC Draft v6 30/4/2020 MC Draft v7 22/07/2020 MC
Acknowledgement of Country We acknowledge that the Light Region’s economic wellbeing is built upon the traditional lands of the Ngadjuri, Peramangk and Kaurna traditional owners. We respect their spiritual relationship to their country and acknowledge that as traditional custodians, their cultural and heritage beliefs are still as important to the traditional owners of today.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this document, Lucid Economics Pty Ltd is unable to make any warranties in relation to the information contained herein. Lucid Economics Pty Ltd, its employees and agents accept no liability for any loss or damage that may be suffered as a result of reliance on this information, whether or not there has been any error, omission or negligence on the part of Lucid Economics Pty Ltd, its employees or agents. Any forecasts or projections used in the analysis and relied upon for any findings can be affected by a number of unforeseen or unknown variables, and as such no warranty is given that a particular set of results will in fact be achieved or realised.
i APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
About this Document
The formulation of this Economic Development Plan was chiefly informed by the following documents.
Economic Development Plan and Associated Background Reports
Economic Analysis Report Stakeholder Engagement Economic Development Plan Report 2020-2030
Consultation and stakeholder engagement are an important part of economic You are here! development planning. This report provides an in- Talking to businesses, The Economic Development depth analysis of the local economic development Plan provides clear direction economy and foundation for agencies, government bodies, for the future economic future economic development educational institutions and growth and vibrancy of the activities. Some of the key other key stakeholders, Light region, as well as an analysis from the Report is provides invaluable implementation plan. contained in this Plan but information about the realities further detailed analysis is of living the local economy. provided in the Analysis Report. This report also includes the results of a survey from 143 Light businesses.
Appendix A illustrates the Light Regional Council Economic Development Framework.
ii APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Executive Summary
Introduction
Lucid Economics Pty Ltd (Lucid Economics) was engaged to deliver an Economic Development Plan for the Light Regional Council. To capitalise on the economic opportunities arising from the changing nature of the local and broader economic environment, this economic development plan seeks to understand the Light region’s local economy and industry sectors, to set strategies, goals and actions to develop the local and regional economy over the next 10 years, and to provide economic development direction to the Council, supporting agencies and local businesses in the pursuit of the Light Regional Economic Vision. The Economic Development Plan provides a guide to investment and resource management decisions in a local government context.
Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) The COVID-19 pandemic emerged during the development of this plan. In response, the South Australian and Commonwealth governments enacted a range of restrictions, effectively shutting down various sectors of the economy and forcing many businesses to close temporarily or permanently. There has been a wide range of support provided by all three spheres of government to support businesses (and residents) during this time including Council’s own COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan. Economic development plans are necessarily long-term and the response and recovery to the current crisis has been considered in the context of this plan and its long-term aspirations and vision, essentially presenting a range of activities to be carried out in the short term. After the response and recovery, the Economic Development Plan will provide the required guidance regarding future economic growth.
The Light Regional Economy
The Light region’s economy is unique in many ways. The region’s median weekly personal and household income levels were both higher than the state medians in 2016, and the region’s labour market exhibits a low rate of unemployment. However, there are pockets of relatively high socio- economic disadvantage. Light’s population growth is currently slowing and ageing, which is likely to have implications for the more population-dependent industries. Population growth in 2018 (the most recent year for which data is available) was 0.8%, down from 1.7% just three years earlier and 2.5% a decade ago. The economy is focused around the three key industries of agriculture, manufacturing and construction, which combine to make up almost 50% of the region’s economy (in Gross Regional Product terms). Large employers such as Orora Glass, Ahrens Engineering, Ridley Feed Mill and the various wineries across the region make a very important contribution to the economy. Economic growth in the Light region has been particularly volatile in recent years due to changing prices, drought and a number of other external factors. The most recent year experienced a 6% decline in Gross Regional Product (GRP) with all major industries showing declines. This outcome compares to 0% growth at the state level and a 1% increase from the RDA Barossa Gawler Light Adelaide Plains region.
iii APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
The Light region currently has a jobs deficit of over 30% (i.e. 30% more jobs would be necessary to equal the number of resident workers). With this deficit, it is not surprising the 65% of local resident workers travel outside of the Council area to work. While the majority of these residents are travelling to adjoining local government areas, some do travel to Adelaide for work. The economic analysis of the local economy indicated that there are a number of future economic development growth opportunities for the Light Region in the following industries: • Agriculture • Food and beverage manufacturing • Professional, scientific and technical services • Tourism • Equine industry • Healthcare (including emergency services, aged care and retirement living) • Creative industries Business Sentiment
Consultation for this project was undertaken through both individual interviews and a survey of businesses. The survey revealed that the advantages of running a business from the Light region was overwhelmingly proximity to customers followed by proximity to Adelaide. Location disadvantages were identified as unsupportive local and/or state government, then availability of utilities and telecommunications infrastructure, and proximity to suppliers. More than half of the survey respondents said Council’s role was to advocate to state and federal governments for infrastructure investment, followed by marketing and promotion of the area for business and investment, and purchasing more from local businesses. Businesses that were interviewed identified ways that Council could support the local economy, as outlined below. • Capitalise on the global premium Barossa brand • Business friendly planning policies and processes, especially for existing businesses • Facilitate workforce development • Ensure the provision of appropriate economic infrastructure Economic Development Plan
Vision for the Future Light Region Economy
The Light region will be a thriving regional economy that: • Delivers rewarding local career options for existing and future residents, • Grows at a rate among the highest in regional SA, in a manner decoupled from environmental degradation, • Builds upon our enviable lifestyle, landscapes and history, and • Remains resilient and adaptive to disruption and change.
iv APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
The following diagram provides an overview of the Economic Development Plan. Figure E.0.1. Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan Overview
Source: Lucid Economics An implementation plan outlines key actions for each strategic direction as well as key performance indicators (KPI), priority and the resources and partners required to be successful.
v APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Table of Contents
About this Document ...... ii Executive Summary ...... iii Table of Contents ...... vi 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. The Light Economy ...... 4 2.1 Overview of the Light Regional Economy ...... 4 2.2 Future Growth Opportunities ...... 6 3. Strategic Context ...... 7 3.1 Role of Local Government in Economic Development ...... 7 3.2 Strategic and Policy Context ...... 9 4. Business Sentiment ...... 13 4.1 Business Survey ...... 13 4.2 Business Interviews ...... 15 5. Opportunities and Challenges ...... 16 5.1 SWOT ...... 16 5.2 Strategic Assets...... 17 6. Economic Development Plan ...... 19 6.1 Principles for Economic Development ...... 19 6.2 Economic Development Plan Overview ...... 19 6.2.1 COVID-19 Response and Recovery ...... 21 6.2.2 Advocacy ...... 22 6.2.3 Investment Attraction ...... 23 6.2.4 Supporting Local Business ...... 24 6.2.5 Planning ...... 25 6.2.6 Infrastructure Development ...... 26 7. Implementing the Plan ...... 29 8. Monitoring and Review ...... 40 References ...... 41 Appendix A: Light Regional Council Economic Development Framework ...... 43
vi APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
1. Introduction
Lucid Economics Pty Ltd (Lucid Economics) has been engaged to deliver this Economic Development Plan on behalf of the Light Regional Council (LRC). The Light region, an hour’s drive north of Adelaide, encompasses a significant proportion of one of Australia’s best-known international brands, the Barossa Valley wine region, as well as prime agricultural land to the north and west. Townships within the LRC area include Kapunda, Freeling, Gawler Belt, Greenock, Hewett, Roseworthy and Wasleys as well as several other smaller settlements. Following European settlement in South Australia, Light’s local economy was initially founded on mining (through Australia’s first commercial copper mine in Kapunda) and agriculture. Agriculture (including viticulture) remains an important industry, with supporting manufacturing industries also providing significant jobs. Figure 1.1. Map of Light Regional Council Area
Source: Light Regional Council (2016).
1 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
The changing nature of some of the Light region’s strongest industry sectors presents economic opportunities, including in manufacturing and agriculture, as well as the potential to diversify the local economy by supporting the growth of the visitor economy and renewable energy sectors, as well as industries emerging through technological advancements. Other changes that will impact the Light region economy include the residential and employment lands development at Roseworthy, the opening up of SABRENet1 and the Gig City program, and the development of the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS). The completion of key infrastructure including the Northern Connector and the North-South Corridor Regency Road to Pym Street projects will cut freight, tourist and commuter travel times from the Light region by up to 15 minutes to key locations such as the Adelaide CBD, airport and port. The Council’s Strategic Plan 2016-2020 defines a number of priority areas, including ‘economic wellbeing’, with measures of success being ‘increased diversity of economic sectors across the region’ and ‘levels of employment across age groups are maintained or improved’. This Economic Development Plan seeks to understand the Light region local economy and industry sectors, to set strategies, goals and actions to develop the local and regional economy over the next 10 years, and to provide economic development direction to the Council, supporting agencies and local businesses in the pursuit of economic wellbeing, as characterised by the Light Regional Economic Vision.
Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) emerged during the development of this plan. On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organisation (WHO) was alerted to a pneumonia of unknown causes detected in Wuhan, China. The outbreak spread quickly and was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January 2020 and a Pandemic on 11 March 2020. The WHO named the new disease COVID-19. As at 20 July 2020, there were more than 14.3 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and more than 603,000 deaths. In Australia, there were 11,802 confirmed cases and 122 people had died from COVID-19. Restrictions brought in by the Commonwealth and state governments have changed the way people live and work in Australia. The current crisis will have a lasting effect on the lives of the people who are living through it. It will likely become a defining element of the current generation, similar to the Great Depression or World War II for earlier generations.
Figure 1.2 below compares the number of Light residents on Newstart (as it was known at the time) in June 2019 with the number of Light residents on JobSeeker in June 2020. The Light region has been less impacted by COVID-19 than the dataset benchmark regions of Greater Adelaide and South Australia. Whilst there was a significant increase in those on Jobseeker in June 2020 compared with June 2019 (+421), Light is comparatively 25-30% better off than the benchmark areas.
1 The South Australian Broadband Research & Education Network (SABRENet) is a specialised high-speed and high-capacity fibre-optic broadband network linking major research, education and innovation sites across metropolitan South Australia.
2 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 9 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Figure 1.2. JobSeeker and Youth Allowance Recipients Month June 2020 June 2019
Region – LGA/SA2 JobSeeker and % of 15-64 JobSeeker and % of 15-64 Change youth allowance age Youth allowance age recipients population recipients population
Light Regional Council 835 8.3% 415 4.1% +421
Gawler - North 506 8.2% 244 3.9% +262
Light 531 8.7% 268 4.4% +263
Greater Adelaide 94,420 10.8% 49,281 5.6% +45,139
South Australia 124,949 11.3% 68,362 6.2% +56,587
Source: Department of Social Services
3 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
2. The Light Economy
2.1 Overview of the Light Regional Economy
The Light region has an estimated population of 15,339. While population growth remains positive, the rate of growth has been declining over the last five years. By 2031, the Light region is expected to have 18,963 people. Population growth will need to increase above current levels in order to reach this population figure. Population growth is important as it drives economic growth across approximately one-third of the economy. The Light region provides affordability, with average house prices 18% lower than the State average and 27% lower than metropolitan Adelaide, which should aid in attracting new residents. Compared to South Australia, the Light region enjoys relatively high levels of income and low levels of unemployment. The local workforce is relatively highly skilled and well educated. However, there is a jobs deficit of over 30% (i.e. the economy would need to increase local jobs by over 30% to match the number of resident workers). Due to this jobs deficit, 65% of local residents leave the region every day for work. Most are travelling to neighbouring Local Government Authorities (LGAs), however, some residents do travel into Adelaide for work. While no one industry truly dominates the economy, there are a handful of very important industries (and individual businesses). Manufacturing is the single largest sector, followed by agriculture, construction and education. Only the education sector has grown over the most recent year. Manufacturing, agriculture and construction can all be relatively volatile industries that are impacted by a myriad of internal and external factors including prices, weather, local demand, global competition and technology. Locally, the manufacturing sector is dominated by glass manufacturing (39%), fabricated metal product manufacturing (18%), food manufacturing (16%) and beverage production (14%). These sectors are representative of key employers such as Orora Glass, Ahrens Engineering, Ridley Feed Mill, JT Johnson and Sons and Laucke Feed Mills as well as the various wineries across the region and combined they represent 20% of Gross Regional Product. The agricultural industry includes the vineyards and the growing of wine grapes locally, but the industry’s largest sector locally is livestock, mostly pigs and chickens. There are also grain and hay growing operations in the region that contribute meaningfully to the economy. Unfortunately, none of these industries performed well over the last year, producing declines across local Gross Regional Product as well as employment. Education, retail and healthcare have been the strongest performing industry sectors in the region, in terms of growth. These industries have been providing strong job growth over the last two years. Tourism is important to the region and contributes directly to the wineries in the region as well as many of the towns. Over 300,000 visitors are attracted to the Light region, with the majority of them (80%) being day-trip visitors. Tourism contributes a total of $14.0 million to the local economy (in GRP terms) and 157 jobs (directly and indirectly). Based on recent study by the Regional Australia Institute, 27% of jobs in the Light region are rated as having ‘high vulnerability’ to technological change. The top three jobs by employment number in the Light region that are most vulnerable to automation are in sales, food processing and book-keeping. Food processing is particularly relevant to the region as a key agriculture centre and the sector that offers high growth opportunity.
4 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 11 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
5 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 12 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
2.2 Future Growth Opportunities
This analysis has considered a number of economic and industry factors as well as workforce and other related economic indicators in evaluating the local economy. It has identified a range of competitive advantages as well as a range of economic development opportunities. The analysis has indicated that there are several future economic development growth opportunities for the Light region in the following industries: • Agriculture • Food and beverage manufacturing • Professional, scientific and technical services • Tourism • Equine industry • Healthcare (including emergency services, aged care and retirement living) • Creative industries
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the South Australian Government made an Emergency Declaration on 22 March 2020 (and subsequently extended on 4 April 2020), which enacted a variety of restrictions that were recommended by the Prime Minister, including: • Forced social distancing and self-isolation rules • Closure of all non-essential businesses • Cancellation of all events and limiting gatherings to 10 people (however strongly urged to limit gatherings to no more than two people) • Closing South Australia’s borders except for essential workers • People required to stay at home (unless they have to leave for an essential purpose) In mid-March, the ABS conducted a Business Impacts of COVID-19 Survey of Australian businesses to identify the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and found: • 66% of businesses saw a reduction in turnover • 64% of businesses experienced a reduction in demand • 48% of businesses have reported an impact from Government restrictions • 29% of businesses experienced a difficulty in sourcing new stock or raw materials In May, new COVID-19 cases stabilised at a low level and a number of states had successfully suppressed cases of COVID-19 to zero for significant amounts of time, allowing them to return, progressively, to ‘normal’ life, including South Australia.
The ABS’s May 2020 Business Impacts of COVID-19 Survey showed 55% of businesses were accessing government support, including wage subsidies and many had changed their business operations – by shifting to online sales or operating with a reduced workforce.
The situation remains fluid with subsequent outbreaks in Melbourne in July 2020 and potentially also in NSW, resulting in a return to ‘hard closures’ of some state borders. Without a vaccine, there remains the possibility of outbreaks occurring anywhere across the country for the foreseeable future.
6 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
3. Strategic Context
Some significant economic opportunities have been embraced by the Light Regional Council through the changing nature of some of its strongest industry sectors, as well emerging sectors and changes in the broader economic environment. These include residential developments at Hewett, Freeling, Kapunda, Greenock and Wasleys together with the planned significant expansion of Roseworthy. More specific economic activators include large scale regional water supply infrastructure such as the Gawler Water Reuse Scheme (GWRS), Barossa Infrastructure Limited (BIL) and the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS). Emerging activators include the opening up of SABRENet, proposed expansions at Adelaide University’s Roseworthy campus, growing support for a proposed international equine centre, private developments particularly in the wine industry, and catalytic opportunities to grow the visitor economy. Preparation of this Economic Development Plan is intended to guide investment and resource management decisions in a local government context. Council’s role in supporting the development of the local economy is complementary to the equally important roles undertaken by other levels of government and regional development agencies, and this plan sits within the context of those roles and activities, as outlined below. 3.1 Role of Local Government in Economic Development
Local government is a natural leader in local economic development because councils know their local business communities, workforce and comparative advantages better than anyone else. Local people are the key to economic growth and development, and councils are perfectly positioned to work with local stakeholders to drive a bottom-up, place-based approach to achieve economic prosperity. Economic development is also a council-wide effort and many of council’s day to day activities will influence and impact economic development outcomes. As highlighted in Figure 3.1 below, many of the key functions of local government can influence the development of local economies. Local governments play an advocacy role for business and industry in securing public investment in key infrastructure projects and/or supporting key policy or regulatory change at the state or national level. Even some of the services that councils provide, such as waste management, health services, transport services, visitor servicing, community services, etc can contribute meaningfully to encouraging future economic growth and investment. Finally, and probably where economic development can have the most impact is through the Council’s role as a facilitator and an activator. Council therefore has numerous levers and tools to help create a local environment that is conducive to economic growth. The role of local government in economic development is further supported directly by the Local Government Act 1999 that describes the function of local councils: • To promote its area and to provide an attractive climate and locations for the development of business, commerce, industry and tourism • To plan at the local and regional level for the development and future requirements of its area • To provide for the welfare, well-being and interests of individuals and groups within its community • To provide infrastructure for its community and for development within its area • To establish or support organisations or programs that benefit people in its area or local government generally
7 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Figure 3.1. Role of Local Government in Economic Development
Advocate
Provide Facilitate Services Economic Development
Activate Regulate
Plan
Source: Lucid Economics
8 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 15 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
3.2 Strategic and Policy Context
There are a number of strategic and policy initiatives that are important to the future economic development of the Light region that are linked to this Economic Development Plan. The following table (Table 3.1) provides a description of the specific policy or strategy, as well as how it connects to the Economic Development Plan. A more detailed summary is provided in the Economic Analysis Report. Table 3.1. Strategic and Policy Context Document / Description Linkage Initiative Light Regional The Strategic Plan is the overarching guiding document for the One of the four priority areas outlined in the Light Regional Council Council council, providing clear direction in terms of future activities for Strategic Plan 2016-2020 is Economic Wellbeing with objectives to Strategic Plan all facets of Council work. The development of the Strategic Plan increase the diversity of economic sectors across the region and includes input from a range of Council stakeholders and maintain/improve levels of employment across age groups. The represents the community's perspectives and aspirations for the Economic Development Plan is responsible for guiding Council future. activities to deliver on this key priority area and guide the update of the new Council Strategic Plan beyond 2020. Light Regional The Light Regional Council Sustainability Policy (2009) is currently This Economic Development Plan can provide strong linkages to the Council under review by the Council’s Sustainability Working Party. updated Sustainability Policy, particularly relating to the circular Sustainability economy and low-carbon economic transition. Strategy Light Regional Council is currently developing a Community Wellbeing Strategy While the Economic Development Plan is focused on the economy, Council that will consider a variety of economic, social and environmental there is a very strong link between employment and a healthy Community factors. community. Research has shown that a strong community can also Wellbeing contribute to growing a strong economy. Strategy
9 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 16 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Document / Description Linkage Initiative RDA Barossa Regional Development Australia (RDA) Barossa Gawler Light The Economic Development Plan seeks to leverage the efforts and Gawler Light Adelaide Plains is a Board of Industry leaders from key sectors activities of the RDA, particularly for its identified 'game changer' Adelaide across the region, supported by a professional team, which projects. Many of the targeted priorities are also important to the Plains collaborates with the three spheres of government to identify Light region and will be supported through the Economic Regional economic opportunity and challenges – and ways to address Development Plan. Economic Plan them. The Regional Economic Plan sets out clear goals and identifies a series of priority projects and targeted areas, including many important for businesses and infrastructure projects in the Light region. 30 Year Plan The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide describes the State The economy and jobs are a key feature of the plan. Specifically, for Greater Government's plan for how Greater Adelaide should grow to the plan seeks to provide support for sustainable tourism, Adelaide become more liveable, competitive and sustainable. The Plan residential and employment land development across the Greater provides a comprehensive approach to the future planning, Adelaide region. The Economic Development Plan is aligned to the development and provision of infrastructure across the broader aspirations of the 30 Year Plan and provides support for the growth region. of the local tourism industry. South The South Australian government has outlined a plan to greatly The Economic Development Plan is aligned to the growth agenda, Australian increase the State's economy and established a growth target of with a focus on a number of the state’s identified key growth areas Growth Plan 3% per annum. There are a number of policies, programs and including tourism; healthcare; food, wine and agribusiness. projects established to support this growth, including the identification of nine key growth industries: tourism; health and medical industries; international education; food, wine and agribusiness; defence industry; space industries; high-tech; creative industries; energy and mining. SA Visitor The South Australian government’s industry-led and endorsed The plan is one of nine different industry sector plans that form the Economy plan aims to grow the state’s visitor economy to $12.8 billion by basis of the state government’s ‘growth agenda’, which aims to Sector Plan 2030 and generate an additional 16,000 jobs. promote industry growth by leveraging our competitive 2030 advantages, as outlined above.
10 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 17 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Document / Description Linkage Initiative SA Regional The state government is developing a regional development A stakeholder engagement report has been released which Development strategy, aimed at growing our regional economy, supporting identifies the following issues raised at the Barossa forum: lack of Strategy people in their choice to live in regional communities, and public transport; access to water infrastructure; more higher ensuring regional South Australia is prosperous. It is scheduled education options for key local industries; streamline delivery of for release ‘in 2020’. health services; regional leadership; tourism product; infrastructure and skills development; local planning decision-making; regional decision-making. Character The legislation recognises the special character of the Barossa While it is important to protect and enhance the Barossa Valley for Preservation district and seeks to protect and enhance this while providing for agriculture and food production, this needs to be balanced with (Barossa the economic, physical and social wellbeing of the communities enabling economic growth. Valley) Act within them. 2012 Environment Introduced in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act Many stakeholders felt that this element of the Act is restrictive to and Food 2016, the EFPA is designed to protect rural, landscape and growth. Council should work with the RDA and other relevant Production environmental areas from urban encroachment and encourage stakeholders to consider how to ensure the legislation supports the Areas (EFPA) consolidation within the existing urban footprint and renewal of region and food production. existing urban areas.
11 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 18 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Document / Description Linkage Initiative Small Business The South Australian Small Business Commissioner has Almost 60% respondents to the business survey said they would Friendly developed the Small Business Friendly Council (SBFC) initiative ‘to like Council to participate in the Small Business Friendly Council Council (SBFC) help build stronger, more productive relationships between small initiative. Almost half of all South Australian Councils have now initiative business and Council’. The five required initiatives of SBFC signed up to this initiative. charter are: • Implementing activities to improve the operating This Plan should consider the initiative and whether or not Light environment for small business within Council’s area. Regional Council should sign up to the Charter. • Establishing a business advisory group (if one does not already exist) to assist Council’s understanding of small business in its area. • Implementing a procurement policy which recognises and supports local small businesses wherever possible. • Paying undisputed invoices from small businesses within 30 days. • Implementing a timely and cost-effective dispute resolution process to manage disputes. Building Building Upgrade Finance is a finance product to assist building The survey of businesses asked respondents whether they were Upgrade owners with environmental upgrades to non-residential interested in Building Upgrade Finance (BUF) opportunities Finance (BUF) buildings, and with restoration and upgrades to heritage involving environmental and heritage upgrades to non-residential buildings. buildings and whether they would like Council to offer this finance product. Respondents to this question were very evenly split Under Building Upgrade Finance, an agreement between the between the three response options of ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘unsure’. building owner, finance provider and local council is entered into, where a: However, separate consultation with several community groups • building owner seeks finance for a building upgrade based in and/or managing heritage-listed community facilities, • finance provider lends finance to the building owner were experiencing financial difficulty in being able to meet required • council collects repayments from the building owner and building standards associated with upgrades. transfers them to the finance provider This Plan should consider the potential of Council’s participation in Building Upgrade Finance. Source: Lucid Economics
12 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 19 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
4. Business Sentiment
As part of the preparation of this plan, consultation was undertaken with local businesses through both in person interviews and via feedback gathered through a survey of businesses. 4.1 Business Survey
A short survey was sent to 1,410 businesses located in the Light region, and 143 responses were received. The survey questions sought information about: • Business industry and size • Advantages and disadvantages of the Light region as a business location • Role of Council in Economic Development (including the Small Business Friendly Council Initiative and the Building Upgrade Finance program) The survey had a margin of error of 7.8% (at a confidence level of 95%), which represents a statistically sound result. Most respondents worked in agriculture, followed by construction, retail trade, and healthcare & social services. A significant majority of respondents did not employ anyone in their business (i.e. sole operators/owner/occupier businesses). Location advantages: overwhelmingly, proximity to customers, then proximity to Adelaide were cited as the key advantages. A number of comments were made about being able to have their business close to where they wanted to live. Location disadvantages: unsupportive local and/or state government was often cited. Of less importance was the availability of utilities and telecommunications infrastructure, and proximity to suppliers. Comments included poor quality roads, lack of public transport and lack of wayfinding signage for visitors. Council’s role in economic development: The survey also asked what role people thought the Council should play in economic development. They were invited to select any of the options that demonstrated the varied and diverse range of activities that businesses felt Council should undertake to support economic development (Figure 4.1).
13 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 20 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Figure 4.1. Role of Council, Business Survey Results
Marketing and promotion of the area for business and investment Providing networking opportunities for local businesses Providing educational and business improvement workshops Advocating to the state and federal governments for infrastructure investment Facilitate business investment and expansion in the Light region Facilitate workforce development outcomes, connecting local people to local jobs Providing financial incentives to attract new investment and development Assist local businesses to connect with local customers and suppliers
Purchase more from local businesses
Nothing, Light Regional Council doesn’t have a role to play in the economy
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% % of Responses Source: Lucid Economics The survey identified the following key ways that Council could support local businesses: • Advocacy: advocating to state and federal governments for infrastructure and other investment. • Marketing & Promotion: businesses highlighted the importance of marketing and promoting what the area has to offer to attract more businesses and residents. • Local Procurement: businesses highlighted the importance of Council procuring services from local businesses, which keeps expenditure within the region and benefits the local economy. There was also support for facilitating business investment in the area, providing networking opportunities and assisting local businesses to connect with other local customers and suppliers. Comments included promoting the Light lifestyle, upgrading the road network, supporting entrepreneurism, and supporting development applications to facilitate business expansion. Almost 60% of respondents supported Council participating in the Small Business Friendly Council initiative. Respondents were less engaged about Council participation in the Building Upgrade Finance (BUF) program, however the vast majority of survey respondents work in agriculture (27%) followed by construction (11%), that is, businesses that are unlikely to have many buildings requiring environmental or heritage upgrades and therefore access BUF, therefore their interest in it is also likely to be low.
14 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 21 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
4.2 Business Interviews
Approximately ten local businesses and stakeholders were interviewed for this project. Similar discussion points comprised the core questions for these interviews. Stakeholders interviewed identified the following key ways that Council could support the local economy: • Brand Barossa: capitalise on this global premium brand to attract the luxury tourism market, especially in culinary tourism as well as food production. • Planning: planning was highlighted as a key local government function that should be used to protect existing businesses, particularly industrial businesses that may be facing the challenge of residential encroachment on their facilities. • Workforce development: availability of appropriately-skilled workers is a major issue for local businesses. Interviewees often did not understand the role local government can play to help to address this, which may be reflected in the low prioritisation of this role for Council in the business survey. • Economic infrastructure: businesses want Council to make the Light region attractive to new businesses to locate here, with support for Council to ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure such as stormwater management and gas.
15 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 22 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
5. Opportunities and Challenges
The Light region is experiencing many opportunities and challenges that should be considered within the strategic structure of future economic development efforts. The key themes from a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of the Light region are shown in Table 5.1 below. 5.1 SWOT
Table 5.1. SWOT Analysis of Light Region Strengths Weaknesses • Proximity to Adelaide • Lack of local jobs • Regional water infrastructure • Economy reliant upon manufacturing, • Northern Expressway, Connector and North- agriculture and construction (particularly South Corridor, Regency Road to Pym Street large employers in these sectors) projects • Availability of utilities (e.g. gas, • Strong industry clusters including agriculture, telecommunications) manufacturing and construction • Lack of skilled workers • Valued lifestyle • Lack of public transport • Lower cost of living and doing business • Deteriorating road quality due to • Prime agricultural land environmental/climate influences • Barossa brand • Lack of wayfinding signage • Support from regional development agencies • Original streetscape assets from early • Collaboration with neighbouring councils development of towns (e.g. not to modern • Retention of historic streetscapes, adding standards or amenity) heritage value to key townships and areas • Visitor economy assets • History and heritage • Strong, active local community associations
Opportunities Threats • Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme and • Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Act, coordinated expansion of existing regional 2012 and Environment and Food Production water infrastructure schemes Areas (also considered as Opportunities) • Growth industry opportunities across • Climate change agriculture, food and beverage • Lack of economic diversity can continue to manufacturing, professional services, deliver volatile swings in the local economy tourism, healthcare and the equine industry • Slow uptake of approved residential • National and world heritage listing subdivisions opportunities for the Kapunda Mine historic • Current and anticipated main street site and its links with the historic Burra and vacancies Wallaroo mines • Disused silos in bulk handling precincts • Kapunda Lifestyle Village (supported • Disused railway corridors and associated independent living) dilapidated buildings/assets • Full development of Kingsford Regional, • Vacant land/undeveloped lots in Roseworthy and Kapunda Industrial Estates development areas (recently rezoned and/or • Roseworthy International Equine Centre subdivided)
16 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 23 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
• Adelaide Wine Capital Cycle Trail and • Local Government (Boundary Adjustment) intersection of the Heysen, Kidman and Amendment Act 2017 may enable significant Mawson Trails in Kapunda areas of Light Regional Council to be • Disused rail corridors for cycle trails or as relinquished future commuter links using autonomous • Possible closure of Kapunda Hospital vehicles • Changes to regulations under the Genetically • Position Roseworthy township expansion as Modified Crops Management Act 2004 (also an upscale university town residential considered as Opportunities) development as a point of difference to other remote developments • Seppeltsfield Wines’ Tourism Masterplan for a Global Epicurean Village • Emergency management precinct • Improved public transport and transit options • Renewable energy investments • Kapunda township tourism activation, centred around a Kidman Experience Source: Lucid Economics 5.2 Strategic Assets
Identifying and leveraging strategic assets is important for successful economic development efforts at the local level and the development/encouragement of specific industries according to the region’s competitive advantages. The Light region has a number of strategic assets, including: • Strategic location: o Proximity to Barossa Valley: a large section of world-famous Barossa grape-growing land falls within the Light region and association with the Barossa brand, and prime agricultural land within the Barossa Hinterland. o Road transport: The Northern Connector and continued nonstop North-South Corridor works (Regency to Pym Street) providing faster access to the defence maritime precinct, Port Adelaide, Adelaide CBD and Adelaide Airport, plus easy access to the Sturt, Thiele and Horrocks highways for efficient transport to market destinations or other transport export modes (sea, air freight). • Adelaide University Roseworthy Campus: Currently offering very animal-centric courses, Roseworthy is embarking on a transformation to increase its agricultural college offering particularly around horticulture and viticulture, in alignment with the region’s strengths and opportunities. The University of Adelaide is also a key partner in the international equine centre proposal. Its proximity to recently rezoned residential and employment lands in the Roseworthy Township Expansion create opportunities for a cluster of ag-tech research and development businesses, similar to the highly successful Australian Grain Technologies (AGT). • Water: Close proximity to regional water supply schemes (Gawler Water Reuse Scheme, involving Council and Bunyip Water, Barossa Infrastructure Limited and the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme). Council also has surplus recycled water from township Community Wastewater Management Schemes (CWMS) which may be used for economic purposes. • SABRENet: Close proximity to the high-speed internet cable, which can unlock a variety of economic opportunities.
17 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 24 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
• Kingsford Regional Industrial Estate: This 170ha site provides an opportunity for major large industry developments to support local jobs, and will be further enhanced once planned supporting infrastructure (e.g. gas, regional stormwater management) has been developed. • Northern Expressway Residual Land: Council owns three parcels of prime development land directly adjacent the Northern Expressway, which boast road links, established local land uses and proximity to key growth areas. • Fertile Land: High quality broad-hectare farming land with reliable rainfall and well positioned for added value through availability of irrigation water. • Significant heritage assets: The Light region boasts assets that were created in the formative years of South Australia, together with iconic local characters who were either VIPs or influencers at a state, national or international level (e.g. in Kapunda alone: notably Messrs Kidman, Dutton and Bagot). These assets can be leveraged to attract future investment and create new jobs.
Government COVID-19 Stimulus Packages The South Australian Government has announced a stimulus package of $1 billion, including: • Once-off emergency grants of $10,000 for small business and not-for-profits that have suffered a significant loss (due to COVID-19) • $300 million for the Business and Jobs Support Fund, which will be used to directly assist individual businesses and industry sectors facing potential collapse from the impacts of COVID-19 and the necessary restrictions put in place • $250 million for the Community and Jobs Support Fund, which will assist community organisations, non-profit organisations and some other industry sectors • Payroll and land tax relief • Waiver of liquor licensing fees • Once-off rental grant of up to $1,000 for residential landlords who reduce the rent of a tenant experiencing rental hardship (due to COVID-19) The Commonwealth Government has implemented a number of measures to support residents and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the JobKeeper and JobSeeker programs. On 21 July 2020, the Government announced it would extend the JobKeeper payment for a further six months until 28 March 2021 to support employers who continue to be significantly impacted by COVID-19. Other Commonwealth support programs include early access to some superannuation funds and HomeBuilder grants.
18 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 25 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
6. Economic Development Plan
This section outlines the Economic Development Plan, based on all the research, analysis and consultation conducted for this project. It identifies key principles to guide economic development activities and provides a clear structure for the delivery of the future vision.
Light Regional Council COVID-19 Stimulus Package In May 2020, Council released its COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan which outlines regional priority initiatives that can be delivered over the next four years (2020-2024), including: • more water and flood protection measures to sustain and grow South Australia’s horticulture and agriculture industries • infrastructure to encourage more and diverse accommodation and attractions to build South Australia’s tourism and visitor economy as people turn to domestic travel The majority of funding for stimulus packages will be sought from Commonwealth and state governments and the private sector, as well as Council funding within its financial means.
6.1 Principles for Economic Development
The following principles will guide our activities in economic development and provide a way for Council to evaluate future tasks and initiatives. • Industries of the future: focus on sectors that have high likelihood of catalysing future growth in a manner de-coupled from environmental degradation. For example, advanced technology, high value-add, circular economy, low carbon, local job creation, and which align with the Light region’s competitive advantages. • Boldness: we will provide a leadership role in economic development by participating in pilot projects that might be ground-breaking regional firsts, acknowledging that there is a level of risk that they may not achieve wider implementation or overwhelming success. • Innovation: we will enable and curate a local economy that is grounded in technology and innovation, which is constantly adapting and evolving within a digitally connected world and a changing climate. • Collaboration: we will work collaboratively with our partners to generate economic outcomes for our community and look to establish innovative partnership models to achieve this. We will learn from our peers and take advice from experts. • Liveability: we will support local businesses to attract workers by maintaining the Light region’s great lifestyle and promoting our region as a place people want to live and work, maintaining its social connectedness and promoting prosperous communities. 6.2 Economic Development Plan Overview
The following diagram (Figure 6.1) provides an overview of the Economic Development Plan. Informed via a number of processes, including the economic analysis, survey and stakeholder interviews, this Economic Development Plan provides a vision for the future economy that will be achieved by focusing on five key strategic directions: • Advocacy • Investment attraction • Supporting local business • Planning
19 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 26 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
• Infrastructure development
For each strategic direction, there are specific initiatives and activities that provide further clarity regarding activities to support future economic growth, achievement of the vision and a variety of desired outcomes.
A detailed Implementation Plan provides further detail regarding delivery of the Plan into the future (refer Section 7).
COVID-19 Response and Recovery As COVID-19 has changed the economic landscape, the response and recovery from the economic crisis requires a separate and definitive economic development response. As such, the Economic Development Plan has been augmented from its originally conceived structure to factor in the immediate actions that are required by Council as well as the necessary activities to encourage the most immediate economic recovery possible, after the current COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. While these immediate actions are warranted and necessary, they do not take away from the long-term vision and overall structure of this plan. Effectively, the response and recovery from COVID-19 now forms the first stage of the Economic Development Plan, as highlighted in Figure 6.1.
20 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 27 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Figure 6.1. Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan Overview
Source: Lucid Economics
6.2.1 COVID-19 Response and Recovery
Overview COVID-19 has severely impacted all businesses in Australia. Local governments have a range of mechanisms and tools that can be utilised to support the response to the crisis as well as the recovery after current restrictions are lifted. Council is currently considering the appropriate actions to provide support and stimulus to the local economy. Why? The survival and resilience of local businesses is very important to the recovery of the local economy from the current crisis. Council should provide support, where possible and appropriate (and in conjunction with State and Commonwealth Governments), to local businesses and the local economy at large in order to recover from the crisis as quickly as possible.
21 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 28 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Key Activities Actions are under focussed consideration and implementation separate to, but informed by, this Plan.
6.2.2 Advocacy
Overview Advocating for the local business community requires regular interaction with regional bodies, and state and federal governments. During these meetings or presentations, required infrastructure, services and programs (which are beyond the capacity of the local government) should be presented together with the evidence base to support its delivery. Council should work with the RDA and consider how it can partner with other councils, in particular with Legatus2, to deliver a strong regional message. Interaction with state and federal governments should take place between senior bureaucrats within government as well as elected members and responsible ministers on an ongoing basis, not just when requests for support are made. Helping other agencies and levels of government to understand the work the Council is focused on, its specific community’s needs and overall objectives will assist in maintaining strong working relationships and enable Council to be the voice of its local business community. Equally, having the explicit support of local businesses for specific projects can be very powerful when advocating to other levels of government. Why? Local government clearly has a role to advocate on behalf of its residents and its business community. More than half of survey respondents said Council should advocate to the state and federal governments for infrastructure investment. This is supported by the Local Government Act 1999 which outlines the functions of a Council to include ‘to promote its area and to provide an attractive climate and locations for the development of business, commerce, industry and tourism’ and ‘to provide infrastructure for its community and for development within its area’. Feedback from the survey and the business interviews strongly support Council undertaking advocacy, particularly for road infrastructure projects and attracting more residents and visitors. Key Activities • Ongoing Sharing of Information: Establish regular meetings with local MPs to build relationships and enable the ongoing exchange of information. • Regional Deal: Partner with local/state/federal governments and private partners on packages of projects which can leverage multiple grant funding programs to secure investment. • Kapunda Historic Copper Mine: Along with the Burra and Wallaroo historic mine sites, advocate for national and world heritage listing as significant heritage tourism assets, whilst continuing to consider the environmental and tourism sensitive recovery of the remaining ore body/s for maximum local economic benefit. • Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Act 2012 and Environment & Food Production Areas: Leverage the character preservation and contribute to the guidelines which are critical. Work to realise the yield premium that is possible.
2 Legatus is the trading name of the Central Local Government Region which is a regional subsidiary established to undertake the coordination, advocacy and representation of its constituent councils at a regional level.
22 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 29 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
• Freight Infrastructure: Work with the private sector and Legatus Group to lobby collectively for federal and state government investment into freight infrastructure to accommodate higher mass limits, restricted access vehicles and farm machinery. • Roseworthy International Equine Centre: Continue to partner with the RDA and University of Adelaide to establish an international equine centre at the Roseworthy campus. • Infrastructure Australia: Partner with the RDA to explore and advocate for the Council’s identified key infrastructure projects to achieve listing with Infrastructure Australia and enable delivery of: o An Integrated Water Network: a network that connects Barossa Infrastructure Limited (BIL), Bunyip Water (Gawler River Water Reuse Scheme), SA Water (Virginia Pipeline Scheme and Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme) and other water resources should be the highest priority project as water is the major economic driver for our prominent Ag, Wine and Food sectors (which also stimulate tourism). o Adelaide Wine Capital Cycling Trail: Seek funding and partners to develop the trail, ensuring Seppeltsfield Road and Kapunda’s heritage are key features. o Better Connectivity: Rail or autonomous shuttle between the Roseworthy Township Expansion and the electrified Gawler rail line, potentially also connecting the University of Adelaide’s Roseworthy campus and the International Equine Centre. Rapid transit solutions between key metropolitan destinations (e.g. Adelaide CBD, Airport and Port) and regional centres should also be pursued.
6.2.3 Investment Attraction
Overview Investment attraction involves marketing and promotion, public relations, business development and investment facilitation. Marketing and promotion require the development of marketing materials as well as the dissemination of these materials and should be conducted at a high market level as well as business development activities at an individual investor/cluster level. Once an investor is identified, the facilitation process begins through information provision, site/community inspections, meetings with planning staff, etc. Why? Attracting investment from outside of the Council area is important to foster and support economic and employment growth as well as the ongoing diversification and evolution of the local economy. Consultation confirmed that Council has a role to market and promote the area for future investment and business growth. With their rural feel and proximity to Adelaide, towns like Kapunda and Freeling offer significant opportunities for investment in and development of their existing unique infrastructure - beautiful heritage buildings. Councils can be a key factor in ‘making or breaking’ private investment projects such as these, which may be driven by passion, often without a guaranteed successful business outcome. A singular regulatory-focussed approach to development should be expanded into a new, investment attraction service culture that instils confidence in investors and is consistently administered across multiple Council departments. A Local Investor’s Experience It does not take much to “de-incentivise” someone from proceeding when they may already have detractors (friends and relatives!) telling them they are mad. A difficult process may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and the decision made not to proceed.
23 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 30 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
It is not just in the approval process, but in facilitating, encouraging, simplifying and making this a less daunting process for those who wish to invest. This is such an important thing for Councils to understand. This can be the difference between investors “having a go” or not bothering if it’s “all just too hard”. Key Activities • Implement a communications and activation plan as the Council’s central investment attraction portal, a ‘one-stop-shop’ for investors to source information about the region’s offering, competitive advantages, connectedness and opportunities. • Link to and promote the South Australian Investment Atlas where investors can search for suitably zoned land for investment/development. • Implement a marketing campaign for the Light region’s key townships and precincts. • Develop a package of incentives (non-financial and/or financial) for investment attraction and infrastructure development. • Work with the Department for Trade and Innovation to support investment attraction efforts across Light’s key industry sectors as well as tourist accommodation and attraction opportunities. • Directly and proactively pursue key growth opportunities and individual projects including Kidman Experience, new tourism accommodation, and other bespoke investments.
6.2.4 Supporting Local Business
Overview As highlighted in the business survey results, Council should seek to provide support to local businesses in a number of ways. These could include hosting networking events, providing information regarding potential business opportunities and supporting educational and business capacity building opportunities for businesses. A review of procurement across Council to identify areas for targeting local suppliers should be undertaken. Maintaining a scoring benefit for local businesses in the tendering process will help to encourage local supply. Furthermore, ensuring that local businesses are aware of business opportunities with Council as well as how to access these opportunities will be important to maximising these local supply scenarios. Raising awareness amongst local businesses (and residents) regarding the value of buying local should be undertaken and promoted together with local business associations. Why? As is the case in most regional economies in Australia, the Light region’s economy is dominated by small businesses (98.3% of all businesses have fewer than 20 employees). Local government facilitates conditions to support small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and home-based businesses (HBBs) to prosper and grow, contributing to growth in Gross Regional Product (GRP) and creating local employment opportunities. Supporting businesses to become more competitive and resilient can be a more effective contributor to economic development than attracting new businesses.
24 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 31 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Forty-four percent of respondents to the business identified ‘purchase more from local businesses’ as a role of Council in economic development. Continuing to use Council’s purchasing power to grow the local economy is important for local businesses. By expending money locally, Council contributes to the local economy and supports local businesses and jobs. Preventing money from leaking from the local economy has numerous direct and indirect (flow-on) benefits. Increasing local procurement should not mean that Council spends all of its money locally, as it must still seek maximum value for public funds. Encouraging other businesses (and residents) to buy local is also important to support the local economy. Consultation has identified the perception that local businesses do not support one another, that is, there is perceived to be a relatively low level of local expenditure by businesses. Key Activities • Participate in the Small Business Friendly Council initiative. • Support the RDA’s regular communications by developing and maintaining a database of local businesses in order to encourage greater level of communication amongst and between businesses. Widely promote the RDA’s business training sessions, seminars and other events. • Host business networking events where local economic development initiatives can be discussed and consulted upon. • Facilitate relationships between businesses and local education institutions to develop pathways for local students into key local industry sectors and businesses. • Partner with the RDA, Legatus and neighbouring councils to support and develop the local creative industries sector. • Work with the RDA to promote ‘jobs for all’ (e.g. including older employees, NDIS clients, youth, etc). • Provide support services and funding to local community groups and associations to maximise their contribution to the economy. • Review Council’s procurement policy and procedures to maintain alignment with the South Australian Industry Participation Policy, including ensuring tender evaluations template have weightings in the assessment scoring to support local businesses (where appropriate). • Ascertain the current level of Council’s local expenditure to identify areas for targeting local suppliers as well as target key expenditure areas that could use local businesses. • Work with the RDA to promote a Buy Local campaign to educate local residents regarding the benefits of shopping locally and supporting local businesses. • Work with local business alliances and groups to undertake a local information campaign to increase awareness amongst local businesses of the value of supporting other local businesses (across the region). “It has been beneficial for our member business owners to develop an appreciation and understanding of how Council works and how we can work together to achieve great outcomes for the region as well as their individual businesses”. Member of a Light business association
6.2.5 Planning
Overview The strategic and statutory planning functions of Council are important. Planning can have a significant impact on the area, particularly for larger, business-focused investment projects. Ensuring that the planning process is very clear and easy to understand for future businesses and investors is
25 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 32 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan very important to engender confidence. Additionally, making the process as efficient as possible can become an effective competitive advantage for the area. Why? Having a specific process in place to accommodate and efficiently review commercial development applications is important to create an environment conducive to business and investment growth. Businesses and developers will actively look to invest in areas where the local government planning process is well regarded. Councils with poor planning processes will experience a dearth of commercial investment. “I wonder if there is an opportunity for LRC to develop its reputation even further with regard to how well planning processes can be managed, making it an even more personalised, supportive, seamless, time sensitive, encouraging and enthusiastic experience - thereby potentially attracting more investment in the region (obviously within the constraints and laws Council has to work within)”. Light resident and wine and accommodation business owner Key Activities • Establish a ‘development facilitation group’ of all key Council staff to meet regularly to discuss commercial development applications. • Develop a process for significant investment projects that provide considerable economic benefits to the region (and align with the principles and vision outlined in this Plan) that enables case management of these through council processes in a business-friendly way. • Promote these services/processes as a competitive advantage for Light Regional Council for investment attraction.
6.2.6 Infrastructure Development
Overview: Council has identified a number of catalytic projects, which are advancing at various levels. These projects are important for the future economic development of the Light region and can help to attract future residents, new businesses and further investment and jobs. There are a range of placemaking initiatives that can help to activate various centres across the region to ensure these places are inviting for visitors and residents alike, increasing potential customers for the local businesses. Redeveloping older precincts and upgrading mainstreets and facades as well as facilitating events can help to reinvigorate various centres. Why? Strategic infrastructure is a key economic input that creates value and builds productivity. High quality economic infrastructure and public realm amenity will attract high value businesses and residents and stimulate private investment. It can improve local business efficiency, reducing the cost of doing business, offering local businesses a competitive advantage. Like many regional towns, particularly in South Australia, towns in the Light region are experiencing increasing commercial vacancies in their mainstreets and town centres. Online shopping and dormitory towns can provide challenges for small mainstreet businesses. Creating vibrant and appealing climate-adapted public places is important in supporting an environment that can attract people. Ultimately it is the creation of more business and trading in these centres through activation and placemaking that benefits the economy. As trading levels increase, additional investment and workers could be attracted to these areas as well.
26 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 33 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Key Activities • Evaluate the potential benefits of connecting to SABRENet to support local education, innovation, research and development, training and government facilities, as well as Kingsford Estate3. • Investigate funding models for major projects including value capture and separate rates. • Pursue grant funding from state and federal governments to support infrastructure and key projects. • Continue to evaluate opportunities for Council investment into strategic sites. • Continue to progress various transformational projects. • Participate in the Building Upgrade Finance Program • Investigate opportunities to: o redevelop disused, historic railway precincts for economic land use o upgrade mainstreet façades and verandas to improve heritage character and investment appeal o through a public art strategy, facilitate public art projects to build community pride, attract new residents and encourage longer stays by visitors o maximise cooling and public shade in public realm, to encourage increased visitation • Continue to support events that attract visitors from outside the region and develop an events strategy that identifies events with the greatest potential to stimulate the Light regional economy • Support development activation of broad-hectare land releases where market uptake is tardy, contributing to local population and economic growth • Promote key retail centres at Kapunda, Greenock, Freeling, Roseworthy, Hewett, Gawler Belt and Wasleys • Explore the development of an enhanced brand incorporating the Barossa and hinterland areas, representing a national destination in terms of global wine, food, hospitality, accommodation and visitor servicing, offering a diverse experience with greater connection to outback, nature and heritage themes.
Transformational Projects A number of projects that will have a significant impact on the Light region economy are proposed or underway in the Light region. They include: • Roseworthy Township Expansion: Consider land business structures for the redundant Roseworthy Township CWMS land to efficiently re-develop the land. Purchase or secure tenure over strategic land in the Roseworthy/Kingsford precinct for regional stormwater management and/or a northern regional emergency services hub. Facilitate the implementation of a holistic stormwater management, harvesting and reuse network in the Roseworthy/Kingsford precinct to build upon the precinct’s emerging role as a regional hub of integrated water management. Consider future-proofing and revenue generating opportunities such as the investment in spare services conduits and smart lighting. • Kapunda Lifestyle Village: Explore the benefits of developing supported independent living units in partnership with the private sector. • Northern Expressway residual land: Commence discussions with the South Australian Government regarding access and planning for the Council-owned land parcels adjacent the Northern Expressway, prior to seeking expressions of interest for suitable land use.
3 University of Adelaide Roseworthy Campus, PIRSA Roseworthy, AGT and Gawler Council are already connected.
27 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 34 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
• Kingsford Regional Industrial Estate: Facilitate the development of the infrastructure required to activate this 170ha site, leveraging the Roseworthy Township Expansion, to provide opportunity for major industry developments to support local jobs and a diversified economy. • Kidman Experience: Implement a Kidman Experience project that will be an iconic international tourism destination, increasing visitation to Kapunda and the broader region. • Roseworthy International Equine Centre: Continue to partner with the RDA and University of Adelaide to establish an international equine centre at the Roseworthy campus.
28 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 35 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
7. Implementing the Plan
The Light Economic Development Plan – Implementation Blueprint is outlined below. It aligns to the strategy and provides key targets for each action. The priority timing of activities is provided across the following range:
• Ongoing: frequently/annually • Immediate: Year 1 • Short-term: Year 2-3 • Medium-term: Year 4-5 • Long-term: Year 6-10
Table 7.1. Light Regional Council Economic Development Plan – Implementation Blueprint Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
COVID-19 Response and Recovery
Actions are under focussed consideration and implementation separate to, but GRP, local jobs and informed by, this Plan. employed residents returning to pre- COVID-19 levels
29 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 36 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
1. Advocacy
1.1. Work with RDA to conduct regular meetings with local MPs to build 2-4 meetings per Immediate Internal staff, RDA- relationships, share ideas and provide updates on latest developments year BGLAP, state and federal MPs
1.2. Package up projects which can leverage multiple grant funding programs Funding acquired Immediate Internal staff, external to secure grant funding and private investment for previously consultants, RDA-BGLAP, unfunded projects Neighbouring Councils, State and Federal governments
1.3. Continue to contribute to the guiding policy for the Character Preservation Submission to DPTI Short RDA-BGLAP, DPTI (Barossa Valley) Act 2012 and Environment & Food Production Areas (Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016), and work to realise potential value-added development
1.4. Seek government investment in road upgrades to accommodate higher Submit business Medium Neighbouring Councils, mass freight limits, restricted access vehicles, farm machinery and case and/or grant Private sector, Legatus premium tourist route improvements applications
1.5. Develop plans for an integrated water network that connects BIL, Bunyip Plan developed Immediate RDA-BGLAP, SA Water, Water, SA Water and other water resources PIRSA, BIL, Bunyip Water
1.6. Support the establishment of the Roseworthy International Equine Centre Facilitate business Short RDA-BGLAP, University of case Adelaide
30 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 37 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
1.7. Support rail or autonomous shuttle between the Roseworthy Township Establish Short DPTI, OneRail Australia, Expansion and the electrified Gawler rail line; plus potential to connect relationships and RTE landowners/ with Roseworthy campus and the International Equine Centre process for stakeholders accessing rail land
1.8. Seek funding and advocate for the Adelaide Wine Capital Cycling Trail Make prioritised Short RDA-BGLAP, funding submissions Neighbouring Councils, into eligible Tourism Barossa, programs Seppeltsfield Road Business Alliance
2. Investment Attraction
2.1. Create Council’s central investment attraction portal as a ‘one stop shop’
2.1.1. Establish a Light Invest website, including content, structure and Website created Immediate Internal staff, external graphics consultants
2.1.2. Provide latest news, business and investment data to support 4 updates Annual Internal staff investment case in the Light region
2.1.3. Provide links and inputs into the SA Investment Atlas 4 updates Annual Internal staff
2.1.4. Measure and report on investor engagement with Light Invest website 4 reports Annual Internal staff, external consultants
2.2. Conduct the ‘Light’ Light marketing campaign
2.2.1. Develop marketing materials for the region and individual towns Materials developed Immediate Internal staff
31 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 38 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
2.2.2. Establish and maintain a marketing database and send out marketing Database created Short Internal staff materials with 100 contacts
2.2.3. Create social media posts and send email updates to database 24 posts/emails Annual Internal staff
2.2.4. Explore editorial placement opportunities to highlight local 2 editorials Annual Internal staff opportunities
2.2.5. Engage with DTI regarding investment opportunities in the region 2 meetings Annual Internal staff, DTI
2.3. Develop a package of incentives for investment attraction and development
2.3.1. Conduct a study to identify the range of potential incentives (including Level of Council Immediate Internal staff incentives to encourage sustainability) as well as the community support identified
benefit associated with offering them
2.3.2. Develop specific guidelines, application forms and protocols to Package developed Short Internal staff, external administer an incentive program consultant
2.3.3. Develop marketing initiatives to promote incentive program 4 email campaigns Medium Internal staff to database per year
2.4. Proactively pursue key growth opportunities and individual projects
2.4.1. Formulate overall business case and ‘pitch’ for Kidman Experience, new Develop business Medium Internal staff, DTI, RDA- tourism accommodation and other bespoke investments case BGLAP, Tourism Barossa
32 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 39 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
2.4.2. Identify and pursue potential investors and proponents for projects, Investors identified As required by Internal staff, external following specified processes and registered, projects consultant selection processes documented.
2.4.3. Pursue national and world heritage listing for Kapunda Historic Copper National Heritage Long Internal staff, Mine listing achieved Consultants, Copper
Coast and Goyder
councils/Legatus, State World Heritage Long and federal governments listing achieved
3. Supporting Local Business
3.1. Participate in the Small Business Friendly Council (SBFC) initiative
3.1.1. Sign a SBFC charter agreement Charter agreement Immediate SA Small Business is signed Commissioner
3.1.2. Implement the five initiatives that Council is required by the charter to The five required Short Internal staff, local meet initiatives are business associations implemented
3.1.3. Promote being a ‘small business friendly’ Council Use logo and Short Internal staff provide media
statement
3.2. Support local businesses through information and education
33 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 40 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
3.2.1. Support RDA’s communications and business training sessions through Email campaigns to Immediate RDA-BGLAP promoting them to local businesses local businesses, generally matching RDA frequency
3.2.2. Host local business networking events to discuss local economic 4 events per year Short RDA – BGLAP, Internal development initiatives Staff, local business and community associations
3.2.3. Support local businesses’ efforts to recruit workers to the area by Display of info Annual Internal staff sharing information, marketing/promotional material such as a ‘living packages reaching local’ booklet 50 businesses
3.2.4. Promote the Designated Area Migration Agreement (DAMA) to create a 4 emails Annual Internal staff channel to access workers and increase migration to the area
3.3. Maximise local resources for economic development
3.3.1. Support the development of a local creative industries sector Create industry Medium RDA-BGLAP, Legatus development plan
3.3.2. Provide transparent support to Agents of Economic Growth (local Value of support Short Internal staff associations) to facilitate better economic and tourism outcomes provided, Community and Recreation Facilities Management Policy reviewed and updated
34 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 41 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
3.4. Foster workforce development locally
3.4.1. Meet with training providers to discuss business requirements and 2 meetings Annual Internal staff, Education potential local solutions partners, RDA-BGLAP
3.4.2. Provide support for promoting ‘jobs for all’ (e.g. older employees, NDIS Conduct study into Medium Internal staff, DIS, RDA- clients, youth, etc) through identifying pathways to work available pathways BGLAP, TAFE
3.5. Promote local buying
3.5.1. Identify and monitor Council’s expenditure with local businesses Annual % of Immediate Internal staff expenditure spent locally
3.5.2. Review Council’s procurement policy and ensure preferential Reviewed policy Immediate Internal staff weightings for local suppliers
3.5.3. Target specific areas of Council procurement for increased local Conduct analysis of Short Internal staff expenditure expenditure
3.5.4. Work with the RDA to promote a Buy Local campaign to educate local Conduct campaign Immediate Internal staff, RDA- businesses and residents regarding the benefits of shopping/procuring BGLAP, Local Business locally and supporting local businesses in a post COVID-19 world Associations
4. Planning
4.1. Establish a ‘development facilitation group’ of all key Council staff to Group formed Immediate Internal staff meet regularly to discuss commercial development applications
35 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 42 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
4.2. Develop and implement an ‘aftercare’ process overseen by the Aftercare process Short Internal staff Development Facilitation Group, that will seek feedback from investors developed and about their development/investment experience and address any implemented issues of concern that they may have with Council in order to encourage additional local capital investment and development
4.3. Develop a process for investment projects that provide considerable Process completed Short Internal staff economic benefits to the region (and align with the principles and vision outlined in this Plan) that enables case management of these through Council processes in a business-friendly way
4.4. Promote these services/processes as a competitive advantage for Light 4 emails Annual Internal staff Regional Council for investment attraction
4.5. Facilitate on-farm diversification activities to improve on-farm Support the Short Internal staff profitability proposed Rural Mixed Use and Value Add Improvement policies in the new Planning Code
5. Infrastructure Development
5.1. Ensure adequate provision of key utilities that are fit-for-industry
5.1.1. Evaluate the potential benefits of connecting to SABRENet Develop business Medium Internal staff, external case consultant
36 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 43 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
5.1.2. Advocate for the roll-out of additional mobile phone towers to address Develop submission Short Internal staff mobile blackspots
5.1.3. Facilitate engagement between Developers and Gas suppliers to Annual meetings Medium Internal staff augment gas supply into Kingsford Regional Industrial Estate held
5.1.4. Investigate future funding models for major project infrastructure, Develop white Medium Internal staff, external including value capture and separate rates paper consultant
5.1.5. Plan and budget for Council commitments towards stormwater Annual Business Long Internal staff, Developers management infrastructure, in accordance with approved Plans and Plan funding development market demands commitments Stormwater infrastructure developed, avoiding delays in subdivision activity
5.1.6. Ensure infrastructure is rolled out in a way that supports Smart Embed processes in Short Internal staff Cities/Regions infrastructure programs to assess smart city/region inclusions
5.2. Support the progression of transformational projects
37 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 44 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
5.2.1. Prepare reports on the progress and support provided to the following 2 reports Annual Internal Staff transformational projects: 5.2.1.1. Oscar Development at Seppeltsfield 5.2.1.2. Roseworthy Township Expansion 5.2.1.3. Kapunda Lifestyle Village 5.2.1.4. Northern Expressway Residual Land 5.2.1.5. Kingsford Regional Industrial Estate 5.2.1.6. Kidman Experience 5.2.1.7. Roseworthy International Equine Centre
5.3. Placemaking and Activation
5.3.1. Sign up to and participate in the Building Upgrade Finance Program Signed agreement Short Internal staff, external service provider
5.3.2. Investigate opportunities to redevelop dormant, historic railway Develop precinct Medium Internal staff, external precincts for economic land use masterplans consultant
5.3.3. Upgrade mainstreet façades and verandas to improve heritage Develop mainstreet Medium Internal staff, external character and investment appeal revitalisation plans consultant for major towns
5.3.4. Develop and implement a public art strategy to facilitate public art Develop public art Immediate Internal staff, external projects to build community pride, attract new residents and strategy consultant, State
encourage longer stays by visitors government, community, Implement public Long businesses, sponsors art strategy
5.3.5. Develop a plan to maximise cooling and public shade in public realm, to Develop public Long Internal staff, external encourage increased visitation and community amenity shade strategy consultant
38 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 45 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Strategic Direction/Activity Key Performance Priority Resources/Partners Indicator
5.3.6. Continue to support events that attract visitors from outside the region Develop Events Immediate Internal staff, external and consider new events to attract additional visitors Strategy consultant
5.3.7. Support activation of approved broad-hectare land releases where Increase in uptake Short Internal staff market uptake has been tardy in order to contribute to economic and of lots per year population growth
5.3.8. Promote key retail centres at Kapunda, Greenock, Freeling, Develop model Medium Internal staff, external Roseworthy, Hewett and Wasleys through the development of governance consultant individual community committees and activations structures and operational templates Source: Lucid Economics
39 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 46 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
8. Monitoring and Review
Priority Timing (years) While the Light Economic Development Plan 2020-2030 sets the Immediate: 1 foundation for the next 10 years, Council should remain open to other Short-term: 2-3 opportunities that may arise over this period which are not foreseen in Medium-term: 4-5 the Plan. Long-term: 6-10 Economies were changing evermore rapidly even before the effects of Ongoing: Frequency COVID-19 rippled through our communities, as we become increasingly interconnected regionally, nationally and globally, and the machinations of those broader economies have progressively stronger impacts on local economies. It is important that the Plan’s Implementation Blueprint is reviewed at key intervals against PESTEL factors (political, economic, social, PESTEL Reviews Post-COVID: 2021 technological, environmental, legal), for example at the end point of Short-term: 2023 each recommended timing priority, and be reforecast for the remaining Medium-term: 2025 periods. This approach provides clear detailed direction for the short Long-term: 2030 term, and allows the Blueprint to be dynamic and responsive over the long term. In order to monitor both the implementation tasks and the emerging economic outcomes of the Economic Development Plan, key performance indicators (KPIs) have been developed for each strategic activity. These KPIs require review on a regular basis, ideally annually.
40 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 47 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
References
ABS (2019a). Regional Population Growth, Australia. Cat no: 3218.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2019b). Building Approvals, Australia. Cat no: 8731.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2019c). Consumer Price Index, Australia, March quarter 2019. Cat no: 6401.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2019d). Labour Force, Australia, May 2019. Cat no: 6202.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2018). Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016. Cat no: 2033.0.55.001. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2017). Census of Population and Housing, 2016. Cat no: 2003.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Achurch H. (2019) Regional Growth Prospects: Strategic Investment in Food Processing, Tourism, Advanced Manufacturing and Creative Industries. Regional Australia Institute, Canberra. Barossa, Light and Lower Northern Region (2014). A Sustainable Region for a Healthy Community, Part A - The Plan. Regional Public Health and Wellbeing Plan. Barossa, South Australia. DEW (2020). Building Upgrade Finance. Department for Environment and Water, Adelaide. https://buildingupgradefinance.net.au/ Connor Holmes (2012). NExy Residual Land Study: Final Report. Prepared for Light Regional Council. Adelaide. DESSFB (2019). LGA Data Tables — Small Area Labour Markets — December quarter 2018. Department of Jobs and Small Business, Canberra. DESSFB (2018). 2018 Employment Projections. Department of Jobs and Small Business, Canberra. DPTI (2017). 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide: 2017 Update. Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Adelaide. DSS (2020). JobSeeker and Youth Allowance recipients - monthly profile. Compiled and presented by .id - the population experts. Department of Social Services, Canberra. https://data.gov.au/ Economy.id (2019). Light Regional Council. ID, Melbourne. Flinders Range Research (2020). Kapunda history. https://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/kapunda.htm Joyce, S (2019). Review of the South Australian Government’s International and Interstate Engagement Bodies and Functions. Joyce Advisory, New Zealand. LRC (2016). Strategic Plan 2016-2020. Light Regional Council, Kapunda. LRC (2018). Tourism Plan 2018-2023. Light Regional Council, Kapunda. Pugalis, L & Tan, SF (2017). The Role of Local Government in Local and Regional Economic Development. University of Technology, Sydney. Pricefinder (2020). Light Region House Price Information. Unpublished.
41 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 48 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
RAI (2018). Job Vulnerability Method. The Regional Australia Institute, Canberra. http://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/home/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/180830_JobVulnerabilityMethod_Final.pdf RAI (2019). How Attractive is your Regional Town or City? The Regional Australia Institute, Canberra. http://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/home/how-attractive-is-your-regional-town-or-city/ REISA (2019). Median House Prices – March quarter 2019. Real Estate Institute of South Australia, Adelaide. RDA (2019). Investment Opportunities 2019 - The Greater Barossa Region: Barossa, Gawler, Light and Adelaide Plains. Regional Development Australia – Barossa, Gawler, Light, Adelaide Plains, Barossa. RDA (undated). Roseworthy International Equine Centre: Proposal. Regional Development Australia – Barossa, Gawler, Light, Adelaide Plains and University of Adelaide, Roseworthy. SATC (2018). South Australian Regional Visitor Strategy. South Australian Tourism Commission, Adelaide. SATC (2019). The South Australian Visitor Economy Sector Plan 2030. South Australian Tourism Commission, Adelaide. SBC (2020). Small Business Friendly Council Initiative Charter. South Australian Small Business Commissioner, Adelaide. https://www.sasbc.sa.gov.au/small-business-friendly-council SRBA (2018). Seppeltsfield Road Bike and Walking Trail South Australia: Business Case Summary. Seppeltsfield Road Business Alliance and Australian Wine Industry Development Scheme, Seppeltsfield. TiCSA (2019). Strategic Plan 2019-2022. Tourism Industry Council of South Australia, Adelaide. TRA (2019). National and International Visitor Surveys. Tourism Research Australia, Canberra. UniSA (2019). Development and Evaluation of Economic Development Measures. Report prepared for Economic Development Australia. University of South Australia Business School, Adelaide. URPS (2015). Two Wells Road Development Buchfelde: Scoping Report. URPS, Adelaide.
42 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 49 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Appendix A: Light Regional Council Economic Development Framework
Source: Light Regional Council
43 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 50 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
44 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 51 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL Economic Development Plan
Lucid Economics Pty Ltd www.lucideconomics.com.au [email protected]
45 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5A-28JULY2020 Page 52 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Light Economic Development Plan Economic Analysis Report
Prepared for Light Regional Council
April 2020
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 lucid /’lu:sid/ adjective 1. expressed clearly; easy to understand 2. bright or luminous
Document Control Job Name: Light Economic Development Plan
Client: Light Regional Council
Client Contact: Kieren Chappell
Version Control Version Date Authorisation Draft v1 5/07/2019 MC Draft v2 30/04/2020 MC
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this document, Lucid Economics Pty Ltd is unable to make any warranties in relation to the information contained herein. Lucid Economics Pty Ltd, its employees and agents accept no liability for any loss or damage that may be suffered as a result of reliance on this information, whether or not there has been any error, omission or negligence on the part of Lucid Economics Pty Ltd, its employees or agents. Any forecasts or projections used in the analysis and relied upon for any findings can be affected by a number of unforeseen or unknown variables, and as such no warranty is given that a particular set of results will in fact be achieved or realised.
i APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis – Background Report
Executive Summary
Introduction
Lucid Economics has been engaged by Light Regional Council to deliver the Light Economic Development Plan. This report represents the economic analysis portion of the project and provides an in-depth analysis of the local economy and foundation for future economic development activities. Population
Population growth is important as it drives economic growth across approximately one-third of the economy. Population growth for the Light region has slowed significantly since the early-2000s, to be just 0.1% in 2019. While this trend is in line with regional and state trends, lower population growth rates mean that the economy must be supported in other areas for growth. Historical analysis has shown that when the economy increases, new jobs are created, which provide a catalyst for population growth. Figure E.1. Historical Population Light (lha) Light (rha) RDA BGLAP (rha) South Australia (rha) 18,000 6%
15,000 5%
12,000 4%
9,000 3% Population (no.) Population
6,000 2% Populationgrowth
3,000 1%
0 0% 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 Source: ABS (2020a).
ii APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis – Background Report
Economic development is about raising the standard of living for all residents Household income levels are the best available indicator for standard of living and/or community wellbeing for residents. Economic development should seek to increase the median household income level over time. In addition to being above the South Australian average, the Light region’s median household income has increased at a level above inflation, indicating increasing standards of living.
Table E.1. Median Income 2006 2011 2016 Personal income ($/week) Light $465 $571 $669 South Australia $433 $534 $600 Household income ($/week) Light $1,075 $1,276 $1,462 South Australia $885 $1,042 $1,204 Source: ABS (2017). Economy
The Light regional economy has undergone significant periods of volatility that have been followed by periods of stagnation. The main driver of this volatility has been the region’s agriculture and construction industries, due to changes in local weather patterns, and slowing population growth. Figure E.2. Gross Regional Product, Light $1,000 10%
$800 8%
$600 6%
$400 4%
$200 2%
$0 0%
-$200 -2% Annual Growth (%) GrowthAnnual
-$400 -4% Gross Regional Product ($m)Product GrossRegional -$600 -6%
-$800 -8%
Light Region ($m) Light Region (%) RDA BGLAP (%) South Australia (%) Source: Economy.id (2020).
iii APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis – Background Report
Figure E.3. Industry Value-Add, 2018-19
Manufacturing Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Education and Training Construction Wholesale Trade Health Care and Social Assistance Retail Trade Transport, Postal and Warehousing Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Mining Public Administration and Safety Other Services Administrative and Support Services Information Media and Telecommunications Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Light Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services RDA BGLAP Financial and Insurance Services South Australia Arts and Recreation Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% % of Total Source: Economy.id (2020). Figure E.4. Industry Value-Add, Top Six Industries, Light $250
$200
$150 $m $100
$50
$0
Manufacturing Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Education and Training Construction Wholesale Trade Health Care and Social Assistance Source: Economy.id (2020).
iv APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis – Background Report
Labour Force
The Light region has a considerably lower unemployment rate than the South Australian average, however with the region’s labour force growing at a slower rate than population growth recently, in addition to the ageing nature of the region’s population, it is likely that the participation rate in the region is in decline. In particular, the slowing rate of population growth will have implications for more population-dependent industries, such as construction and education, which are key employment industries in the region. Figure E.5. Labour Force and Unemployment Rates Light employment (No.) Light labour force (No.) Light (%) RDA BGLAP (%) South Australia (%) 9,000 9%
8,000 8%
7,000 7%
6,000 6%
5,000 5%
4,000 4%
3,000 3% Unemployment rate (%) Unemployment rate
2,000 2% Employment / Labour force (no.) force Labour Employment/
1,000 1%
0 0% Dec-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Dec-14 Dec-15 Dec-16 Dec-17 Dec-18 Dec-19
Source: DESSFB (2019). Figure E.6. Employment by Industry, Light
Other Services 2008-09 Arts and Recreation Services 2013-14 Health Care and Social Assistance 2018-19 Education and Training Public Administration and Safety Administrative and Support Services Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services Financial and Insurance Services Information Media and Telecommunications Transport, Postal and Warehousing Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Construction Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Employment by industry (% of total) Source: Economy.id (2020).
v APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis – Background Report
Future Growth Opportunities
This analysis has considered a number of economic and industry factors as well as workforce and other related economic indicators in evaluating the local economy. It has identified a range of competitive advantages as well as a range of economic development opportunities. The analysis has indicated that there are a number of future economic development growth opportunities for the Light region in the following industries: • Healthcare • Agriculture • Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing • Professional, scientific and technical services • Tourism It will be important for Light Regional Council to consider how it can influence these sectors to grow into the future. Next Steps
Light Regional Council will need to consider this analysis in terms of how it approaches economic development into the future. It is clear that the Council has a number of challenges as well as a number of distinct opportunities. This analysis will be discussed with a range of stakeholders as part of the formulation of the Economic Development Plan for the Light region and provides a strong evidence base for the development of the plan.
vi APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis – Background Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... ii Table of Contents ...... vii 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Population and Demographics ...... 2 2.1 Population ...... 2 2.2 Age ...... 3 2.3 Income ...... 4 2.4 SEIFA ...... 4 3. Economy ...... 6 3.1 Size and Structure of the Economy ...... 6 4. Employment and Skills ...... 12 4.1 Labour Force and Unemployment ...... 12 4.2 Employment ...... 13 4.2.1 Part-time and Full-time Work ...... 15 4.2.2 Underemployment ...... 16 4.3 Journey to Work ...... 16 4.4 Skills ...... 18 4.5 Value of Employment ...... 21 5. Tourism ...... 22 6. Property ...... 23 7. Competitive Advantages and Opportunities ...... 24 8. Summary ...... 30 References ...... 31
vii APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
1. Introduction
Lucid Economics Pty Ltd (Lucid Economics) has been engaged to deliver the Light Economic Development Plan on behalf of Light Regional Council. Light Regional Council is located approximately 75km north of the Adelaide CBD. The Council encompasses 1,278 square kilometres and includes the western ridge of the Barossa Valley. It is primarily known for its mining heritage and premier farming land. Key townships within the Council region include Kapunda, Freeling, Greenock, Roseworthy and Wasleys. Figure 1.1. Light Regional Council and RDA BGLAP Region
Source: Economy.id (2020). This report provides an in-depth analysis of the local economy and a strong basis for the consultation and strategy development phase of the project.
1 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 9 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
2. Population and Demographics
2.1 Population
The Light region had an estimated resident population of 15,359 in 2019, up 0.1% from 2018. The Light region’s population has slowed considerably since the early 2000s, averaging growth of 1.0% per annum over the past five years, having grown at an average annual rate of 2.1% the decade prior. While population growth has also trended lower since the early 2000s in the RDA BGLAP region and South Australia, Light region’s population growth has fallen below the RDA BGLAP rate and the South Australian average in 2019, having been higher than both regions for the majority of the previous 15 years. Figure 2.1. Historical Population Light (lha) Light (rha) RDA BGLAP (rha) South Australia (rha) 18,000 6%
15,000 5%
12,000 4%
9,000 3% Population (no.) Population
6,000 2% Populationgrowth
3,000 1%
0 0% 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019
Source: ABS (2020a). South Australia’s Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) projects the Light region’s population growth to continue to slow out to the year 2036 (Figure 2.2). The Light region’s population growth is forecast to remain below the RDA BGLAP average, but above the South Australian average out to the year 2036, remaining between 1.2% and 1.3% per year.
2 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 2.2. Projected Population Light (lha) Light (rha) RDA BGLAP (rha) South Australia (rha) 20,000 1.8%
1.6%
16,000 1.4%
1.2% 12,000 1.0%
0.8% 8,000 Population (no.) Population 0.6%
0.4%
4,000 Average annual populationgrowth annual Average 0.2%
0 0.0% 2019 2021 2026 2031 2036
Source: ABS (2020a), DPTI (2019). 2.2 Age
The Light region exhibits similar median age characteristics to the South Australian average (Table A). However, the rate of ageing in the Council area is marginally faster than that of the broader state over the decade to 2016. Table A. Median Age 2006 2011 2016 Light Region 36 38 39 South Australia 39 39 40 Source: ABS (2017). Consistent with the rising median age in the Light region over the past 10 years, the area is projected to see a rapid increase in the proportion of residents aged 65 years out to the year 2036, moving from 13.8% of the total population in 2016 to 22.4% by 2036 (Figure 2.3). On a total numbers basis, residents aged 65 years and over are expected to increase by 2,250 residents between 2016 and 2036, more than doubling of this population cohort over 2016 levels.
3 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 11 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 2.3. Projected Age Structure, Light Region
25% 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036
20%
15%
10% % of Population % of
5%
0% 0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Source: DPTI (2019). 2.3 Income
The Light region’s median weekly personal and household income levels were both higher than the state medians in 2016. Median household income is an important measure for standard of living. The measure has increased at a faster rate than inflation (ABS, 2019c) over the past decade in the Light region, providing real income gains for residents. Table B. Median Income 2006 2011 2016 Personal income ($/week) Light Region $465 $571 $669 South Australia $433 $534 $600 Household income ($/week) Light Region $1,075 $1,276 $1,462 South Australia $885 $1,042 $1,204 Source: ABS (2017). 2.4 SEIFA
The image below (Figure 2.4) shows a mix of areas within in terms of their standing in the ABS’s Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (SEIFA). While there are a number of regions in the 4th quintile, there are also a number of regions in the bottom two quintiles of the Index.
4 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 12 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 2.4. Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage & Disadvantage (by SA1), Light Regional Council (2016)
Source: ABS (2018).
5 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
3. Economy
3.1 Size and Structure of the Economy
The Light region’s Gross Regional Product (GRP) was $828 million in 2018-19, down 6% from the previous year. The region’s economic growth has been volatile since the early 2000s, however the area has recorded stronger average annual growth (2.9%) than the RDA BGLAP (1.8%) and South Australian (1.3%) averages over the past five years. This volatility in large part is due to the region’s reliance on the local agriculture, forestry and fishing industry (the region’s second largest industry), which is susceptible to changes in local weather patterns. The construction industry has also contributed to volatility in the local economy, likely driven by slowing population growth in the region. Figure 3.1. Gross Regional Product, Light Region $1,000 10%
$800 8%
$600 6%
$400 4%
$200 2%
$0 0%
-$200 -2% Annual Growth (%) GrowthAnnual
-$400 -4% Gross Regional Product ($m)Product GrossRegional -$600 -6%
-$800 -8%
Light Region ($m) Light Region (%) RDA BGLAP (%) South Australia (%) Note: Year-ending June data. Source: Economy.id (2020). The largest industries by Industry Value-Add (IVA) in the Light region in 2018-19 were: • Manufacturing; • Agriculture, forestry and fishing; • Education and training; • Construction; and • Transport, postal and warehousing. Manufacturing was the largest industry in the Light region in 2018-19, with non-metallic mineral product manufacturing and beverage and tobacco product manufacturing being the region’s key manufacturing sub-industries. The manufacturing industry has grown strongly in recent years (particularly the non-metallic mineral product manufacturing sub-industry), supported by a lower Australian dollar since the mining boom.
6 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Agriculture is another key sub-industry in the region, with livestock slaughterings, cereal crops and grapes being the leading agricultural commodities produced by value in 2015-16. Construction is the fourth largest sector in the Light region, however the industry has been in decline in recent years, consistent with slowing population growth. Figure 3.2. Industry Value-Add, 2018-19
Manufacturing Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Education and Training Construction Wholesale Trade Health Care and Social Assistance Retail Trade Transport, Postal and Warehousing Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Mining Public Administration and Safety Other Services Administrative and Support Services Information Media and Telecommunications Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Light Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services RDA BGLAP Financial and Insurance Services South Australia Arts and Recreation Services
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% % of Total Source: Economy.id (2020). Figure 3.3. Industry Value-Add, Top Six Industries, Light Region $250
$200
$150 $m $100
$50
$0
Manufacturing Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Education and Training Construction Wholesale Trade Health Care and Social Assistance Source: Economy.id (2020).
7 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 15 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 3.4. Industry Value-Add by Manufacturing Sub-Sector, 2018-19 Non-Metallic Mineral Product Fabricated Metal Product Food Product Beverage & Tobacco Product Basic Chemical & Chemical Product Machinery and Equipment Wood Product Furniture & Other Petroleum & Coal Product Primary Metal & Metal Product Textile, Leather, Clothing & Footwear Polymer Product & Rubber Product Pulp, Paper & Paper Product Light Printing (incl. Recorded Media) RDA BGLAP Transport Equipment South Australia 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
Industry value-add (% of Total) Source: Economy.id (2020). Figure 3.5. Industry Value-Add by Sub-Industry, Light Region
$180
$160
$140
$120
$100
$m $80
$60
$40
$20
$0 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Agriculture Non-Metallic Mineral Product Manufacturing Preschool and School Education Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing Food Product Manufacturing Construction Services Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing Source: Economy.id (2020).
8 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 16 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 3.6. Value of Agricultural Production, 2015-16, Light Region
Livestock slaughterings Eggs Milk Wool Nuts Other fruit Grapes (wine and table) Citrus fruit Vegetables Crops for Hay Nurseries & cut flowers Other broadacre crops Cereal crops
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 Value ($M) Source: Economy.id (2020). The Light region’s economy is dominated by small businesses (98% of all businesses have 19 employees or fewer) (Figure 3.7). This structure is similar to most local economies in Australia. The top three industries by number of businesses (agriculture, forestry and fishing, construction and rental, hiring and real estate services) are typical industries where there is a great number of individual traders and small businesses.
Business Counts from the ABS It is important to keep in mind that this data reflects the registered business address of companies (only), so larger businesses such as Coles, Woolworths and other major retail businesses may not be captured in the data. Furthermore, the ABS excludes sole traders and focuses on businesses with active ABNs that are registered for GST. This methodology usually underestimates the total number of businesses in a local economy, specifically many of the sole traders and/or home- based businesses.
9 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 17 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 3.7. Business Counts, Light Region, 2019 0% 2%
Non employing
34% 1-19 Employees
20-199 Employees
64% 200+ Employees
Note: Location based on registered address of businesses. Source: ABS (2020b) Figure 3.8. Business Counts, by Industry, Light Region, 2019
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Mining Manufacturing Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Construction Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Accommodation and Food Services Transport, Postal and Warehousing Information Media and Telecommunications Financial and Insurance Services Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Administrative and Support Services Public Administration and Safety Education and Training Health Care and Social Assistance Arts and Recreation Services Other Services Currently Unknown 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Non employing 1-19 Employees 20-199 Employees 200+ Employees
Source: ABS (2020b).
10 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 18 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 3.9. Business Counts, by Industry, 2018
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Construction Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services Manufacturing Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Transport, Postal and Warehousing Other Services Financial and Insurance Services Retail Trade Accommodation and Food Services Wholesale Trade Health Care and Social Assistance Administrative and Support Services Arts and Recreation Services Public Administration and Safety Education and Training South Australia Mining RDA BGLAP Information Media and Telecommunications Light Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services 0% 10% 20% 30% % of total businesses Source: Economy.id (2020).
11 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 19 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
4. Employment and Skills
4.1 Labour Force and Unemployment
The Light region’s labour market conditions have consistently been stronger than the South Australian average. Further, while the region’s unemployment rate has increased marginally over the last few quarters, employment has been growing. In December quarter 2019, the Light region’s unemployment rate was 3.6%, below the RDA BGLAP region (4.2%) and South Australian (6.3%) (Figure 4.1). In the year to December, the region added 266 jobs (an increase of 3.3%). Since 2010, employment has increased an average of 107, demonstrating the strong growth of local employment over the last year.
Labour Force and Unemployment Data These data sets are from the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business (DESSFB) and track the number of people in the labour force (total), employed and unemployed. This data is based on place of residence, which differs from the analysis above regarding Gross Regional Product/Industry Value Add as well as the analysis below regarding employment, which focuses on data based on place of work. For the labour force survey, the definition of ‘employed’ includes all persons aged 15 years and over who worked for one hour or more during the reference week.
Figure 4.1. Labour Market Conditions Light employment (No.) Light labour force (No.) Light (%) RDA BGLAP (%) South Australia (%) 9,000 9%
8,000 8%
7,000 7%
6,000 6%
5,000 5%
4,000 4%
3,000 3% Unemployment rate (%) Unemployment rate
2,000 2% Employment / Labour force (no.) force Labour Employment/
1,000 1%
0 0% Dec-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Dec-14 Dec-15 Dec-16 Dec-17 Dec-18 Dec-19
Source: DESE (2020).
12 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 20 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
4.2 Employment
Manufacturing has remained the leading employing industry in the Light region over the past decade, providing almost 25% of the region’s jobs in 2018-19. In terms of total numbers, the majority of growth has come from the manufacturing (465) and retail (229) and education (141) industries over the five years to 2018-19, accounting for 75% of total job growth over the period. The proportion of jobs within the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry has fallen sharply over the past decade, but still remains the second leading employing industry in the region in 2018-19. Figure 4.2. Employment by Industry, Light Region
Other Services 2008-09 Arts and Recreation Services 2013-14 Health Care and Social Assistance 2018-19 Education and Training Public Administration and Safety Administrative and Support Services Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services Financial and Insurance Services Information Media and Telecommunications Transport, Postal and Warehousing Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Construction Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Employment by industry (% of total) Source: Economy.id (2020).
13 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 21 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 4.3. Employment growth (no.), Light Region
Other Services 2013-14 Arts and Recreation Services 2018-19 Health Care and Social Assistance Education and Training Public Administration and Safety Administrative and Support Services Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services Financial and Insurance Services Information Media and Telecommunications Transport, Postal and Warehousing Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Construction Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing -200 0 200 400 600 5 Year Employment Growth (no.)
Source: Economy.id (2020). Figure 4.4. Employment growth (%), Light Region
Other Services 2013-14 Arts and Recreation Services 2018-19 Health Care and Social Assistance Education and Training Public Administration and Safety Administrative and Support Services Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services Financial and Insurance Services Information Media and Telecommunications Transport, Postal and Warehousing Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Construction Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 5 Year Employment Growth (%)
Source: Economy.id (2020).
14 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 22 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
4.2.1 Part-time and Full-time Work
Between 2011 and 2016, there was a 1.5 percentage points (ppt) shift between part-time work and full-time work in the Light region. The ABS defines part-time work as working less than 35 hours in one week and full-time work as working 35 hours or more. The casualisation of the workforce is a trend that is taking place at the state and national level at a much higher rate than in the Light region. Manufacturing is the key employing industry in the region, and also the industry with the highest proportion of full-time employees. Figure 4.5. Employment Status, Light Region
Full-time Part-time Away from work 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% % % employedof 30%
20%
10%
0% 2011 2016
Note: Place of work. Source: ABS (2017). Figure 4.6. Employment Status by Industry, Light Region, 2016
Full-time Part-time Away from work
Manufacturing Public Administration and Safety Wholesale Trade Mining Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Construction Transport, Postal and Warehousing Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Education and Training Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Information Media and Telecommunications Other Services Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services Retail Trade Financial and Insurance Services Accommodation and Food Services Arts and Recreation Services Administrative and Support Services Health Care and Social Assistance 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of employed Note: Place of work. Source: ABS (2017).
15 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 23 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
4.2.2 Underemployment
Underemployment refers to persons who have a job but want, and are available to work, more hours than they currently are. Underemployment data is only available at the state level, however trends in underemployment in the region are unlikely to differ significantly from trends at the state level. The South Australian underemployment rate was 8.6% (trend) in May 2019, broadly in line with the national average (8.5%) and 2.8 percentage points higher than the South Australian unemployment rate (5.8%). While the South Australian underemployment rate has trended lower in recent years, the rate remains elevated by historical standards. Further, the gap between the South Australian unemployment and underemployment rates has widened over the past two decades. This indicates that, while the unemployment rate in the Light region is particularly low, there are likely to be numerous workers looking to work more hours in the region. Figure 4.7. Unemployment and Underemployment Rates South Australia underemployment rate South Australia unemployment rate Australia underemployment rate Australia unemployment rate 12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3% Unemployment / UnderemploymentratesUnemployment/ 2% May-99 May-03 May-07 May-11 May-15 May-19
Note: trend data. Source: ABS (2019d). 4.3 Journey to Work
Analysis of journey to work data from the 2016 Census shows that 65% of local residents (4,689) leave the Council area every day to go to work. This demonstrates the attractiveness of the area for residents, as many have decided to incur a longer commute in order to live in the Light region. At the same time, the analysis also shows that for the jobs available inside the Light region, 44% of them (2,137) are filled by local residents. While some resident workers travel to Adelaide for employment, there is a significantly greater proportion of resident workers employed in surrounding local government areas, particularly the neighbouring Barossa LGA. Additionally, most of the local jobs in the Light region that are not filled by resident workers are occupied by residents from adjoining local government areas (Table D).
16 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 24 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
In terms of industry, manufacturing, healthcare and retail trade all have relatively high proportions of local resident workers who work outside of the Light region. Table C. Journey to Work, Light Region, 2016 Location Number % Employed residents in the area Live and work in the area 2,137 30% Live in the area, but work outside 4,689 65% No fixed place of work 390 5% Total employed residents in the area 7,226 100% Workers in the area Live and work in the area 2,137 44% Work in the area, but live outside 2,657 56% Total workers in the area 4,812 100% Source: ABS (2017). Table D. Journey to Work, by LGA, Light Region, 2016 Top 10 employment locations of resident Top 10 residential location of local workers workers by Council by Council Council No. % Council No. % Light (RegC) 2,137 29.6% Light (RegC) 2,137 44.4% Barossa (DC) 1,148 15.9% Barossa (DC) 807 16.8% Gawler (T) 753 10.4% Gawler (T) 509 10.6% Playford (C) 645 8.9% Playford (C) 298 6.2% Salisbury (C) 642 8.9% Salisbury (C) 158 3.3% Port Adelaide Enfield (C) 397 5.5% Tea Tree Gully (C) 102 2.1% No Fixed Address (SA) 390 5.4% Adelaide Plains (DC) 101 2.1% Adelaide (C) 260 3.6% Clare & Gilbert Valleys (DC) 84 1.7% Tea Tree Gully (C) 117 1.6% Port Adelaide Enfield (C) 83 1.7% Charles Sturt (C) 116 1.6% Goyder (DC) 65 1.4% Source: ABS (2017).
17 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 25 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Table E. Journey to Work by Industry of Employment, 2016 Top 10 employment industries of resident workers Top 10 employment industries of outside residents who work outside Light Region who work in Light Region Industry No. % Industry No. % Manufacturing 720 14.6% Manufacturing 685 26.9% Health Care and Social Assistance 673 13.6% Education and Training 394 15.5% Retail Trade 552 11.2% Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 291 11.4% Public Administration and Safety 434 8.8% Construction 217 8.5% Accommodation and Food Construction 408 8.3% 172 6.8% Services Education and Training 393 8.0% Health Care and Social Assistance 126 4.9% Accommodation and Food Transport, Postal and 291 5.9% 103 4.0% Services Warehousing Transport, Postal and 274 5.5% Retail Trade 88 3.5% Warehousing Administrative and Support Administrative and Support 210 4.3% 84 3.3% Services Services Professional, Scientific and 165 3.3% Wholesale Trade 82 3.2% Technical Services Source: ABS (2017). 4.4 Skills
Workforce and Skills The skills in an economy can be considered in terms of its local resident workforce (i.e. the people who reside in the area and their respective skills), as well as in terms of the local workers (i.e. the people who work locally). Because 44% of local jobs are filled by local people, these two perspectives will align to a certain degree. A shortage or surplus in any area will help us understand any existing skills gaps in the local resident workforce.
The Light region had a significantly lower proportion of professionals and sales workers (by place of work) than the South Australian average in 2016. However, the Light region also has a higher representation of labourers, machinery operators and drivers, and technicians and trades workers than the South Australian average, which is representative of the large local agriculture, construction and manufacturing industries.
18 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 26 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 4.8. Employment by Occupation (place of usual residence), 2016
South Australia RDA BGLAP Light
Labourers
Machinery Operators and Drivers
Sales Workers
Clerical and Administrative Workers
Community and Personal Service Workers
Technicians and Trades Workers
Professionals
Managers
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Employment by Occupation (%)
Source: ABS (2017). Figure 4.9. Employment by Occupation (place of work), 2016
South Australia RDA BGLAP Light
Labourers
Machinery Operators and Drivers
Sales Workers
Clerical and Administrative Workers
Community and Personal Service Workers
Technicians and Trades Workers
Professionals
Managers
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Employment by Occupation (%)
Source: ABS (2017). Consistent with the higher proportion of labourers, machinery operators and drivers, and technicians and trades workers in the area, the region has a higher proportion of residents listing ‘secondary education’ and ‘certificate level’ as their highest education attainment in 2016 compared with the South Australian average. Accordingly, the region has a lower proportion of residents with ‘bachelor degree level’ and ‘post graduate degree level’ listed as their highest level of education attained.
19 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 27 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 4.10. Highest Education Attainment (place of usual residence), 2016
South Australia RDA BGLAP Light
Secondary Education - Years 9 and below
Certificate I & II Level
Secondary Education - Years 10 and above
Certificate III & IV Level
Advanced Diploma and Diploma Level
Bachelor Degree Level
Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate Level
Postgraduate Degree Level
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Highest Education Attainment (%)
Source: ABS (2017). Figure 4.11. Highest Education Attainment (place of work), 2016
South Australia RDA BGLAP Light
Secondary Education - Years 9 and below
Certificate I & II Level
Secondary Education - Years 10 and above
Certificate III & IV Level
Advanced Diploma and Diploma Level
Bachelor Degree Level
Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate Level
Postgraduate Degree Level
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Highest Education Attainment (%)
Source: ABS (2017).
20 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 28 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
4.5 Value of Employment
Different industries contribute varying degrees of value to the local economy based on a variety of factors including supply chains, price of goods sold and overall position in the economy.
As highlighted below, financial services, information media and telecommunications, rental, hiring and real estate services and utility services are amongst the highest value-adding industries in the local economy.
Arts and recreation services, accommodation and food services and retail trade are amongst the lowest value-adding sectors in the local economy.
High Value-Adding Jobs In terms of economic development, growing high value-adding jobs will have greater benefits to the overall economy than increases in low value-adding jobs. The core difference is related to the relevant supply chains of these industries as well as the wages that are often paid across those industries. High value-adding jobs will provide a greater ability to spend more in the local economy, which will create a greater flow-on benefit locally. Additionally, businesses that have more local supply chains (or the opportunity for them) will have the ability to support additional businesses, creating more value in the local economy. Because one job may offer greater value than another, this does not mean that lower value- adding jobs are not important. These jobs often provide employment for youth and offer an entry point into the workforce for many residents. Rather, understanding the value of employment should guide the balance of effort and resources in terms of various industry development and investment attraction activities.
Figure 4.12. Industry Value-Add per Employee, Light Region Financial and Insurance Services Information Media and Telecommunications Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Mining Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Construction Transport, Postal and Warehousing Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Education and Training Public Administration and Safety Health Care and Social Assistance Other Services Administrative and Support Services Retail Trade Accommodation and Food Services Arts and Recreation Services
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 Industry value-add per employee ($'000)
Note: Based on 2016 Census employment by industry by place of work and 2015-16 industry value-add data. Sources: Economy.id (2019), ABS (2017).
21 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 29 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
5. Tourism
Tourism is not one of the Light region’s key industries, accounting for just 1.8% of industry value-add in 2016-17. However, tourism visitation to the Light region has risen by more than 50% since 2010, primarily driven by strong growth in day-trip visitors. Day-trip visitors are by far the largest visitor type to the region, comprising over 80% of total visitors to the region in 2018. It should be noted however, that day-trip visitors have the lowest average trip spend of the three visitor types, and therefore the lowest economic impact. In contrast, international visitors accounted for less than 1% of total visitors to the region in 2018. Table F. Industry Value-Add by Sub-Industry, 2017-18, Light Region Industry Value Added Employment Sector $M % of Total No. % of Total Tourism $11.0 1.8% 144 2.6% Accommodation $5.1 0.8% 113 2.0% Food & beverage services $7.2 1.2% 186 3.2% Note: Tourism data is for 2016-17. Source: Economy.id (2019). Figure 5.1. Visitors by Type, Light Region
Day-trip Domestic overnight International 180
160
140
120
100
80
Visitors(thousands) 60
40
20
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Note: 5-year averages used due to low sample sizes. Source: TRA (2019).
22 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 30 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
6. Property
The Light region offers affordability with housing prices up to 60% less than other areas (Table G). Building approvals have declined (both in number and value) in the Light region in recent years, consistent with slowing population growth in the region. Table G. Median House Price (2019) Median House Price ($) Annual Growth (%) Savings in Light (%) South Australia $435,000 1.8% 18.0% Metro Adelaide $485,000 1.7% 26.5% Central Metro $560,000 0.5% 37.1% Inner Metro $840,000 -2.4% 59.3% Light Region $350,550 -8.8% NA Source: REISA (2020), Pricefinder (2020). Figure 6.1. Building Approvals, Light Region
Residential Approvals (lha) Residential Value (rha) Non-Residential Value (rha)
120 $45
$40 100 $35
80 $30
$25 60 $20
40 $15 Residential(No.) Approvals
$10 Building($m) ApprovalValue 20 $5
0 $0 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 FYTD
Source: ABS (2019b).
23 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 31 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
7. Competitive Advantages and Opportunities
Identifying Competitive Advantages Identifying and leveraging competitive advantages is important for successful economic development efforts at the local level. Competitive advantages can exist in many forms including location, natural resources, industry specialisation and/or infrastructure. This section seeks to identify the unique competitive advantages of the Light region using various analytical techniques, including: • Location quotient analysis • Cluster mapping This analysis will identify various industry opportunities for the Light region to be tested and verified through consultation.
The following graph shows the Light region’s competitive advantages by industry due to local employment specialisation. Essentially, the location quotients show the proportion of workers in individual industries with the ‘1’ line representing parity with South Australia. Industries showing a specialisation above the ‘1’ line indicate areas of natural competitive advantage. The analysis shows the natural competitive advantages for the Light region in agriculture, forestry and fishing, education and construction. Figure 7.1. Employment Location Quotients, Light (benchmarked to South Australia), 2017-18
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Mining Manufacturing Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Construction Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Accommodation and Food Services Transport, Postal and Warehousing Information Media and Telecommunications Financial and Insurance Services Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Administrative and Support Services Public Administration and Safety Education and Training Health Care and Social Assistance Arts and Recreation Services Other Services
0 1 2 3 4 5 Location Quotient
Source: Economy.id (2019).
24 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 32 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
It is important to understand that the education and construction industries rely on population and other factors for growth and vitality. As such, as population (and business) grows, so too will construction and education, so while there is a relative competitive advantage in these sectors, it is not something that the Light region can trade on given the region’s slowing population growth and ageing population profile. The following cluster maps help us to understand the relative competitive advantage against a backdrop of future expected employment growth, as well as existing local employment strengths.
Cluster Mapping Cluster mapping is an analytical tool to consider future economic growth opportunities and to show the importance and growth opportunities for various clusters or industries within the economy. The cluster maps for the Light region show the significance and importance of the existing agricultural and manufacturing clusters. The mapping also shows the growth potential of various other clusters such as the health care and social assistance industry.
Interpreting the Cluster Map Cluster mapping is an analytical tool that can simultaneously present the size and scale of a location’s competitive advantages with future anticipated growth trends by industry. In cluster mapping, a location’s competitive advantage is viewed through labour specialisation (i.e. the relative scale of employment in specific industries). There are three main components to the cluster map: • Location quotient: the community’s location quotients are presented along the vertical axis and these points represent the proportional employment in the community versus a comparison, in this instance South Australia (i.e. compared with SA, how many people are employed in the sector; 1 = the same, 1.2 = 20% more than the state, etc.). • Employment Growth: future employment growth expectations per industry, from 2018 to 2023, form the horizontal axis and tell us the percentage growth expected for a sector, based on projections from the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. • The Cluster: or the ‘bubble’ represents the size of local employment in that given sector, which shows the significance of the sector locally. Overall, cluster mapping helps to identify industry areas of focus for further development in the future.
25 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 33 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 7.2. Cluster Map (1-digit), Light Region 5.0 High Competitive Advantage / Weak Growth High Competitive Advantage / Strong Growth
4.5 = 300 Employees Agriculture, Forestry and 4.0 Fishing
3.5
18) 18) -
3.0
Manufacturing 2.5
2.0 See Next Page
LocationQuotients(2017 1.5 Education and Training Wholesale Trade InformationRental, Media Hiring and and Real Estate 1.0 TelecommunicationsServicesAccommodation and Food Transport, Postal and Professional, Scientific and Electricity, Gas,Mining Water and ServicesConstruction Other Services Warehousing Technical Services Public Administration and Health Care and Social 0.5 Waste ServicesRetail Trade Administrative and Support Safety Assistance Services Arts and Recreation Services Weak Competitive Advantage / Weak Growth Weak Competitive Advantage / Strong Growth 0.0 Financial and Insurance -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Services Employment Growth 2018-2023
Note: Location quotient calculated by proportion of Light employment divided by proportion of South Australia employment. Location quotient of greater than 1 indicates industry makes up larger proportion of Light employment than it does across South Australia. Sources: Economy.id (2019), DESSFB (2018b).
26 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 34 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 7.3. Cluster Map (1-digit) Inset, Light Region 1.75 High Competitive Advantage / Weak Growth High Competitive Advantage / Strong Growth
1.50 = 300 Employees Education and Training
1.25
Construction 18) 18) - Mining Transport, Postal and Warehousing 1.00 Information Media and Administrative and Support Wholesale Trade Telecommunications Services Accommodation and Food Services 0.75 Other Services Rental, Hiring and Real Electricity, Gas, Water and Professional, Scientific and Estate Services Waste Services Technical Services LocationQuotients(2017 0.50 Retail Trade Arts and Recreation Services Public Administration and Health Care and Social 0.25 Safety Assistance Financial and Insurance Weak Competitive Advantage / Weak GrowthServices Weak Competitive Advantage / Strong Growth 0.00 -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
Employment Growth 2018-2023
Note: Location quotient calculated by proportion of Light employment divided by proportion of South Australia employment. Location quotient of greater than 1 indicates industry makes up larger proportion of Light employment than it does across South Australia. Note: Place of work data. Sources: Economy.id (2019), DESSFB (2018b).
27 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 35 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Figure 7.4. Manufacturing Sub-Industries (2-dig) Cluster Map, Light Region 25 High Competitive Advantage / Weak Growth High Competitive Advantage / Strong Growth
= 100 Employees
20
18) 18) Non-Metallic Mineral Product -
15 Textile, Leather, Clothing and Footwear
10 Machinery and Equipment Beverage and Tobacco Product LocationQuotients(2017 Pulp, Paper and Converted Wood Product Paper Product Basic Chemical and Chemical Petroleum and Coal Product 5 Product Primary Metal and Metal Polymer Product and Rubber Fabricated Metal Product Product Product Food Product Furniture and Other
Weak Competitive Advantage / Strong Growth 0 Weak Competitive Advantage / Weak Growth -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
Employment Growth 2018-2023
Note: Location quotient calculated by proportion of Light employment divided by proportion of South Australia employment. Location quotient of greater than 1 indicates industry makes up larger proportion of Light employment than it does across South Australia. Sources: Economy.id (2019), DESSFB (2018b).
28 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 36 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
The analysis above indicates that there are future economic development growth opportunities in the following industries: • Healthcare • Agriculture • Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing • Professional, scientific and technical services • Tourism It will be important for Light Regional Council to consider how the Council can influence these sectors to grow into the future.
29 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 37 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
8. Summary
This analysis has revealed numerous elements of the local economy as well as various areas for future growth.
The Light economy is unique in many ways. The region’s median household income is higher than the South Australian average and the region’s labour market exhibits a low rate of unemployment. However, participation is likely declining given the region’s labour force is growing at an even slower rate than its population. Further, with the region’s population growth slowing and ageing (with this trend forecast to continue over the next decade), this is likely to have implications for the more population-dependent industries such as education and construction. At present, these are two of the larger industries in the region by employment.
The region’s economy is particularly reliant on the manufacturing and agriculture industries, which are susceptible to changing weather patterns and global and national economic conditions. For this reason, economic growth in the Light region has been particularly volatile in recent years.
The Light Regional Council must consider the best avenues to encourage broad-based, valuable economic development. Based on this analysis, these efforts must consider existing businesses, small businesses, trade opportunities, and the opportunity to attract investment from outside investors and businesses. Additionally, entrepreneurial initiatives as well as other workforce development initiatives should be considered.
This evidence base provides the foundation for future strategic considerations as well as for the consultation phase of the project.
30 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 38 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
References
ABS (2020a). Regional Population Growth, Australia. Cat no: 3218.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2020b). Counts of Australian Businesses. Cat no: 8165.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2019b). Building Approvals, Australia. Cat no: 8731.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2019c). Consumer Price Index, Australia, March quarter 2019. Cat no: 6401.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2019d). Labour Force, Australia, May 2019. Cat no: 6202.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2018). Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016. Cat no: 2033.0.55.001. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ABS (2017). Census of Population and Housing, 2016. Cat no: 2003.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. DPTI (2019). Population projections for South Australian SA2s and LGAs 2016-2036. Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Adelaide. DESE (2020). LGA Data Tables — Small Area Labour Markets — December quarter 2019. Department of Education, Skills, and Employment, Canberra. DESSFB (2018). 2018 Employment Projections. Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Canberra. Economy.id (2020). Light Regional Council. ID, Melbourne. Economy.id (2019). Light Regional Council. ID, Melbourne. Pricefinder (2020). House prices, Light LGA. Unpublished. REISA (2020). Median House Prices – December quarter 2019. Real Estate Institute of South Australia, Adelaide. TRA (2019). National and International Visitor Surveys. Tourism Research Australia, Canberra.
31 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 39 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 LIGHT Economic Analysis - Background Report
Lucid Economics Pty Ltd www.lucideconomics.com.au [email protected]
ABN 67 600 265 567
32 APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5B-28JULY2020 Page 40 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Light Regional Council Draft Economic Development Plan Consultation Summary APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020December 2019 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Introduction
• Lucid Economics has been engaged by the Light Regional Council to deliver the Economic Development Plan project. • The project commenced with an in-depth analysis of the local economy to provide a foundation for future economic development activities. It also informed which businesses to focus on for the next stage of the project. • Subsequently, consultation with a range of local businesses and stakeholders has been conducted as part of the strategy development process. This helps us to dig down behind the data and do some ground- truthing. • This document provides a summary of the consultation and input from stakeholders. • These findings will contribute to the formulation of the strategy.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 2 2 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Project Methodology
1. Project start-up • Meet with Council to review background, objectives, methodology, timeframes and administrative arrangements. • Take inspection tour of the region.
2. Situational Analysis •Detailed economic analysis of the Council area including key trends and forecasts. •Identification of competitive advantages, emerging opportunities and barriers.
3. Stakeholder Engagement •Consultation workshop with Council members and staff, key businesses and industry sectors, and government agencies. •Review opportunities in emerging high tech industries. •Review the SBC’s Small Business Friendly Council charter.
4. Prepare draft Economic Development Plan •Develop vision, mission and KPIs. •Identify growth industries and businesses as well as funding support recommendations. •Outline strategic priority areas supported by goals and actions. •Workshop/presentation with key Council staff.
5. Document Finalisation and Presentation •Finalise the Strategic Plan according to Council guidelines. •Review ancillary documents re alignment with the Strategic Plan. APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 •Present to Council. Page 3 3 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan
An Engagement Plan was prepared together with the Council Project Team. The objective of community engagement was to: • Dig behind the data to find out what’s really going on ‘on the ground’. • Understand business expectations of Council’s role in economic development. • Ensure businesses and industry groups have the opportunity to contribute to shaping strategies and programs that effectively respond to the demonstrated needs of local businesses and achieve measurable outcomes. • Inform the development of the Light Economic Development Plan.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 4 4 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Consultation Process
• The consultation was undertaken primarily through individual face-to- face interviews. • Workshops were scheduled with both the wine industry and agriculture industry. Unfortunately the wineries workshop did not proceed. • A survey of local businesses was conducted online from 24 June - 4 November 2019 through Survey Monkey.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 5 5 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Discussion Points
Consultation interviews and workshops addressed the following discussion points: • Background and objectives of current project • Nature of the business • Advantages/disadvantages from operating in the Light region • Key competitive advantages of Light • Perspective of the Council’s current economic development activities • Role of the Light Regional Council in economic development • No single script or specific questions were developed as the conversations were tailored to the individual stakeholder or group. • Research and analysis from the Background Summary was used during the consultation in order to ground-truth the analysis.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 6 6 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Stakeholders
The following stakeholders were consulted as part of this process:
Local Businesses Industry Groups • Orora • RDA Barossa Gawler Light & • The Louise/Appellation Adelaide Plains • Xavier College • Regions SA (PIRSA) • Trinity College • Legatus Group • Adelaide University – Roseworthy • Gawler River Floodplain Campus Management Authority • Adelaide University – Waite Campus • Barossa Tourism • Ahrens Engineering • Barossa Food • JT Johnson & Sons • Seppeltsfield Road Business Alliance • Kapunda Business Alliance
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 7 7 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Key Themes
During the consultation, the following key themes emerged: • Barossa is a world-famous premium wine brand and there are still numerous tourism opportunities to be developed on the back of this; in addition to significant historic and heritage tourism attractions. • The Light region has very high quality agricultural land with opportunities to further develop the local horticulture industry as well as relevant value-adding businesses. • The Roseworthy township development will bring a significant increase in the population of the LRC region, a new school and the expansion of the Adelaide Uni Roseworthy campus presenting numerous opportunities for the Light region. • People are attracted to the Light lifestyle but the region needs to be promoted more to attract the workforce that local industry desperately needs.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 8 8 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Advantages
During consultation, the following key themes emerged as advantages for businesses in the Light region: • Barossa is a world-famous premium wine brand; and the high value wine businesses are in LRC, not The Barossa Council • Peri-urban location means ease of access to markets, offering an advantage over other SA regions • Very good road/freight links to Adelaide CBD, airport, port • High quality ag land and good rainfall • Tourism assets • Diverse industry and lifestyles • Water infrastructure “20% of the Barossa vines are in Light and probably 7/10 of the region’s top winemakers – this is not by chance, it’s because they’ve been given the freedom to do the things they’ve done”.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 9 9 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Disadvantages
During the consultation phase, the following key themes emerged as disadvantages for businesses in the Light region: • Lack of skilled labour • Lack of gas supply • Dormitory suburbs • Diversity of region means scattergun focus • Poor roads • Numerous mobile phone blackspots • Outdated tourism infrastructure • Risk averse Council, especially the planning department
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 10 10 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Opportunities for Economic Growth
During the consultation, the following key themes emerged as opportunities for economic growth in the Light region: • Tourism • Value-add, innovation and technology in agriculture and horticulture • Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme • Fresh produce and artisanal food production • Barossa boundary reform proposal • Various opportunities to attract residents to the region • Consider economic development in terms of three sub-regions: Greater Gawler, Barossa, Agricultural Plains (as the RDA does) • High school specialisations in agri-industries, tourism
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 11 11 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Council’s Role in Economic Development
During the consultation, the following key themes emerged regarding Council’s role in economic development: • Enable the tourism industry to promote the region (rather than Council trying to) • Industry attraction o Make it attractive for businesses to invest here o Land use planning for industrial/commercial lands • Communicate with businesses, facilitate business networking • Provide/advocate for good quality infrastructure and amenity o Accommodate bigger trucks o More CWMS will allow communities to grow • Expedite the DA process • Fund an EO role for business associations to give them more (professional) capacity
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 12 12 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Next Steps
• These findings will inform the preparation of the draft Light Economic Development Plan and Action Plan. • The draft Plan will be workshopped with Council prior to seeking a resolution to consult stakeholders and the community on the Plan. • Finalise the Light Economic Development Plan.
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 13 13 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Project Methodology
1. Project start-up • Meet with Council to review background, objectives, methodology, timeframes and administrative arrangements. • Take inspection tour of the region.
2. Situational Analysis •Detailed economic analysis of the Council area including key trends and forecasts. •Identification of competitive advantages, emerging opportunities and barriers.
3. Stakeholder Engagement •Consultation workshop with Council members and staff, key businesses and industry sectors, and government agencies. •Review opportunities in emerging high tech industries. •Review the SBC’s Small Business Friendly Council charter.
4. Prepare draft Economic Development Plan •Develop vision, mission and KPIs. •Identify growth industries and businesses as well as funding support recommendations. •Outline strategic priority areas supported by goals and actions. •Workshop/presentation with key Council staff.
5. Document Finalisation and Presentation •Finalise the Strategic Plan according to Council guidelines. •Review ancillary documents re alignment with the Strategic Plan. APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 •Present to Council. Page 14 14 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 Skana Gallery Senior Associate Mobile: 04777 533 90 Email: [email protected] www.lucideconomics.com.au
APPENDIX COUNCIL 13.5C-28JULY2020 Page 15 15 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 13.5.1 APPENDIX COUNCIL 14.2A-28JULY2020 PAGE 1 AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL 14.2.1