Notice of Ordinary Council Meeting

NOTICE OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

MEMBERSHIP

Mayor Brett Benbow

Cr Phillip Brown Cr Louise Foote Cr Ann Johnston Cr Matt Leonard Cr Maralyn Marsh Cr John Naisbitt Cr Fran Paynter Cr Linley Shine Cr Sunny Singh

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 83 and 84 of the Local Government Act 1999, that the next ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING will be held in the Council Chambers, 4 Mackay Street, Port Augusta on TUESDAY 24 MARCH 2020 commencing at 6:00pm.

A copy of the Agenda for the above meeting is attached to this notice.

JOHN BANKS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 19/03/2020

Civic Centre: 4 Mackay Street Telephone (08) 8641 9100 Port Augusta South Australia 5700 Facsimile (08) 8641 0357

Postal Address: PO Box 1704 [email protected] Port Augusta South Australia 5700 www.portaugusta.sa.gov.au

24/03/2020 (AR20/12455) AGENDA

1. DECLARE MEETING OPEN

2. LIVE STREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETING

“Port Augusta City Council is live streaming Council Meetings. Council will avoid coverage of the public gallery area and will use its best endeavours to ensure images in this area are not broadcast, however, Council expressly provides no assurances. In the event your image or comment is broadcast, by remaining in the public gallery area you will be taken to have given Council a non-exclusive licence to copy and broadcast your image worldwide for no reward.”

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

“We would like to pay our respects to the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. We acknowledge their ancestors and their sharing of their country. We also pay respect to the many Aboriginal groups and cultures that work, walk and live in Port Augusta”.

4. PRAYER

“Almighty God, we humbly beseech thee to grant thy blessing upon the work of this Council. To direct and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of this City. And for the true and lasting welfare of the people of this Municipality. Amen.”

5. CONDOLENCES

Gregory Franks Lene Heinrich

6. ATTENDANCE RECORD

Apologies: Nil

Leave of Absence: Cr L Foote

Recommendation That Leave of Absence for Cr M Leonard from 28/03/202 to 11/04/2020 (inclusive) be approved.

7. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES (ATTACHED)

7.1 Recommendation That the minutes of the previous Ordinary Council Meeting (AR20/10337) held on 10/03/2020, as per copies supplied to Members, be adopted as a true and correct record of that meeting.

7.2 Recommendation That the minutes of the Special Council Meeting (#1) (AR20/10617) held on 10/03/2020, as per copies supplied to Members, be adopted as a true and correct record of that meeting.

7.3 Recommendation That the minutes of the Special Council Meeting (#2) (AR20/10956) held on 10/03/2020, as per copies supplied to Members, be adopted as a true and correct record of that meeting.

24/03/2020 (AR20/12455)

8. DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS Nil

9. FORMAL COMMUNITY QUESTION TIME Nil

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

11. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Opportunity to discuss if any item within this agenda should be discussed under Confidential provisions; or any confidential matter within the agenda that should be debated in the open.

12. MAYORAL ENGAGEMENTS

13.1 AR20/11529 - Information Report – Mayoral Engagements for period 11/03/2020 – 24/03/2020

13. PETITION Nil

14. NOTICE OF MOTION

14.1 AR20/11913 – Cr Naisbitt - Julia Lodge

15. MOTION TO LIFT A QUESTION FROM THE TABLE Nil

16. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Nil

17. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

18. GENERAL BUSINESS

19. COMMITTEE MINUTES Nil

20. REPORTS

The recommendations contained within the reports are simply that, recommendations.

Elected Members may move any legal alternate motion of their choice. If requested in advance of the meeting, the Council’s administration will assist in the drafting of alternate motion(s).

Elected Members are encouraged to make use of mechanisms including Informal Gatherings, the Local Government Meeting Regulations/Procedures, and enquiries with the CEO & Directors to ensure that adequate information is available to make decisions.

Any perceived gaps in the information available or deficiencies in time or process should be drawn to attention and every effort will be made to provide an explanation and/or remedy.

20.1 AR20/12181 – Rating Equity in SA and the Financial Impacts on Local Government’s Ability to Support Growth

20.2 AR20/11027 – Upper Spencer Gulf Regional Assessment Panel

20.3 AR20/12372 – Adoption of Strategic Direction Documents 2019-2029

24/03/2020 (AR20/12455) 20.4 AR20/11126 – Transfer of Land Acquired Under Section 185 of the Local Government Act

20.5 AR20/11935 – Unsolicited Proposal – Tiver Street

20.6 AR20/1663 – SA Water Pipeline Artwork – Budget Variation

20.7 AR20/11949 – Eastside Mill Jetty Timber Repurposing – Budget Variation

21. INFORMATION ITEMS AND CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED Nil

22. REPORTS OF ELECTED MEMBERS

23. DATE, TIME & PLACE OF NEXT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

Tuesday 14 April 2020 (6:00pm) – Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 4 Mackay Street, Port Augusta

24. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS (live streaming of the meeting concludes to consider the Nil

25. DECLARE MEETING CLOSED (live streaming of the meeting concludes)

24/03/2020 (AR20/12455)

MINUTES OF PORT AUGUSTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 10 MARCH 2020

PRESENT Mayor B Benbow, Deputy Mayor P Brown, Crs M Leonard, M Marsh, J Naisbitt, F Paynter, L Shine and S Singh.

OFFICERS Chief Executive Officer Mr J Banks, Director City Services Mrs M PRESENT Kretschmer, Director Corporate & Community Services Mrs A O’Reilly, Director Infrastructure Mrs S McKell and Executive Assistant Ms M Jenkins.

GALLERY PRESENCE 10

MEETING OPEN Mayor Benbow declared the meeting open at 6:00pm.

LIVE STREAMING OF Mayor Benbow acknowledged live streaming of the Council Meeting. COUNCIL MEETING

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT “We would like to pay our respects to the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. We acknowledge their ancestors and their sharing of their country. We also pay respect to the many Aboriginal groups and cultures that work, walk and live in Port Augusta”.

PRAYER “Almighty God, we humbly beseech thee to grant thy blessing upon the work of this Council. To direct and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of this City. And for the true and lasting welfare of the people of this Municipality. Amen.”

CONDOLENCES Council stood in a moment’s silence as a mark of respect to the following:

Helen Newman Margot Haase Francesco Mafrici Earl Yager Avril Littlewood Sash Hannes

ATTENDANCE Apology: Cr A Johnston RECORD Leave of Absence: Cr L Foote

CONFIRMATION OF Crs Leonard/Marsh that the minutes of the previous Ordinary Council PREVIOUS MINUTES meeting (AR20/7705) held on 25/02/2020, as per copies supplied to Members, be adopted as a true and correct record of that meeting.

CARRIED

PRESENTATION Port Augusta Export Facility Project F19/180 At 6:03pm, the Mayor, with approval of two-thirds of the members present suspended the meeting procedures pursuant to Regulation 20(1) of the Local Government (Procedures of Meetings) Regulations 2013, for a period sufficient to facilitate a presentation in relation to this agenda item and resumed at the discretion of the Mayor.

10/03/2020 (AR20/10337) Page 1

A presentation was provided by Mr Kerry Mudge, Senior Manager - Technical Services, Port Augusta Operations Pty Ltd in relation to the Port Augusta Export Facility Project at the former Power Station site.

The presentation concluded at 6:34pm.

FORMAL Nil COMMUNITY QUESTION TIME

CONFLICT OF Nil INTEREST

CONFIDENTIAL Nil ITEMS

INFORMATION Crs Leonard/Naisbitt that Council receives and notes the report REPORT – MAYORAL (AR20/8285) dated 26/02/2020 submitted by Mayor Brett Benbow, ENGAGEMENTS FOR concerning Information Report – Mayoral Engagements for Period PERIOD 26/02/2020 26/02/2020 – 10/03/2020. – 10/03/2020 AR20/8285 F20/100 CARRIED

PETITION Nil

NOTICE OF MOTION Nil

MATTERS LAYING Nil ON THE TABLE

QUESTIONS ON Nil NOTICE

QUESTIONS Nil WITHOUT NOTICE

GENERAL BUSINESS Nil

CITY SAFE Crs Marsh/Leonard that Council receives and notes the Minutes of the TRANSITION City Safe Transition Working Group Meeting held on 25/02/2020 WORKING GROUP MINUTES CARRIED 25/02/2020 AR20/10553 F19/617

REMOVAL OF PORT Deputy Mayor Brown/Cr Leonard that Council approves the removal of AUGUSTA WHARF the Port Augusta Wharf from Council’s Asset Register. FROM ASSET REGISTER CARRIED AR20/9934 F19/403

WIND VANES Crs Shine/Marsh that: AR20/9457 F19/541 1 Council receives and notes the report (AR20/9457) concerning Wind Vanes Status dated 28/02/2020, submitted by the Director Infrastructure.

2 Council acknowledges that the wind vanes installed in 2008 are at end of life.

10/03/2020 (AR20/10337) Page 2

3 Council nominates Deputy Mayor Brown & Cr Naisbitt and calls for expressions of interest to form a Working Party. The purpose of the Working Party is to identify suitable locations and options for repurposing the wind vanes. Any recommendations are to be presented to Council for deliberation.

CARRIED

BIRD LAKE Crs Naisbitt/Paynter that Council receives and notes the report REMEDIATION (AR20/10221) concerning Bird Lake Remediation Project Status dated PROJECT STATUS 05/03/2020, submitted by the Director Infrastructure. AR20/10221 F11/3857 CARRIED

REPORTS OF Nil REPRESENTATIVES

NEXT COUNCIL The next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday 24 March MEETING 2020 (@ 6:00pm) in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 4 Mackay Street, Port Augusta.

CLOSURE The meeting was declared closed at 6:52pm.

CONFIRMED:

Mayor ______

Date ______

10/03/2020 (AR20/10337) Page 3

MINUTES OF SPECIAL PORT AUGUSTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING (#1) HELD ON TUESDAY 10 MARCH 2020

PRESENT Mayor B Benbow, Deputy Mayor P Brown, Crs, M Leonard, M Marsh, J Naisbitt, F Paynter, L Shine and S Singh.

OFFICERS PRESENT Chief Executive Officer Mr J Banks, Director City Services Mrs M Kretschmer, Director Corporate & Community Services Mrs A O’Reilly, Director Infrastructure Mrs S McKell and Executive Assistant Ms M Jenkins.

GALLERY PRESENCE 8

Mayor Benbow declared the meeting open at 6:54pm.

LIVE STREAMING OF Live streaming continued for this meeting following the conclusion of the COUNCIL MEETING Ordinary Council Meeting.

ATTENDANCE Apology: Cr A Johnston RECORD Leave of Absence: Cr L Foote

CONFLICT OF Nil INTEREST

AMENDED LONG Cr Leonard/Deputy Mayor Brown that Council adopts the Long Term TERM FINANCIAL Financial Plan 2019/20 – 2029/30 (version AR20/4017 as recommended PLAN 2019/20 – by the Council’s Audit Committee at its meeting held on 11/02/2020). 2029/30 AR20/10428 LOST F10/67 Cr Shine called for a division:

The Mayor declared the vote set aside.

Members voting in the affirmative: Crs Leonard & Brown Members voting in the negative: Crs Paynter, Shine, Singh, Marsh & Naisbitt

The Mayor declared the motion LOST.

Crs Shine/Naisbitt that Council adopts the Long Term Financial Plan 2019/20 – 2029/30 as described within report AR20/10569 with a 1.9% increase in general rate revenue for 2020/2021.

CARRIED

Cr Shine called for a division:

The Mayor declared the vote set aside.

Members voting in the affirmative: Crs Shine, Naisbitt, Paynter, Singh, Brown and Marsh. Members voting the negative: Cr Leonard 10/03/20202 (AR20/10617)

The Mayor declared the motion CARRIED.

The meeting was declared closed at 7:21pm.

CONFIRMED:

Mayor ______

Date ______

10/03/20202 (AR20/10617)

MINUTES OF SPECIAL PORT AUGUSTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING (#2) HELD ON TUESDAY 10 MARCH 2020

PRESENT Mayor B Benbow, Deputy Mayor P Brown, Crs M Leonard, M Marsh, J Naisbitt, F Paynter, L Shine and S Singh.

GALLERY PRESENCE 7

Mayor Benbow declared the meeting open at 7:22pm.

LIVE STREAMING OF Live streaming continued for this meeting following the conclusion of the COUNCIL MEETING Ordinary Council Meeting.

ATTENDANCE Apology: Cr A Johnston RECORD Leave of Absence: Cr L Foote

CONFLICT OF Nil INTEREST

ANNUAL BUSINESS Crs Shine/Paynter that Council receives and notes the report PLAN UPDATE – (AR20/10919) dated 10/03/2020, submitted by the Director Corporate & AMENITY & Community Services concerning Annual Business Plan Update – Amenity WELLBEING & Wellbeing. AR20/10919 F19/409 CARRIED

The meeting was declared closed at 7:26pm.

CONFIRMED:

Mayor ______

Date ______

10/03/20202 (AR20/10956)

REPORT FOR: Council

MEETING DATE: 24 March 2020

REPORT FROM: Mayor

REPORT TITLE: Information Report - Mayoral Engagements for Period 11/03/2020 – 24/03/2020

FILE NAME: F20/100 RECORD NO: AR20/11529

COMMUNITY VISION & STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES

3 We Connect 3.6 Council is a responsive organisation that provides services in ways that empower the community to achieve their outcomes.

PURPOSE

To provide Elected Members with a list of engagements attended by Mayor Brett Benbow for the period 11/03/2020 – 24/03/2020.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the report (AR20/11529) dated 11/03/2020, submitted by Mayor Benbow, concerning Information Report – Mayoral Engagements for Period 11/03/2020 – 24/03/2020.

DISCUSSION

11/03/2020 Tour of the Port Augusta Export Facility site with representatives from Port Augusta Operations and the CU River Community Reference Group. Deputy Mayor Brown, Crs Leonard, Shine, Marsh, Naisbitt, Paynter and Directors McKell, O Reilly & Kretschmer attended the tour.

12/03/2020 Media Interview – Southern Cross – re Port Augusta Wharf removal from Council’s Asset Register and the Long Term Financial Plan amendment.

Media Interview – Radio ABC – re Wind Vane Structures.

Meeting with the newly appointed Executive Officer of the Spencer Gulf Cities, Ms Leonie Boothby.

13/03/2020 Meeting with Hon Stephan Knoll, Minister for Minister for Transport, Infrastructure & Local Government & Planning. The Chief Executive Officer Mr J Banks, Deputy Mayor Brown, Crs Leonard, Shine, Marsh & Naisbitt attended the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting a media briefing was undertaken.

Meeting with Rex Patrick Senator for South Australia.

16/03/2020 Media Interview – Southern Cross – Coronavirus.

Meeting with Mr Radoslav Popov, NSW Investor, in relation to a proposed development at Port Augusta West

Interview by Mr Jake Morcom for Guardian Australia, in relation to renewable energy.

21/03/2020 On-site meeting with Member for Stuart, Hon Dan Van Holst Pellekann MP, Manager of SA Housing Authority and residents of Butler Crescent, in relation to ongoing antisocial behaviour.

23/03/2020 Meeting with Mr Kriston Thompson, Academy Director – Port Augusta Secondary School, Clontarf Foundation and Mr Ian Taylor. The purpose of the meeting was an opportunity to provide an update on Clontarf at the Port Augusta Secondary School for 2020 and to advise of their achievements in 2019.

24/03/2020 Council Meeting.

MAYOR BRETT BENBOW 11/03/2020

ELECTED MEMBERS NOTICE OF MOTION

To be lodged with the CEO at least 5 clear days before the meeting you wish the issue to be raised (Regulation 13(2) of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000)

DATE: 16/03/2020 SUBMITTED BY: Cr J Naisbitt

Subject/Title of Issue

Julia Lodge

Proposed Motion

That Council immediately place Julia Lodge on the market for sale.

Background / Intended Purpose of Motion

Due to the fact that this property is surplus to requirement and has no permanent residence there would be no reason for reports to be entered into. The people using the rooms as temporary accommodation for whatever reason can be accommodated in various establishments connected to their employer.

Realising this sale will go to debt reduction and some loss of rent money, the short term loss will be outweighed by the long term gain. Asset removal, depreciation, debt reduction and rate money are all gain. Yes there will be some loss of rent to be picked up but with contractors etc, that cost is built into the contract. Why should Council be competing with local businesses in accommodation?

Chief Executive Officer’s Comments

This matter involves legal, financial, commercial, rating, stakeholder and policy considerations (1.1.12: Disposal of Land and Assets Policy) that should be informed by a report.

Council’s principal role is set out in Section 6 of the Local Government Act as described below:

Reference is drawn to Section 6 (a) that requires Council “to act as a representative, informed and responsible decision-maker in the interests of its community.”

6—Principal role of a council A council is, under the system of local government established by this Act, established to provide for the government and management of its area at the local level and, in particular— (a) to act as a representative, informed and responsible decision-maker in the interests of its community; and (b) to provide and co-ordinate various public services and facilities and to develop its community and resources in a socially just and ecologically sustainable manner; and (c) to encourage and develop initiatives within its community for improving the quality of life of the community; and (d) to represent the interests of its community to the wider community; and (e) to exercise, perform and discharge the powers, functions and duties of local government under this and other Acts in relation to the area for which it is constituted. F13/797 AR20/11913

Office Use Only

Referred to (Director): Chief Executive Officer

Meeting/Date to be submitted: 24/03/2020

F13/797 AR20/11913

REPORT FOR: Council

MEETING DATE: 24 March 2020

REPORT FROM: Chief Executive Officer

REPORT TITLE: Rating Equity in SA and the Financial Impacts on Local Government’s Ability to Support Growth

FILE NAME: F16/877 RECORD NO: AR20/12181

COMMUNITY VISION & STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES

6 We Achieve 6.5 We use and manage our financial resources in the best interests of our community, and to ensure financial sustainability and organisational efficiency now and into the future.

PURPOSE

This report provides Council with a copy of a commissioned report into Rating Equity in SA and the Financial Impacts on Local Government’s Ability to Support Growth.

RECOMMENDATION

Council:

1. In recognition of the importance and significance of providing services that meet the needs of residents and businesses within the Port Augusta area endorses the following recommendations contained within the AEC Group Ltd’s report dated February 2020:

• Amendments to SA legislation to include electricity generation and storage plant and equipment in capital valuations (as occurs in Victoria) and allow energy sector developments to make appropriate payments in lieu of rates under a regulated formula subject to indexation consisting of a fixed payment per site and a variable payment based on installed capacity.

• Applicable developments subject to the rating policy amendments will include all current electricity generation and storage developments under existing technologies, as well as future generation and storage developments under existing and new technologies.

• Consideration of the means by which Councils located within reasonable proximity of energy sector developments in unincorporated areas that impact infrastructure and service provision are appropriately compensated via similar payment arrangements to ensure ratepayers are not financially impacted by these developments.

2. Accordingly writes to the South Australian Government & the Local Government Association of South Australia.

BACKGROUND

Council’s Chief Executive Officer actively participated on a Steering Group that provided input and guidance in the development of the report and also represented the Upper Spencer Gulf Councils.

DISCUSSION

These recommendations are yet to be adopted, with the Minister for Local Government highlighting a concern that such changes may have a real impact on the commercial/industrial sector and there would need to be assurances of no negative impact on employment in regional areas.

The Legatus Group, in partnership with other regional local government associations, commissioned this report to specifically analyse the impact of an amendment to rating policy to ensure that appropriate and equitable contributions from energy sector developments would not affect their viability and ongoing attraction, in addition to modelling the opportunity cost to regional employment. (AEC, Rating Equity In SA & The Financial Impacts on LG Ability to Support Growth. P ii, 2020).

CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS Not applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT

1: Financial/Budget/Asset Management

The report on page 9 describes foregone revenue based upon current renewable energy projects within Council’s boundary.

The report recommendations on page 13 seek legislative changes to include electricity generation and storage plant and equipment in capital valuations and specifically reference energy sector developments in unincorporated areas and payment arrangements to Council’s in reasonable proximity.

Should the recommendations contained within the report be enacted the resulting increase in revenue to Port Augusta City Council could significantly ameliorate the rates payable by other assessments within the Port Augusta municipal area and at the same time provide the funds necessary to support the development of the renewable energy & other business sectors via the provision of services and improved amenity.

2: Legal/Policy Legislative changes to SA Legislation are required to implement the report remendations.

3: Environment/Planning Not applicable

4: Community 4.1 General Not applicable

4.2 Aboriginal Community Consultation Not applicable.

JOHN BANKS 17/03/2020 RATING EQUITY IN SA AND THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH LEGATUS GROUP FEBRUARY 2020 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Job ID: J001628

Job Name: Rating Equity in SA and the Financial Impacts on Local Government’s Ability to Support Growth

Client: Legatus Group

Client Contact: Simon Millcock

Project Manager: Gavin O’Donovan

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: (07) 3831 0577

Document Name: Rating Equity Impact Assessment - Final Report

Last Saved: 2/2/2020 4:22 PM

Version Date Reviewed Approved Draft Report 26/01/2020 GO GO Final Report 02/02/2020 GO GO

Disclaimer:

Whilst all care and diligence have been exercised in the preparation of this report, AEC Group Pty Ltd does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained within and accepts no liability for any loss or damage that may be suffered as a result of reliance on this information, whether or not there has been any error, omission or negligence on the part of AEC Group Pty Ltd or their employees. Any forecasts or projections used in the analysis can be affected by a number of unforeseen variables, and as such no warranty is given that a particular set of results will in fact be achieved.

i RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

In 2018, AEC’s Rating Equity report included recommendations to increase the flexibility for SA Councils in the categorisation of land uses for rating purposes to better reflect intensity of use, and to allow SA Councils to recover payments in lieu of rates directly from electricity generators under a regulated formula (as exists in Victoria). These recommendations are yet to be adopted, with the Minister for Local Government highlighting a concern that such changes may have a real impact on the commercial/industrial sector and there would need to be assurances of no negative impact on employment in regional areas. The Legatus Group, in partnership with other regional local government associations, commissioned this report to specifically analyse the impact of an amendment to rating policy to ensure that appropriate and equitable contributions from energy sector developments would not affect their viability and ongoing attraction, in addition to modelling the opportunity cost to regional employment.

INDUSTRY & COUNCIL/COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure E.1 shows a comparison of the cumulative energy generation capacity from wind and solar farms by state since 2000. The assessment highlights considerable growth in renewable energy capacity across Australia, with SA being an early adopter and capacity growing most rapidly in NSW, VIC and QLD in recent years. The substantial growth in renewable energy capacity in VIC and QLD relative to SA in recent years has occurred despite their respective State Governments enabling Councils to levy appropriate and equitable rates on (or receive payments made in lieu of rates from) energy sector developments which are considerably higher than the rates able to be levied by SA Councils.

Figure E.1: Wind Farm + Solar Farm Generation Capacity – Cumulative Since 2000 3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS

Source: AEC, AEMO (2019), assorted online sources. The analysis suggests that the introduction by SA Councils of similar rating practices to VIC will not impact the commercial viability of energy sector projects, and therefore will not influence location decisions for investments in these projects. Presently, SA Council rates account for less than 0.1% of infrastructure lifecycle costs excluding financing for wind and solar farms, compared with 1% in VIC – these contributions halve when financial costs are included. Location decisions are primarily made with reference to electricity generation efficiencies and the ease with which connection can be made to the national grid. Further, no flow-on effects on electricity prices are anticipated from higher SA rates on energy sector projects given prices are determined in a national market where other generators are already levied higher Council rates.

Under current SA Government valuation and rating policy, the estimated annual revenue foregone by SA regional Councils when compared to VIC Government rating policy is estimated at $4.8 million (as shown in Table E.1), which equates to $120.9 million over 25 years (equal to the asset life for the majority of renewable energy sector developments). It should be noted here that the actual revenue loss for SA Councils is much greater when

ii RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH compared to the rates payable under the full capital valuation approach (as exists as the base position in VIC), with the estimated annual loss being around $26 million or $650 million over 25 years.

Allowing the regions to access this revenue has the potential to facilitate ongoing permanent employment of up to 43 jobs assuming the VIC regulated formula approach is adopted – maintaining current rating policy will prevent these additional regional employment opportunities from occurring. These Council and community impacts are expected to grow significantly in the short to medium term given the significant number of renewable energy projects currently under financial close and approved in SA regional areas.

Table E.1: Estimated Foregone Revenue from Energy Sector Developments for Regional SA Councils Council Current Potential Foregone Contribution Contribution Revenue EYRE PENINSULA Lower Eyre Peninsula $ 4,288 $ 138,801 $ 134,513 Port Lincoln $ 3,215 $ 148,226 $ 145,011 Franklin Harbour $ 12,382 $ 143,828 $ 131,446 LEGATUS Barossa $ 4,672 $ 118,693 $ 114,020 Clare & Gilbert Valleys $ 29,441 $ 389,201 $ 359,760 Goyder $ 16,141 $ 741,064 $ 724,923 Northern Areas $ 70,600 $ 934,842 $ 864,242 Peterborough $ 2,000 $ 62,893 $ 60,893 Port Pirie $ 6,975 $ 189,252 $ 182,277 Wakefield $ 26,050 $ 519,595 $ 493,545 Yorke Peninsula $ 15,515 $ 263,463 $ 247,948 LIMESTONE COAST Wattle Range $ 26,067 $ 898,225 $ 872,158 SOUTHERN & HILLS Yankalilla $ 20,804 $ 99,213 $ 78,409 UPPER SPENCER GULF Port Augusta $ 1,737 $ 194,098 $ 192,360 MURRAYLANDS & RIVERLANDS Coorong $ 2,000 $ 175,246 $ 173,246 Murray Bridge $ 2,000 $ 62,139 $ 60,139 TOTAL $ 243,888 $ 5,078,778 $ 4,834,891 Source: AEC, selected SA Councils. Overall, this report shows that:

• The competitiveness of SA regions in attracting renewable energy developments will not be impacted by the proposed rating policy amendments particularly if rates levied are comparable with VIC. As such, there would be no negative impact on investment and employment opportunities in SA regions as a result of the proposed rating policy amendments.

• There is an opportunity to provide a financial, economic and social boost to SA regions through the proposed rating policy amendments, as the additional rate payments retained within local economies and communities is estimated to provide sufficient stimulus to sustainably create up to an additional 43 permanent full-time equivalent jobs in SA regions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of the above findings, the following recommendations are made:

• Amendments to SA legislation to include electricity generation and storage plant and equipment in capital valuations (as occurs in VIC) and to allow energy sector developments to make appropriate payments in lieu of rates under a regulated formula subject to indexation consisting of a fixed payment per site and a variable payment based on installed capacity.

iii RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

An indepth industry assessment found that no negative economic or employment effects would be felt by SA regions as a result of the above recommendations. In fact, adoption of the above recommendations may result in additional employment in SA regions of up to 43 full-time equivalent jobs from developments to date, with the extent of this benefit likely to increase with the addition of more developments in the future.

iv RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DOCUMENT CONTROL ...... I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... II

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... V

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ...... 1

1.3 APPROACH ...... 1

2. INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT ...... 2

2.1 ENERGY SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROFILE ...... 2

2.2 UNDERLYING DRIVERS OF LOCATION DECISIONS ...... 6

2.3 INFLUENCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RATES ON ENERGY SECTOR DEVELOPMENTS ...... 7

2.4 KEY FINDINGS ...... 8

3. IMPACT ON REGIONAL COUNCILS & COMMUNITIES ...... 9

3.1 IMPACT ON REGIONAL COUNCILS ...... 9

3.2 IMPACT ON REGIONAL COMMUNITIES ...... 11

3.3 GROWING IMPACTS ON COUNCILS & COMMUNITIES ...... 11

3.4 KEY FINDINGS ...... 12

4. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13

4.1 FINDINGS ...... 13

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13

REFERENCES...... 15

APPENDIX A: VICTORIAN LEGISLATIVE PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS BY ENERGY SECTOR DEVELOPMENTS ...... 16

APPENDIX B: INPUT-OUTPUT METHODOLOGY ...... 19

v RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

In 2018, AEC assisted the Legatus Group in developing recommendations to increase the flexibility for SA Councils in the categorisation of different land uses for rating purposes to better reflect intensity of land use, and to allow SA Councils to recover payments in lieu of rates directly from electricity generators under a regulated formula (as exists in Victoria). As yet, these recommendations have not been adopted, with the SA Minister for Local Government highlighting a concern that such changes may have a real impact on the commercial and industrial sector and there would need to be assurances that there would not be a negative impact on employment in regional areas.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

The Legatus Group, in partnership with other regional local government associations, commissioned this report to analyse and model the impact and potential opportunity cost to employment and regional growth by not addressing the rating inequity issues identified in the 2018 AEC report – specifically the impacts associated with the inability to effectively rate electricity generation and storage developments.

The assessment also investigates the potential negative effects on investment (and associated employment outcomes) in SA regions by energy sector developments from an increase in rates and compares these impacts with the extent of financial loss to SA Councils and/or the local economic and employment effects associated with SA Councils being unable to levy appropriate payments on energy sector developments.

The findings of the report should assist in providing government with an informed basis upon which to decide on the appropriateness or otherwise from implementing the recommendations within the 2018 AEC report.

1.3 APPROACH

The approach adopted in the report is as follows:

• Undertake an industry assessment that profiles renewable energy sector developments across Australia in recent years, including:

o Comparison of the level of development in SA relative to other states.

o Consideration of the underlying drivers of location decisions for energy sector developments.

o Influence of local government rating levels on location decisions and potential investment and employment effects from an increase in rates levied by SA Councils.

• Estimate the extent of foregone rate revenue by SA Councils in regional areas by not being able to rate energy sector developments appropriately and determine associated employment effects.

1 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

2. INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT

2.1 ENERGY SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROFILE

2.1.1 Energy Generation Overview

The majority of Australia’s energy is currently generated through fossil fuels, although the composition of energy generation has changed markedly in recent years as a result of considerable investment in wind and solar farms. The figure below highlights that wind, solar, hydro and battery developments are likely to comprise the majority of Australia’s energy generation in the future. Energy generation in Australia and globally is seeing a push towards a higher proportion of renewable energy as a result of renewable energy and emissions reduction targets and technological advancements.

Figure 2.1: National Energy Market Scheduled, Semi-Scheduled & Non-Scheduled Electricity Generation (MW) – Existing, Withdrawing, Committed & Proposed Developments, 2019

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000 Generation Capacity (MW)Capacity Generation

5,000

0 Coal CCGT OCGT Gas Solar* Wind Water Biomass Battery Other other Storage Existing Existing to be Withdrawn Committed Proposed

Source: AEMO (2019). Notes: Solar excludes Rooftop PV installations. SA generates a significant proportion of its energy generation through renewable energy sources – accounting for 50% of total electricity generation in 20181 – the clear majority of which is via wind farms (when excluding household rooftop solar PV systems). Non-renewable energy generation in SA is mainly via natural gas-fired plants, with approximately 60% of SA natural gas used for electricity generation. A small amount of electricity is generated from diesel-fired power stations which generally operate during peak demand periods.

The SA Government has a 2030 target of 100% renewable energy generation showing its commitment to further growing the renewable energy sector.

1 Climate Council, 2019.

2 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

2.1.2 Renewable Energy Sector Developments

An industry assessment was undertaken of renewable energy sector developments across Australia focussing on wind and solar farms using a range of online sources. The outcomes of the assessment are presented in Figures 2.2 and 2.3 below, which show total cumulative generation capacity since 2000 and capacity additions since 2010, respectively. Breakdowns of the composition between wind farms and solar farms are provided on the following page.

Figure 2.2: Wind Farm + Solar Farm Generation Capacity – Cumulative Since 2000 3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS

Source: AEC, AEMO (2019), assorted online sources.

Figure 2.3: Wind Farm + Solar Farm Generation Capacity – Additions Since 2010 1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS

Source: AEC, AEMO (2019), assorted online sources. The following trends are evident:

• SA wind farm capacity has grown consistently for 15 years, with solar farm capacity growing modestly in the past few years.

• NSW and VIC were slower to install wind and solar farm capacity but are now installing capacity at a rapid pace.

• QLD wind and solar farm capacity (particularly solar) is being added at a rapid pace after capacity only begun to be added in 2017.

• SA had the highest renewable energy generation capacity until recently, but heading into 2020 VIC, NSW and QLD now exceed SA’s generation capacity due to recent strong additions for both wind and solar generation.

3 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

Figure 2.4: Wind Farm Generation Capacity – Cumulative Since 2000 Figure 2.5: Solar Farm Generation Capacity – Cumulative Since 2000

3,000 3,000

2,500 2,500

2,000 2,000

1,500 1,500

1,000 1,000

500 500

- - 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS

Source: AEC, AEMO (2019), assorted online sources. Source: AEC, AEMO (2019), assorted online sources. Figure 2.6: Wind Farm Generation Capacity – Additions Since 2010 Figure 2.7: Solar Farm Generation Capacity – Additions Since 2010

1,200 1,200

1,000 1,000

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

- - 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS

Source: AEC, AEMO (2019), assorted online sources. Source: AEC, AEMO (2019), assorted online sources.

4 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

In the past five years, SA’s share of Australia’s wind and solar farm generation capacity has dropped from 39% to 21% as accelerated development in renewable energy has occurred in NSW, QLD and VIC.

Figure 2.8: National Wind Farm + Solar Farm Generation Capacity Contribution, 2014 vs 2019

Source: AEC, AEMO (2019), assorted online sources. From 2014 to 2019, the following growth outcomes are evident for wind and solar generation farm capacity:

• 21059% growth in QLD (over a pretty much non-existent base), contributing 32% of national capacity additions. • 553% growth in NSW, contributing 27% of national rm capacity additions. • 298% growth in VIC, contributing 27% of national capacity additions. • 168% growth in SA (off a relatively high base), contributing 13% of national capacity additions. • 136% growth in TAS, contributing 1% of national capacity additions. • 110% growth in WA, contributing 1% of national capacity additions.

Overall, SA’s recent growth in percentage terms is relatively modest when compared to QLD, NSW and VIC. However, SA was coming off a high base relative to other states in terms of wind and solar farm generation capacity. Further, compared a national population share of 7.1%, SA’s growth has still outperformed its relative size.

For information purposes, the following figure includes hydro generation capacity in comparing renewable energy capacity across states. SA’s share of national renewables generation capacity drops back from 21% to 12% when including hydro.

Figure 2.9: National Wind Farm + Solar Farm + Hydro Generation Capacity Contribution, 2019

14%

27%

12%

16% 28%

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS

Source: AEC, AEMO (2019), assorted online sources.

5 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

A high-level assessment of projects under construction and in the pipeline indicates that both VIC (particularly wind) and NSW (particularly solar) have very large additions coming online in 2020 and 2021 that will considerably increase their overall contribution to national renewable energy capacity. SA’s potential supply in terms of approved projects also appears quite strong.

2.1.3 Employment Effects from Renewable Energy Projects

Construction employment (temporary effects) for renewable energy projects varies by project depending on size and construction timeframe. Construction workforces are generally FIFO and sourced from outside regional areas. Based on information sourced for existing projects, the following is noted:

• 1.07 construction workers per MW installed in wind farms (sample of 32 projects).

• 1.99 construction workers per MW installed in solar farms (sample of 40 projects).

From an operational perspective (ongoing effects), renewable energy projects are not very labour intensive. Much of the labour required – particularly for maintenance – is specialist in nature and sourced from outside of regional areas. Operational employment is generally 3-5 FTEs per solar/wind farm but can increase for larger wind farms to around 1 FTE per 15-20MW installed (e.g. 10-15 FTEs for 200MW installed capacity).

2.2 UNDERLYING DRIVERS OF LOCATION DECISIONS

Given a relatively stable installation cost outside of specific site nuances, environmental factors are the key drivers of location decisions for both wind and solar farms, including the extent and frequency of strong winds and solar radiation factors which drive the efficiency with which electricity is able to be generated. For example, Figure 2.10 provides an indication of mean wind speed 80m above ground level across Australia and highlights SA’s competitive advantage in wind power generation capability relative to NSW and QLD. A further consideration is the proximity and ease of connection to the electricity network and capacity of associated infrastructure in transmitting the generated electricity (supply) to customers (demand).

Figure 2.10: Mean Wind Speed, 80m Above Ground Level

Source: Australian Government (2008).

6 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

2.3 INFLUENCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RATES ON ENERGY SECTOR DEVELOPMENTS

2.3.1 Rating Structures in VIC & QLD

The 2018 AEC Rating Equity report included a full assessment of interstate rating structures. Specific to energy sector developments, it found that SA Councils and communities are at a relative financial disadvantage when compared to VIC and QLD Councils and communities in levying rates, or receiving payment in lieu of rates, from energy sector developments.

In VIC, Councils levy rates generally based on capital value, with capital improved value for energy sector developments including the value of all electricity generating plant and equipment. Section 94(6A) of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 allows electricity generators to make payments to Council in lieu of general rates (rather than landowners). The prescribed methodology for the payments was established by order in Council and published via Government Gazette on 25th August 2005 and is based on the following components:

• Base payment of $40,000 per annum (June 2005 value subject to indexation) for each power station of the generation company, which equates to $55,855 in present day terms after indexation is applied.

• Capacity payment of $900 per MW (June 2005 value subject to indexation) of the nameplate rating for each generating unit comprising the power station, which equates to $1,257/MW in present day terms after indexation is applied.

Where the average capacity factor for the power station for a financial year is less than 10% the amount payable is reduced by 50%, and where it is less than 20% the amount payable is reduced by 25%.

Payments made by energy sector entities to Councils may be increased or decreased based on agreement between the two parties after considering other factors such as the age and efficiency of the power station and/or the impact of the energy sector development on the local area. Payment structures and other arrangements are to be agreed by the two parties or via an arbitrator if agreement cannot be reached. Details of the VIC arrangements are included in Appendix A.

In QLD, many Councils separately categorise energy sector developments on the basis of installed MW capacity for rating purposes, with minimum rates for projects generating 50MW up to 400MW levied at a rate of up to $1,500/MW of installed capacity with a benchmark median of around $750/MW of installed capacity. Differential rates in the dollar (which are levied on site/unimproved values) levied on energy sector developments can also be up to 20 times the base residential rate in the dollar.

Section 2.1.2 highlights that there has been much stronger growth in renewable energy capacity in VIC and QLD relative to SA in recent years, despite their respective State Governments enabling Councils to levy appropriate and equitable rates on (or receive payments made in lieu of rates from) energy sector developments which are considerably higher than the rates able to be levied by SA Councils under current rating powers.

2.3.2 Influence of SA Council Rates on Project Investment & Commercial Viability

In order to assess the influence of Council rates on energy sector developments, it is important to consider the annual lifecycle costs of developments and the contribution of Council rates as an operating cost component to those lifecycle costs.

The following estimate has been produced for annual lifecycle costs excluding financing:

• Capital establishment costs (adopting useful lives of 25 years):

o $100,000 per MW of installed capacity for wind farms.

o $80,000 per MW of installed capacity for solar farms.

• Operating costs (inclusive of labour, landowner lease payments, maintenance, other):

o $25,000 per MW of installed capacity for wind farms.

o $20,000 per MW of installed capacity for solar farms.

7 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

The total annual infrastructure lifecycle cost per MW of installed capacity is estimated at $125,000 for wind farms and $100,000 for solar farms, excluding financing costs. The inclusion of financing costs doubles these total annual infrastructure lifecycle cost estimates to $250,000 for wind farms and $200,000 for solar farms.

Based on Council rates paid on existing wind and solar farm developments in SA, the median outcomes for rates levied on these developments is 0.07% of infrastructure lifecycle costs excluding financing for wind farms and 0.02% of infrastructure lifecycle costs excluding financing for solar farms. These estimates halve when including financing costs in the lifecycle cost estimates. By comparison, rates levied by VIC Councils on electricity developments are estimated to account for around 1% of infrastructure lifecycle costs excluding financing and 0.5% of infrastructure lifecycle costs including financing. It is evident that SA Council rating levels do not impact the commercial viability of energy sector projects, and therefore do not influence location decisions for investment in these projects.

Section 2.1.2 highlights that energy sector development and investment in VIC has not been impeded by the rates levied by VIC councils on electricity developments. As such, any introduction of similar rating practices will also not impact the commercial viability of energy sector projects, and therefore will not influence location decisions for investment in these projects nor will they impact SA’s competitiveness in attracting these projects to regional areas.

The preceding analysis therefore confirms that overall investment and employment opportunities in SA’s regional areas will not be affected by the proposed amendments to rating structures levied on the energy sector.

2.4 KEY FINDINGS

The key findings of the industry assessment include:

• Renewable energy capacity has grown much more rapidly in NSW, VIC and QLD in recent years, although SA’s installed capacity relative to its population size remains high.

• There has been much stronger growth in renewable energy capacity in VIC and QLD relative to SA in recent years, despite their respective State Governments enabling Councils to levy appropriate and equitable rates on (or receive payments made in lieu of rates from) energy sector developments which are considerably higher than the rates able to be levied by SA Councils.

• Looking at median outcomes, SA Council rates presently account for 0.07% of lifecycle costs excluding financing for wind farms and 0.02% of infrastructure lifecycle costs excluding financing for solar farms, compared with 1% in VIC – these contributions halve when financing costs are included.

• The introduction by SA Councils of similar rating practices to VIC will not impact the commercial viability of energy sector projects, and therefore will not influence location decisions for investments in these projects.

• Location decisions are primarily made with reference to electricity generation efficiencies and the ease with which connection can be made to the national grid.

• No flow-on effects on electricity prices are anticipated from higher SA rates resulting from the introduction of the proposed amendments to rating structures levied on the energy sector given prices are determined within a national market where other generators are already levied higher rates.

Overall, the industry assessment highlights that the competitiveness of SA regions in attracting renewable energy developments will not be impacted by the proposed rating policy amendments particularly if rates levied are comparable with VIC. As such, there would be no negative impact on investment and employment opportunities in SA regions as a result of the proposed rating policy amendments.

8 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

3. IMPACT ON REGIONAL COUNCILS & COMMUNITIES

3.1 IMPACT ON REGIONAL COUNCILS

With the majority of assets utilised in energy sector developments being excluded from capital value for rating purposes under current legislation, SA Councils are unable to effectively recover an appropriate amount of rate revenue from these developments.

In order to quantify the impact of current SA Government policy, information was sourced on applicable developments across SA, their installed capacity, current contributions to Councils in the form of rates, estimated capital value inclusive of all assets (used for rating purposes in VIC), and potential rates if rates were applied on the capital value of all assets or by using the VIC method of payments made in lieu of rates based on a fixed charge plus a charge per MW of installed capacity. Table 3.2 on the following page provides a breakdown of applicable energy sector developments by SA Council and region and the extent of estimated potential foregone revenue using full capital valuation inclusive of all plant and equipment and using the VIC prescribed formula rating approach.

The following table provides a summary of the estimated potential additional contribution from these developments to regional SA Councils should the same payment methodology that exists in VIC be applied (noting a current base payment value of $55,855 plus $1,257 per MW installed). The Council impact assessment highlights an annual loss to SA regional Councils of $4.8 million, which equates to $120.9 million over 25 years (equal to the asset life for the majority of renewable energy sector developments). It should be noted here that the actual revenue loss for SA Councils is much greater when compared to the rates payable under the full capital valuation approach (as exists as the base position in VIC), with the estimated annual loss being around $26 million or $650 million over 25 years.

Table 3.1: Estimated Foregone Revenue from Energy Sector Developments for Regional SA Councils Council Current Potential Foregone Contribution Contribution Revenue EYRE PENINSULA Lower Eyre Peninsula $ 4,288 $ 138,801 $ 134,513 Port Lincoln $ 3,215 $ 148,226 $ 145,011 Franklin Harbour $ 12,382 $ 143,828 $ 131,446 LEGATUS Barossa $ 4,672 $ 118,693 $ 114,020 Clare & Gilbert Valleys $ 29,441 $ 389,201 $ 359,760 Goyder $ 16,141 $ 741,064 $ 724,923 Northern Areas $ 70,600 $ 934,842 $ 864,242 Peterborough $ 2,000 $ 62,893 $ 60,893 Port Pirie $ 6,975 $ 189,252 $ 182,277 Wakefield $ 26,050 $ 519,595 $ 493,545 Yorke Peninsula $ 15,515 $ 263,463 $ 247,948 LIMESTONE COAST Wattle Range $ 26,067 $ 898,225 $ 872,158 SOUTHERN & HILLS Yankalilla $ 20,804 $ 99,213 $ 78,409 UPPER SPENCER GULF Port Augusta $ 1,737 $ 194,098 $ 192,360 MURRAYLANDS & RIVERLANDS Coorong $ 2,000 $ 175,246 $ 173,246 Murray Bridge $ 2,000 $ 62,139 $ 60,139 TOTAL $ 243,888 $ 5,078,778 $ 4,834,891 Source: AEC, selected SA Councils. Notes: Refer to the notes to Table 3.2 for details underlying the calculated foregone revenue estimate.

9 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

Table 3.2: Estimated Foregone Revenue from Energy Sector Developments for SA Councils – Capital Value Approach vs VIC Approach FACILITY ASSESSMENT RATES UNDER FULLY CAPITALISED VALUE PAYMENT USING VIC FORMULA Site Type Council MW Current Est. Cap. Fixed Rate in $ Potential Foregone Base $ MW $ Potential Foregone Contribution Value $M Charge Contribution Revenue Contribution Revenue EYRE PENINSULA Cathedral Rocks Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Lower Eyre Peninsula 66 $ 4,288 $ 160 $ 486 0.23040$ $ 369,126 $ 364,838 55,855$ $ 82,945 $ 138,801 $ 134,513 Port Lincoln Gas Turbine Power Station Port Lincoln 74 $ 3,215 n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 92,371 $ 148,226 $ 145,011 Mt Millar Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Franklin Harbour 70 $ 12,382 $ 130 $ 375 0.21000$ $ 273,375 $ 260,993 55,855$ $ 87,972 $ 143,828 $ 131,446 LEGATUS Angaston Power Station Power Station Barossa 50 $ 4,672 n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 62,837 $ 118,693 $ 114,020 Mintaro Gas Turbine Station Power Station Clare & Gilbert Valleys 90 $ 2,829 n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 113,107 $ 168,963 $ 166,134 Waterloo Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Clare & Gilbert Valleys 131 $ 26,612 $ 386 -$ 0.49806$ $ 1,922,512 $ 1,895,899 55,855$ $ 164,383 $ 220,238 $ 193,626 Hallett Power Station Power Station Goyder 180 $ 1,131 n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 226,214 $ 282,070 $ 280,939 Hallett Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Goyder 157 $ 10,451 $ 359 $ 150 0.53270$ $ 1,911,094 $ 1,900,643 55,855$ $ 197,278 $ 253,133 $ 242,683 Willogoleche Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Goyder 119 $ 4,560 $ 250 $ 150 0.53270$ $ 1,331,900 $ 1,327,340 55,855$ $ 150,005 $ 205,861 $ 201,301 Hornsdale Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Northern Areas 317 $ 42,900 $ 800 $ 390 0.35130$ $ 2,810,790 $ 2,767,890 55,855$ $ 398,137 $ 453,993 $ 411,093 Hallett Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Northern Areas 194 $ 27,700 $ 469 $ 390 0.35130$ $ 1,648,219 $ 1,620,519 55,855$ $ 243,463 $ 299,319 $ 271,619 Hornsdale Power Reserve Battery Storage Northern Areas 100 -$ $ 50 $ 390 0.35130$ $ 176,040 $ 176,040 55,855$ $ 125,675 $ 181,530 $ 181,530 Peterborough Solar Farm Wind/Solar Farm Peterborough 6 $ 2,000 $ 10 $ 375 0.40970$ $ 39,297 $ 37,297 55,855$ $ 7,038 $ 62,893 $ 60,893 Clements Gap Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Port Pirie 57 $ 4,699 $ 150 $ 510 0.65850$ $ 988,260 $ 983,561 55,855$ $ 71,258 $ 127,113 $ 122,414 Pirie Solar Farm Wind/Solar Farm Port Pirie 5 $ 2,276 9$ $ 510 0.65850$ $ 56,483 $ 54,207 55,855$ $ 6,284 $ 62,139 $ 59,863 Snowtown Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Wakefield 369 $ 26,050 $ 660 $ 320 0.37290$ $ 2,461,460 $ 2,435,410 55,855$ $ 463,740 $ 519,595 $ 493,545 Wattle Point Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Yorke Peninsula 91 $ 13,998 $ 234 $ 410 0.27853$ $ 652,170 $ 638,172 55,855$ $ 114,050 $ 169,905 $ 155,907 Dalrymple North Battery Battery Storage Yorke Peninsula 30 $ 1,517 $ 30 $ 410 0.27853$ $ 83,969 $ 82,452 55,855$ $ 37,702 $ 93,558 $ 92,041 LIMESTONE COAST Snuggery Power Station Power Station Wattle Range 63 $ 600 $ 38 -$ 0.59200$ $ 223,776 $ 223,176 55,855$ $ 79,175 $ 135,030 $ 134,430 Ladbroke Grove Power Station Power Station Wattle Range 80 $ 600 $ 30 -$ 0.59200$ $ 177,600 $ 177,000 55,855$ $ 100,540 $ 156,395 $ 155,795 Lake Bonney Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Wattle Range 279 $ 20,630 $ 700 -$ 0.59200$ $ 4,144,000 $ 4,123,370 55,855$ $ 350,004 $ 405,859 $ 385,229 Canunda Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Wattle Range 46 $ 4,237 $ 93 -$ 0.59200$ $ 547,600 $ 543,363 55,855$ $ 57,810 $ 113,666 $ 109,429 Lake Bonney Battery Battery Storage Wattle Range 25 -$ $ 38 -$ 0.59200$ $ 224,960 $ 224,960 55,855$ $ 31,419 $ 87,274 $ 87,274 SOUTHERN & HILLS Starfish Hill Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Yankalilla 35 $ 20,804 $ 85 -$ 0.52795$ $ 446,121 $ 425,317 55,855$ $ 43,358 $ 99,213 $ 78,409 UPPER SPENCER GULF Bungala 1 Solar Power Project Wind/Solar Farm Port Augusta 110 $ 1,737 $ 236 Council uses site value 55,855$ $ 138,242 $ 194,098 $ 192,360 MURRAYLANDS & RIVERLANDS Tailem Bend Solar Power Project Wind/Solar Farm Coorong 95 $ 2,000 $ 200 $ 360 0.42200$ $ 844,360 $ 842,360 55,855$ $ 119,391 $ 175,246 $ 173,246 Mobilong Solar Farm Wind/Solar Farm Murray Bridge 5 $ 2,000 9$ -$ 0.67541$ $ 57,410 $ 55,410 55,855$ $ 6,284 $ 62,139 $ 60,139 ADELAIDE METRO Temporary Generation South Power Station Onkaparinga 123 n.a. n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 154,831 $ 210,687 n.a. Lonsdale Power Station Power Station Onkaparinga 20 n.a. n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 25,135 $ 80,990 n.a. Port Stanvac Power Station Power Station Onkaparinga 58 n.a. n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 72,389 $ 128,244 n.a. Temporary Generation North Power Station Playford 154 n.a. n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 193,539 $ 249,394 n.a. Osborne Power Station Power Station Port Adelaide Enfield 180 n.a. n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 226,214 $ 282,070 n.a. Pelican Point Power Station Power Station Port Adelaide Enfield 478 n.a. n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 600,725 $ 656,580 n.a. Dry Creek Gas Turbine Station Power Station Port Adelaide Enfield 156 n.a. n.a. Capital value unavailable 55,855$ $ 196,053 $ 251,908 n.a. UNINCORPORATED Barker Inlet Power Station Power Station Unincorporated 211 n.a. n.a. No rates levied 55,855$ $ 265,174 $ 321,029 n.a. Torrens Island Power Station Power Station Unincorporated 1,280 n.a. n.a. No rates levied 55,855$ $ 1,608,636 $ 1,664,492 n.a. Quarantine Power Station Power Station Unincorporated 229 n.a. n.a. No rates levied 55,855$ $ 287,795 $ 343,650 n.a. Lincoln Gap Wind Farm Wind/Solar Farm Unincorporated 212 n.a. $ 500 No rates levied 55,855$ $ 266,933 $ 322,788 n.a. Bungala 2 Solar Power Project Wind/Solar Farm Unincorporated 110 n.a. $ 236 No rates levied 55,855$ $ 138,242 $ 194,098 n.a. Source: AEC, selected SA Councils. Notes: The base payment under the VIC formula is assumed as 1 charge per Council area per facility but may vary based on the numbers of sites/stages (e.g. 4 x Hallett Wind Farms). While the Hornsdale Power Reserve is currently rate exempt due to being tied to the SA Government, but proposed rates are still included in the above table to identify the revenue foregone due to this relationship. Current rates are estimated for the Peterborough, Tailem Bend and Mobilong Solar Farms, and the Cathedral Rocks and Snowtown Wind Farms (based on $50,000 valuation per wind turbine). Capital values were unavailable for power stations but are estimated for a few.

10 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

3.2 IMPACT ON REGIONAL COMMUNITIES

It is important to highlight that any additional rates paid by energy sector developments to SA regional Councils would be considered ‘new’ money to the regions from an economic activity standpoint. This is the case whether the Councils are provided with greater capacity for additional spending to ensure appropriate services and service levels are provided within their respective communities or Councils are able to offset the payments against otherwise higher rates that would need to be paid by local residents and businesses. As such, the proposed rating policy amendments for energy sector developments would provide significant economic stimulus to SA regions.

AEC has internal economic impact models that it uses to determine the economic and employment effects of projects and policies. Two different economic impact assessment methodologies were adopted to estimate the employment effects for SA regional communities from additional rates paid of the order of $4.8 million by energy sector developments, including:

1. Increase in local government spending2:

o It is assumed that a portion of the additional funds is lost to the SA regional economy as a result of imports (25%) with the remaining portion of the additional funds (75%) spent within the SA regional economy.

o The estimated employment effects equate to 43 full-time equivalent jobs which includes 25 jobs from the initial stimulus, 4 jobs from production-induced (type 1 flow-on) impacts and 14 jobs from household consumption (type 2 flow-on) impacts.

o Enhancements to social infrastructure and local amenity are a key factor in facilitating population growth, economic growth and employment growth in regional areas and the identified additional funds to support local government infrastructure and service provision would help facilitate this growth in a sustainable manner.

2. Increase in incomes for households3 and local businesses4 due to lower rates than would otherwise need to be levied:

o It is assumed that the additional income split is 80% to households and 20% to local businesses.

o The estimated employment effects equate to 23 full-time equivalent jobs which includes 13 jobs from the initial stimulus, 3 jobs from production-induced (type 1 flow-on) impacts and 7 jobs from household consumption (type 2 flow-on) impacts.

The community impact assessment highlights a potential ongoing permanent employment benefit to SA regions of up to 43 jobs. Maintenance of current rating policy would prevent the identified additional regional employment opportunities from occurring.

3.3 GROWING IMPACTS ON COUNCILS & COMMUNITIES

As outlined earlier, there are considerable renewable energy projects in the pipeline across Australia. Focussing on SA’s pipeline, there are a significant number of renewable energy projects currently under financial close and approved many of which are anticipated to come online in the next five years that will more than double current

2 The local government spending model uses data from the Input Output transaction tables regarding government consumption spend and gross fixed capital formation spend to estimate the breakdown of spend by industry.

3 The household spending calculation uses ratios from the household expenditure survey for the ratio of spend to incomes, and which industries expenditure is then allocated to.

4 The business spending calculation allocates the increase in available income to business investment based on the ratio of Gross Operating Surplus to gross fixed capital formation spend by business in the Input Output transaction tables and splits this by industry based on industry splits for gross fixed capital formation spend by business. After this, a second round of consumption spend is estimated based on increased incomes for people, which was derived by getting the ratio of consumption spend to total incomes from the Input Output transaction tables and applying to the remaining reduction in rates for business not already captured through business investment. This is then split to industry based on consumption spend by industry in the Input Output transaction tables.

11 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH generation capacity. It should be highlighted that the Council and community impacts identified in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 above have the potential to grow significantly in the short to medium term.

3.4 KEY FINDINGS

The key findings of the Council and community impact assessment include:

• Estimated annual revenue foregone for SA regional Councils under current SA Government rating policy of $4.8 million, which equates to $120.9 million over 25 years (equal to the asset life for the majority of renewable energy sector developments).

• A potential ongoing permanent employment benefit to SA regions of up to 43 jobs from adopting the VIC method of rating energy sector developments – maintaining current rating policy will prevent these additional regional employment opportunities from occurring.

• These Council and community impacts are expected to grow significantly in the short to medium term given the significant number of renewable energy projects currently under financial close and approved in SA regional areas.

Overall, the Council and community impact assessment highlights that the proposed amendment to rating of energy sector developments has the opportunity to provide a financial, economic and social boost to SA regions. Additional rate payments retained within local economies and communities are anticipated to provide sufficient stimulus to sustainably create up to an additional 43 permanent full-time equivalent jobs.

12 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

4. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 FINDINGS The industry assessment highlights considerable growth in renewable energy capacity across Australia, with SA being an early adopter and capacity growing most rapidly in NSW, VIC and QLD in recent years. The substantial growth in renewable energy capacity in VIC and QLD relative to SA in recent years has occurred despite their respective State Governments enabling Councils to levy appropriate and equitable rates on (or receive payments made in lieu of rates from) energy sector developments which are considerably higher than the rates able to be levied by SA Councils.

The introduction by SA Councils of similar rating practices to VIC will not impact the commercial viability of energy sector projects, and therefore will not influence location decisions for investments in these projects. Presently, SA Council rates account for less than 0.1% of infrastructure lifecycle costs excluding financing for wind and solar farms, compared with 1% in VIC. Location decisions are primarily made with reference to electricity generation efficiencies and the ease with which connection can be made to the national grid. Further, no flow-on effects on electricity prices are anticipated from higher SA rates on energy sector developments given prices are determined within a national market where other generators are already levied higher rates.

Under current SA Government valuation and rating policy, the estimated annual revenue foregone by SA regional Councils when compared to VIC Government rating policy is estimated at $4.8 million, which equates to $120.9 million over 25 years (equal to the asset life for the majority of renewable energy sector developments). It should be noted here that the actual revenue loss for SA Councils is much greater when compared to the rates payable under the full capital valuation approach (as exists as the base position in VIC), with the estimated annual loss being around $26 million or $650 million over 25 years.

Allowing the regions to access the additional revenue has the potential to facilitate ongoing permanent employment of up to 43 jobs assuming the VIC regulated formula approach is adopted – maintaining current rating policy will prevent these additional regional employment opportunities from occurring. These Council and community impacts are expected to grow significantly in the short to medium term given the significant number of renewable energy projects currently under financial close and approved in SA regional areas.

Overall, this report shows that: • The competitiveness of SA regions in attracting renewable energy developments will not be impacted by the proposed rating policy amendments particularly if rates levied are comparable with VIC. As such, there would be no negative impact on investment and employment opportunities in SA regions as a result of the proposed rating policy amendments. • There is an opportunity to provide a financial, economic and social boost to SA regions through the proposed rating policy amendments, as the additional rate payments retained within local economies and communities are estimated to provide sufficient stimulus to sustainably create up to an additional 43 permanent full-time equivalent jobs in SA regions.

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of the above findings, the following recommendations are made: • Amendments to SA legislation to include electricity generation and storage plant and equipment in capital valuations (as occurs in VIC) and to allow energy sector developments to make appropriate payments in lieu of rates under a regulated formula subject to indexation consisting of a fixed payment per site and a variable payment based on installed capacity. • Applicable developments subject to the rating policy amendments will include all current electricity generation and storage developments under existing technologies, as well as future generation and storage developments under existing and new technologies. • Consideration of the means by which Councils located within reasonable proximity of energy sector developments in unincorporated areas that impact infrastructure and service provision are appropriately

13 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

compensated via similar payment arrangements to ensure ratepayers are not financially impacted by these developments.

14 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

REFERENCES

ABS (2012). Census of Population and Housing 2011 – Employment by Place of Work. Cat. No. 2068.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS (2017). Census of Population and Housing 2016. TableBuilder. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS (2017). Household Expenditure Survey, Australia: Summary of Results, 2015-16. Cat. No. 6530.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS (2019a). Australian National Accounts: Input-Output Tables – Electronic Publication, 2016-17 tables. Cat. No. 5209.0.55.001, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS (2019b). Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly. Cat. No. 6291.0.55.003, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS (2019c). Consumer Price Index, Australia. Cat. No. 6401.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

AEC (2018). Rating Equity for Commercial and/or Industrial Land Uses Outside Towns in South Australia, Prepared on Behalf of Legatus Group, June 2018.

AEMO (2019). Generation Information, https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity- market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information

AEMO (2019). NEM Registration and Exemption List, https://www.aemo.com.au/energy- systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/participate-in-the-market/information-for-current- participants/participants-registered-for-the-nem

AEMO (2019). Market Data Western Australia – Facilities, http://data.wa.aemo.com.au/#facilities:download

Australian Government (2008). Renewable Energy Atlas of Australia: Mean Wind Speed at 80m Above Ground Level, Environmental Resources Information Network, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, October 2008, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Renewable_Energy_Atlas_of_Australia_Mean_Wind_Spee d_80m_above_ground_level.jpg

Climate Council (2019). South Australia hits 50% as the march to renewables continues. Climate Council.

DoESSFB (2019). Small Area Labour Market Data. Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business.

Parkinson G. Vorrath, S (2019). South Australia has 10GW wind and solar in pipeline as it heads to 100% renewables. Renew Economy, 23 July 2019, https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-has-10gw- wind-and-solar-in-pipeline-as-it-heads-to-100-renewables-65116/

South Australian Government (2018). SA’s Electricity Supply and Market. South Australian Government, Adelaide.

Victorian Government (2019). Electricity Industry Act 2000, Act No. 68/2000.

Victorian Government (2005). Victoria Government Gazette, No. G 34 Thursday 25 August 2005.

West, G. R. (1993). User’s Guide, Input-Output Analysis for Practitioners an Interactive Input-Output Software Package Version 7.1. Department of Economics. University of Queensland, 1993.

15 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

APPENDIX A: VICTORIAN LEGISLATIVE PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS BY ENERGY SECTOR DEVELOPMENTS

Extracts of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 and order in Council published via Government Gazette regarding payments from energy sector entities in lieu of general rates in Victoria are provided below.

Electricity Industry Act 2000 No. 68 of 2000 Part 5 – Powers of electricity corporations 94 Rateability of certain property (2) Despite anything to the contrary in the Local Government Act 1989, land is not occupied land for the purposes of that Act merely because any pole, wire or cable of a distribution company, transmission company or generation company is on, under or over that land. (3) The Loy Yang B land is rateable land and an agreement under section 27 of the Loy Yang B Act 1992 in force immediately before 8 May 1997 has effect as if it had been entered into under subsection (4)(a) of this section. (4) Despite anything in the Local Government Act 1989— (a) a generation company, an associated entity of a generation company or an exempt generator that is liable to pay rates in respect of land used for generation functions may, instead of paying rates in respect of that land, elect by notice in writing given to the relevant council to pay amounts agreed or determined under subsection (5); or (b) the relevant council may, by notice in writing given to a generation company, an associated entity of a generation company or an exempt generator that is liable to pay rates in respect of land used for generation functions, require that company, associated entity or exempt generator to pay, instead of rates in respect of that land, amounts agreed or determined under subsection (5). (5) A generation company, associated entity or exempt generator that elects to, or is required to, pay amounts under this subsection must pay to the relevant council— (a) such amount or amounts as are agreed between the generation company, associated entity or exempt generator and the relevant council, at such times as are so agreed; or (b) if, at any time, the amount required to be paid is not the subject of an agreement under paragraph (a) or the prior determination of an arbitrator, such amount and at such times as are determined by an arbitrator jointly appointed by the generation company, associated entity or exempt generator and the relevant council or, if within a reasonable time they fail to agree on such an appointment, by the chairperson of the Victoria Grants Commission as arbitrator or by another arbitrator nominated by that chairperson. (6) In determining an amount required to be paid under subsection (5), an arbitrator must have regard to any methodology prescribed by an Order under subsection (6A). (6A) The Governor in Council may, by Order published in the Government Gazette, prescribe a methodology for determining amounts payable under subsection (5). (6B) A power may only be exercised under subsection (6A) on the joint recommendation of the Minister and the Minister administering the Local Government Act 1989. (7) The Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 applies to arbitrations under this section. (8) Section 221 of the Local Government Act 1989 does not apply in relation to land owned or occupied by a generation company, an associated entity of a generation company or an exempt generator which is land used for generation functions. (8A) A generation company, an associated entity of a generation company or an exempt generator is deemed for the purposes of this section to be liable to pay rates in respect of land used for generation functions if the generation company, the associated entity or the exempt generator— (a) is liable to pay rates in respect of the land under the Local Government Act 1989; or (b) is liable to pay rates in respect of the land under an agreement with the person who is liable to pay rates in respect of the land under the Local Government Act 1989. (9) In this section— associated entity, in relation to a generation company, means a person to whom an exemption under section 17 applies in respect of an activity relating to the generation of electricity for supply or sale, being an activity for which the generation company holds a licence under Part 2; exempt generator means a person to whom an exemption under an Order made under section 17 applies in respect of the generation of electricity for supply or sale;

16 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

land used for generation functions means land used primarily for the generation of electricity on which a generation facility is situated— (a) whether or not the land consists of more than one parcel of land; and (b) if the land consists of more than one parcel, whether or not those parcels are contiguous or in the same ownership; Loy Yang B land means the land shown hatched on the plan in Schedule 2 to the Loy Yang B Act 1992; relevant council means any council in whose municipal district any land used for generation functions (or any part of that land) is situated.

17 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

18 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

APPENDIX B: INPUT-OUTPUT METHODOLOGY

INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL OVERVIEW

Input-Output analysis demonstrates inter-industry relationships in an economy, depicting how the output of one industry is purchased by other industries, households, the government and external parties (i.e. exports), as well as expenditure on other factors of production such as labour, capital and imports. Input-Output analysis shows the direct and indirect (flow-on) effects of one sector on other sectors and the general economy. As such, Input-Output modelling can be used to demonstrate the economic contribution of a sector on the overall economy and how much the economy relies on this sector or to examine a change in final demand of any one sector and the resultant change in activity of its supporting sectors.

The economic contribution can be traced through the economic system via:

• Initial stimulus (direct) impacts, which represent the economic activity of the industry directly experiencing the stimulus.

• Flow-on impacts, which are disaggregated to:

o Production induced effects (type I flow-on), which comprise the effects from:

▪ Direct expenditure on goods and services by the industry experiencing the stimulus (direct suppliers to the industry), known as the first round or direct requirements effects.5

▪ The second and subsequent round effects of increased purchases by suppliers in response to increased sales, known as the industry support effects.

o Household consumption effects (type II flow-on), which represent the consumption induced activity from additional household expenditure on goods and services resulting from additional wages and salaries being paid within the economic system.

These effects can be identified through the examination of four types of impacts:

• Output: Refers to the gross value of goods and services transacted, including the costs of goods and services used in the development and provision of the final product. Output typically overstates the economic impacts as it counts all goods and services used in one stage of production as an input to later stages of production, hence counting their contribution more than once.

• Gross product: Refers to the value of output after deducting the cost of goods and services inputs in the production process. Gross product (e.g., Gross Regional Product) defines a true net economic contribution and is subsequently the preferred measure for assessing economic impacts.

• Income: Measures the level of wages and salaries paid to employees of the industry under consideration and to other industries benefiting from the project.

• Employment: Refers to the part-time and full-time employment positions generated by the economic shock, both directly and indirectly through flow-on activity, and is expressed in terms of full time equivalent (FTE) positions.

Input-Output multipliers can be derived from open (Type I) Input-Output models or closed (Type II) models. Open models show the direct effects of spending in a particular industry as well as the indirect or flow-on (industrial support) effects of additional activities undertaken by industries increasing their activity in response to the direct spending.

Closed models re-circulate the labour income earned as a result of the initial spending through other industry and commodity groups to estimate consumption induced effects (or impacts from increased household consumption).

5 Modelling note: In assessing construction phase impacts, AEC’s modelling approach treats subcontractors in the construction services sector engaged through first round effects as part of the initial stimulus impact rather than as part of the production induced impact.

19 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Multipliers used in this assessment are derived from sub-regional transaction tables developed specifically for this project. The process of developing a sub-regional transaction table involves developing regional estimates of gross production and purchasing patterns based on a parent table, in this case, the 2016-17 Australian transaction table (ABS, 2019a).

Estimates of gross production (by industry) in the study areas were developed based on the percent contribution to employment (by place of work) of the study areas to the Australian economy (ABS, 2012; ABS, 2017; ABS, 2019b; DoESSFB, 2019), and applied to Australian gross output identified in the 2016-17 Australian table.

Industry purchasing patterns within the study area were estimated using a process of cross industry location quotients and demand-supply pool production functions as described in West (1993).

Where appropriate, values were rebased from 2016-17 (as used in the Australian national IO transaction tables) to 2018 values using the Consumer Price Index (ABS, 2019c).

MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS

The key assumptions and limitations of Input-Output analysis include:

• Lack of supply-side constraints: The most significant limitation of economic impact analysis using Input- Output multipliers is the implicit assumption that the economy has no supply-side constraints so the supply of each good is perfectly elastic. That is, it is assumed that extra output can be produced in one area without taking resources away from other activities, thus overstating economic impacts. The actual impact is likely to be dependent on the extent to which the economy is operating at or near capacity.

• Fixed prices: Constraints on the availability of inputs, such as skilled labour, require prices to act as a rationing device. In assessments using Input-Output multipliers, where factors of production are assumed to be limitless, this rationing response is assumed not to occur. The system is in equilibrium at given prices, and prices are assumed to be unaffected by policy and any crowding out effects are not captured. This is not the case in an economic system subject to external influences.

• Fixed ratios for intermediate inputs and production (linear production function): Economic impact analysis using Input-Output multipliers implicitly assumes that there is a fixed input structure in each industry and fixed ratios for production. That is, the input function is generally assumed linear and homogenous of degree one (which implies constant returns to scale and no substitution between inputs). As such, impact analysis using Input-Output multipliers can be seen to describe average effects, not marginal effects. For example, increased demand for a product is assumed to imply an equal increase in production for that product. In reality, however, it may be more efficient to increase imports or divert some exports to local consumption rather than increasing local production by the full amount. Further, it is assumed each commodity (or group of commodities) is supplied by a single industry or sector of production. This implies there is only one method used to produce each commodity and that each sector has only one primary output.

• No allowance for economies of scope: The total effect of carrying on several types of production is the sum of the separate effects. This rules out external economies and diseconomies and is known simply as the “additivity assumption”. This generally does not reflect real world operations.

• No allowance for purchasers’ marginal responses to change: Economic impact analysis using multipliers assumes that households consume goods and services in exact proportions to their initial budget shares. For example, the household budget share of some goods might increase as household income increases. This equally applies to industrial consumption of intermediate inputs and factors of production.

• Absence of budget constraints: Assessments of economic impacts using multipliers that consider consumption induced effects (type two multipliers) implicitly assume that household and government consumption is not subject to budget constraints.

20 RATING EQUITY IN SA & THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT GROWTH

Despite these limitations, Input-Output techniques provide a solid approach for taking account of the inter- relationships between the various sectors of the economy in the short-term and provide useful insight into the quantum of final demand for goods and services, both directly and indirectly, likely to be generated by a project.

In addition to the general limitations of Input-Output analysis, there are two other factors that need to be considered when assessing the outputs of sub-regional transaction table developed using this approach, namely:

• It is assumed the sub-region has similar technology and demand/ consumption patterns as the parent (Australia) table (e.g. the ratio of employee compensation to employees for each industry is held constant).

• Intra-regional cross-industry purchasing patterns for a given sector vary from the national tables depending on the prominence of the sector in the regional economy compared to its input sectors. Typically, sectors that are more prominent in the region (compared to the national economy) will be assessed as purchasing a higher proportion of imports from input sectors than at the national level, and vice versa.

REPORT FOR: Council

MEETING DATE: 24 March 2020

REPORT FROM: Director Infrastructure

REPORT TITLE: Upper Spencer Gulf Regional Assessment Panel

FILE NAME: F16/877 RECORD NO: AR20/11027

COMMUNITY VISION & STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES 1 We Thrive 1.1 Identify and support new opportunities for our city to change and grow through bold and innovative projects including alternative energy and infrastructure. 6 We Achieve 6.6 We will implement shared service arrangements in participation with other Local Government partners to build on capacity and financial sustainability.

PURPOSE

In light of amendments to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, Council endorsed the formation of an Upper Spencer Gulf Regional Assessment Panel (USGRAP) in November 2019.

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with Terms of Reference particular to the Regional Assessment Panel.

RECOMMENDATION

Council:

1. Endorses and adopts the Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement, as contained in attachment A to report AR20/11027.

2. Endorses and adopts Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement submitted to the Minister for approval

3. Delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to work with the partner Councils and the Minister to agree on any non-material amendments to the Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement and to execute such accordingly.

4. Notes that subject to the decision of the Minister, the Council Administration will commence undertaking the Panel Member appointment process, in accordance with the framework established in the Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement.

BACKGROUND

The Cities of Port Augusta, Port Pirie, and Whyalla have each formally resolved to approach the Minister for Planning to establish a Regional Assessment Panel under Section 84(1)(c)(ii)(A) and (e) of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act at their respective Ordinary Meetings throughout November and December 2019. This report and together with recommendations are an important next step in the process towards creating a Regional Assessment Panel. 2

Resolution AR19/51171 is as follows:

DISCUSSION

The above resolutions were predicated by prior collaboration of the Councils over 18 months towards creating a Regional Assessment Panel - the reason for the above resolutions was based on a desire to:

• Form and operate a Regional Assessment Panel across the region to ensure that the most cost effective and productive service is delivered to respective communities. • Avoid the need for each Council to separately attract and pay accredited Panel Members under the new State Government Professional Accreditation Scheme – saving costs and triplication. • Collaborate on regional planning affairs, as it relates to planning assessment matters, given the common issues and opportunities facing the region geographically and economically. • Establish economies of scale in the administration of a Regional Assessment Panel. • Reduce costs associated with accreditation, sitting fees and on-costs.

The support for a Regional Assessment Panel was also thought to be the first step towards a possible Joint Planning Board, based on the preliminary business case previously presented to all three Councils. However, as previously noted by Council, the future possibility of a Joint Planning Board is a separate matter completely and the establishment of a Regional Assessment Panel does not hinge or rely on the formation of a Joint Planning Board.

1 Actions since late 2019

The three Councils have since enacted the above resolutions to establish a Regional Assessment Panel, via having undertaken the following:

• Set up an internal Project Group of the Directors of each Council to implement the resolutions. • Made an initial formal submission to the Minister for Planning to seek to establish the Regional Assessment Panel – involving meetings with senior officials of DPTI. • Undertaken the preparation of draft Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement for the setup and operation of the Regional Assessment Panel.

The draft Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement for the operation of the Regional Assessment Panel are now presented to the Council for review and adoption.

Once adopted, the Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement will be provided to the Minister to enable the Minister to formally establish the Regional Assessment Panel. Subject to the decision of the Minister and the framework set with the Minister, the Councils would then undertake a joint approach to source and subsequently appoint the Panel Members, Presiding Member and the Assessment Manager. 3

2 Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement

In summary, the key elements of the Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement are as follows:

The Regional Assessment Panel (the Panel) • The Panel will act as a relevant planning authority for certain types of development applications only, that being Performance Assessed applications that are subject to public notification. • The Panel would comprise of five (5) independent members - none of which would be an elected member of a Council – this will give the following benefits: o promote the image of a Panel of independence at a regional level (also noting Councils will no longer be a relevant planning authority under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act) o avoid the confusion across the 3 Councils as to which one member could be appointed. o avert confusion in the community as to the role of an elected member (if a member of the Panel), and given that an elected member cannot be lobbied or be an advocate for any party. o Council retaining and focussing on its important role to plan and develop strategic policy. • Each of the 5 Panel members must be accredited as an accredited professional – planning level 2 under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Accredited Professionals) Regulations 2019. • Members of the Panel would be appointed for two (2) year terms. • Members would receive a quarterly standing fee, to be determined by the Councils.

The Assessment Manager • The Assessment Manager will be a relevant authority for certain planning applications only, that being Deemed to Satisfy and Performance Assessed applications that are not subject to public notification. • The Assessment Manager will also be responsible for managing the operations of the Panel and for providing advice to the Panel, as appropriate.

Council planners and administrative staff • The Council planners and administrative staff would act under delegated authority of the Assessment Manager. • The Council planners would retain their day to day duties, as employees of the Council. • The Council planners will also prepare and submit reports to the Regional Assessment Panel, in the same manner as they currently do for the Council Assessment Panel.

Host Council • Each Council would be responsible for the administration duties associated with the Panel, as Host Council, on a yearly rotational basis, for matters such as Agendas, Minutes, and hosting meetings. • The Host Council will ensure the delegations for the Panel and Assessment Manager are in place. • Meetings may be held by telephone, audio-visual or other instantaneous means (telecommunications meeting).

Appointments • Based on the framework agreed with the Minister, the Host Council will arrange for an EOI process for the appointment of the Panel members via an evaluation panel comprising of the CEO of each Council for consideration and endorsement by each Council – this will also include the appointment of the Independent Presiding Member. • The Host Council will nominate the Assessment Manager, for appointment by the CE of DPTI – the Assessment Manager would be an employee or contractor of the Host Council.

4 Costs • The costs of the Panel will be shared by the 3 Councils, managed by the Host Council. • Legal and other costs associated with any particular development application would be borne by the relevant Council, in the same manner as it is currently.

Full Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement annexed. Refer– Attachment A.

3 Timing

There is some urgency in moving this matter forward without delay, due to the fact that the Regional Assessment Panel must be up and running by September 2020, being the likely go live date (as to be determined by the Minister) for the new planning system under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act.

From the time of the (likely) September go live date, the current Council Assessment Panels would be inoperative, on the basis of the three Councils intent to establish a Regional Assessment Panel.

Given the lead-up work required with DPTI and the Minister’s office and allowing time for Panel member EOI, appointment processes, establishing delegations, training and inductions, the Project Group has been advised that the Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement should be submitted to the Minister in April 2020.

The Project Group seeks to eliminate the risk of not having the Regional Assessment Panel established in time – otherwise each Council will be required to revert back to establishing 3 separate Council Assessment Panels with the inherent inefficiencies of having to triplicate all aspects of an operative Panel including attracting accredited members for 3 panels, appointing 3 accredited Assessment Managers and having to cover costs for 3 separate Panels.

4 Actions required

• Council endorses and adopts the Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement, as contained in Attachment A

• Council endorses and adopts Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement submitted to the Minister for approval

• Authority delegated by Council to the Chief Executive Officer to work with the partner Councils and the Minister to agree on any non-material amendments to the Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement and to execute such accordingly

• Council note that subject to the decision of the Minister, the Council Administration will commence undertaking the Panel Member appointment process, in accordance with the framework established in the Terms of Reference and Council Service Agreement.

CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS Not applicable.

RISK MANAGEMENT

1: Financial/Budget/Asset Management

Legal fees for the establishment of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Upper Spencer Gulf Cities and development of Terms of Reference for the Regional Assessment Panel to provide to the Minister for adoption are a shared cost between the three Upper Spencer Gulf Cities. The Port Augusta City Council contribution to this body of work is $2,350 exclusive of gst. 5

2: Legal/Policy

In early 2020, the USGCPG and the constituent Councils became aware of verbal representations, asserted to have been made by LGA officers, to the effect that the LGA Mutual Liability Scheme ( LGAMLS ) might no longer provide civil liability protections for member councils in respect of regional assessment panels constituted by the Minister for Planning under section 84 of the Act. That is, civil liability issues for the non-elected members and the assessment manager would not be within the realm of the protection.

The constituent Councils have considered these issues in the context of the LGAMLS providing a scheme for civil liability indemnity (in accordance with its Rules) to South Australian councils, as members of the LGAMLS. Thereafter, as, in accordance with sections 84(1)(i) and 87(f), as they are liable for the costs associated with the activities of the USGRAP, including the remuneration of USGRAP members and the costs and liabilities of the USGRAP’s assessment manager, any issues of civil liability for these persons would be subject to a claim for indemnity through the Councils, as members, to the LGAMLS.

Written confirmation of the formal position of the LGAMLS has been sought as to whether the LGAMLS would continue to provide civil liability indemnity protection for those accredited professionals under USGRAP, in order to meet the professional indemnity insurance obligations under regulation 17 of the Regulations.

The formal position of the LGAMLS has also been requested in relation to civil liability risks for assessment managers appointed by the CE of DPTI under section 87(d)(iii) of the Act has also been requested.

3: Environment/Planning

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016

4: Community

4.1 General Community consultation regarding implementation of the PDI Act is being managed by DPTI. Council are cross referencing any community engagement sessions on Council website and Facebook page.

4.2 Aboriginal Community Consultation As above.

Suzanne McKell 10/03/2020

6 Attachment A

UPPER SPENCER GULF REGIONAL ASSESSMENT PANEL TERMS OF REFERENCE Name 1. The name of the Panel shall be the Upper Spencer Gulf Regional Assessment Panel (“the Panel”).

Establishment 2. The Panel is established by the Minister for Planning (“the Minister”) pursuant to Section 84(1) of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (the "PDI Act").

3. The Panel is, pursuant to section 84(1)(c) of the PDI Act, constituted for the areas of the following councils:

3.1 City of Whyalla

3.2 Port Augusta City Council

3.3 Port Pirie Regional Council

(together referred to as “the Councils”)

4. The Panel will, at all times, act in accordance with the PDI Act, the Minister’s notice constituting the Panel, the Code of Conduct adopted by the Minister under Schedule 3 of the PDI Act and these Terms of Reference.

Number of Panel members 5. Pursuant to section 84(1)(e)(i)(A) of the PDI Act, the Panel is constituted of five (5) members, none of which may be a member of a council.

Appointment of members 6. Pursuant to section 84(1)(e) of the PDI Act, the Minister makes provision for the appointment of members of the Panel as follows:

6.1 all members of the Panel, must be accredited as an accredited professional – planning level 2 under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Accredited Professionals) Regulations 2019;

6.2 prior to the appointment of the initial Panel and, thereafter (as relevant):

6.2.1 within one (1) month after the resignation of, or termination of appointment of a Panel member; or

6.2.2 within two (2) months prior to the expiry of each term of the Panel,

the Councils will determine a list of five (5) persons nominated for appointment as members of the Panel and a nomination for appointment as the Presiding Member of the Panel.

6.3 At the expiration of a term of appointment, a Panel member is eligible for reappointment.

7 Term of office 7. Members of the Panel will be appointed for two (2)-year terms.

Conditions of appointment and grounds for removal from office 8. Panel members are appointed to the Panel subject to the condition that all Panel members must maintain the accreditation required by clause 6.1 above for the term of their appointment.

9. Appointment to the Panel will expire if the Panel member:

9.1 fails to comply with clause 8 above;

9.2 dies;

9.3 resigns by giving written notice of his/her resignation to the Minister;

9.4 becomes bankrupt or applies to take the benefit of a law for the relief of insolvent debtors;

9.5 is convicted of an offence;

9.6 is removed from office under clause 10 below.

10. The Minister may remove a Panel member from the Panel on the following grounds:

10.1 maladministration;

10.2 misconduct;

10.3 neglect of duty;

10.4 incapacity to carry out satisfactorily the duties of his/her office;

10.5 failure to carry out satisfactorily the duties of his/her office;

10.6 failure to disclose his/her financial interests in accordance with Schedule 1 of the PDI Act;

10.7 upon receipt of a recommendation or direction from the State Planning Commission that the Panel member be removed from office pursuant to regulation 11 of the PDI Regulations.

11. If a vacancy in the membership of the Panel occurs, subject to clause 6.2.1 above, the Councils will fill that vacancy at the earliest opportunity.

12. An act of the Panel in not invalid by reason only of a vacancy in its membership.

13. The remuneration of Panel members will be determined by the Councils. The Councils are responsible for the payment of remuneration to Panel members.

14. The costs of and associated with the Panel will be borne by the Councils.

Purpose 15. The Panel is the relevant authority for development applications within the areas of the Councils as specified by section 93 the PDI Act.

Powers and Functions 16. The powers, functions and duties of the Panel are to be exercised in accordance with the PDI Act, the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (General) Regulations 2017 (“the PDI Regulations”) and these Terms of Reference. 8 17. The powers, functions and duties of the Panel are assigned by section 93 of the PDI Act and Part 5 of the PDI Regulations.

18. The Panel has the power to delegate its powers, functions and duties pursuant to section 100 of the PDI Act.

Register of Financial Interests 19. The Minister will maintain a register containing the disclosures of financial interests made by the members of the Panel pursuant to their obligation under Schedule 1 of the PDI Act.

Assessment Manager 20. The Panel must have an Assessment Manager in accordance with Section 87 of the PDI Act.

21. The Assessment Manager be appointed by the Chief Executive of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure having regard to a nomination provided by the Councils.

22. The costs associated with the Assessment Manager will be borne by the Councils.

Meetings of the Panel 23. Meetings of the Panel must take place as determined by the Panel from time to time.

24. Meetings may be held by telephone, audio-visual or other instantaneous means (telecommunications meeting).

25. The meeting procedures of the Panel are those prescribed by Part 3 of the PDI Regulations, unless otherwise resolved by the Panel.

26. Notice of a Panel meeting (whether ordinary or special) and the accompanying agenda will be given by the Assessment Manager to each Panel member and provided to each of the Councils not less than three clear working days prior to the meeting.

Reporting 27. The Assessment Manager shall present an annual report detailing the Panel's activities to each of the Councils before 30 September in each year.

Circumstances not provided for 28. If a circumstance arises in respect of which these Terms of Reference are silent or are incapable of being implemented, the Panel is authorised to determine by way of a unanimous decision of the Panel how to proceed and to carry out any action that the Panel deems must be taken.

29. In the event that an issue remains unresolved the Panel shall refer the matter to the Assessment Manager for direction.

REPORT FOR: Council

MEETING DATE: 24 March 2020

REPORT FROM: Chief Executive Officer

REPORT TITLE: Adoption of Strategic Direction Documents 2019-2029

FILE NAME: F20/225 RECORD NO: AR20/12372

COMMUNITY VISION & STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES 6 We Achieve 6.1 Strong leadership and a committed and focused workforce to effectively manage and progress the City. 6.3 We aim to provide good governance practices and compliance with all legislative requirements in delivery of services.

PURPOSE

To present the outcomes of the Community Consultation held in relation to the Strategic Directions 2019-2029 and Four Year Priority Action Plan Documents, and for Council to adopt these documents.

RECOMMENDATION

Council:

1. Notes the community consultation activities undertaken for the Strategic Directions documents.

2. Adopts the Strategic Directions documents including the changes detailed in tables 1 and 2 of this report.

3. Approves all Council Policies being updated to include new strategic plan references.

BACKGROUND

On 22 October 2019 Council resolved the following:

1. Endorses the Draft Strategic Directions 2019-2029, Four Year Priority Actions Plan and the State of the City Indicators documents as provided for graphic design enhancement and consultation.

2. Notes that a further report on Draft Strategic Directions 2019 – 2029 and associated documents will be presented to Council inclusive of the outcome of consultation in accordance with Council Policy 1.1.08 Public Consultation and Engagement.

Following the graphic design of the documents, Council reviewed the final drafts and proposed community consultation, and as recommended by Council’s Audit Committee, on 25 February 2020 Council resolved:

Council receives and notes the draft Strategic Directions documents 2019/2029 including the community feedback opportunities. 2 DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Section 122(1) of the Local Government Act 1999, Council must develop and adopt plans for the management of its area, to be called collectively the ‘Strategic Management Plans’. These plan must be comprehensively reviewed within 2 years after a general election of Council. In conducting this review Council must adopt a process to ensure that members of the public are given a reasonable opportunity to be involved in the development and review of its Strategic Management Plan.

Community Consultation was undertaken throughout the month of February 2020. Council held specific community consultation sessions as follows: - Tuesday 11th February: Community Forum at the Public Library. - Saturday 15th February: Woolworths Outside Consultation information table. - Saturday 22nd February: DESERT FRINGE FESTIVAL Consultation table - Thursday 27th February: Consultation table at Basketball games at Central Oval.

Elected Members met with various community groups and members outside of these sessions.

Council consulted internally with Managers, Supervisors and all staff internally through staff meetings and internal newsletters.

A summary of all feedback received is attached in the Community Comments and Feedback document.

A summary of all proposed spelling, grammatical and content changes are detailed in the tables below.

Table 1 – Strategic Directions 2019 – 2029 Page Content Change 3 Mayor’s Message The Hub concept within this documents highlights … the Upper Spencer Gulf to expose to all that we have 15 Theme 5 Theme 4 goal had been duplicated - insert Correct Goal: We conduct our business ethically and transparently and seek financial sustainability to enable the Council to provide the infrastructure and services required to achieve our 2029 aspirations.

Table 2 – Four Year Priority Action Plan Page Content Change 7 5.1.3 Improved Remove duplicated text: Communication …and, potentially, some actions as Provider.some actions as Provider. 11 5.3.2 Climate Adjust text split over two lines: Change Adaptation Undertake mapping to understand vulnerable areas (built environments - manage facilities, natural environments) 11 5.3.3 Coastline …non-compliance of the disposable disposal of rubbish. Protection 12 5.4.1 Improved …Council’s role is of Provider (asset owner) appearance of the City 15 5.5.1 Fastracked …a target of zero by 2028/29 2027/28. removal of financial (align with Long Term Financial Plan) operating deficit 18 5.5.6 Rating Policy The use of separate rates may affect the total amount of rates collected. (Remove this sentence)

3 Options for Council

• Adopt Strategic Directions Documents

Council:

1. Notes the community consultation activities undertaken for the Strategic Directions documents.

2. Adopts the Strategic Directions documents including the changes detailed in tables 1 and 2 of this report.

3. Approves all Council Policies being updated to include new strategic plan references.

OR/

• Further revise Strategic Directions Documents

1. Notes the community consultation activities undertaken for the Strategic Directions documents.

2. Proposed the following action in relation to the Strategic Directions documents: a)

CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS Not applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT

1: Financial/Budget/Asset Management Council provided a budget allocation in the 2019/2020 budget to allow for the completion of the review of Council’s Strategic Managements Plan.

2: Legal/Policy Strategic Management Plans are required under Section 122 of the Local Government Act.

3: Environment/Planning Not applicable.

4: Community 4.1 General The community was consulted in relation to the development of the Strategic Directions documents, through a variety of mechanisms.

4.2 Aboriginal Community Consultation As above.

John Banks 18/03/2020

4 Strategic Directions 2019 -2029 and 4 Year Priority Action Plan Community Comments and Feedback

Theme 1.Community Curdnatta Art Group’s perspective. Local volunteers spend much of their time welcoming visitors to the city and providing information about Council’s many services. We would welcome council members to discuss this service at any time. We also presently have funds that could be used to support welcoming product as such as murals around the town. All we need is a conversation with a councillor to explain some of the things we offer. I commend the Council for looking for greater genuine engagement and communication with the community. Unfortunately it doesn’t appear that the consultation for these plans sets the precedent. The community’s previous Strategic Plan expired in 2017 and given that there has been two years to get to the point we are at now with what would appear to be completed plans (draft is not outlined on any documents), and community has not even a month to try and understand what the plans are about and make comment. It’s not easy to find the information on council’s website and the survey is limited to only providing comment on the 2019-2029 document. There is no email address for submissions such as this, nor a contact person for more information. The previous strategic plan was designed with the community –this same level of community involvement is not reflected in this plan. Who was included in consultation on these documents as part of the engagement plan (required to be developed as part of the consultation)? Is this a publicly available document? Will the plans change based on the submissions and community comments received? Where does this consultation sit on the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum – Inform, Engage, Involve, Collaborate or Empower? Council needs to address – • The voice of youth within the community; including Aboriginal Youth • Encourage the youth to be involved in the community, inform them of what the council does for them and how they can get involved • Bring in more mentorship programmes and give more young local aboriginal people a chance to have a voice on council matters, pathways beyond traineeships etc. Set a goal for numbers of council employees. • There needs to be more awareness of local cultural events and tourist spots in the community and signage throughout the town and on the bridge to grab the attention of tourist who travel through the town and may not know of what there is on offer. • Make the community proud of its cultural history and diversity, have streets named after important people and families in the town, monuments of historic events and places throughout the town and QR Codes on relevant historic places to link them with a detailed back story of why it is so important to the town and the community. i.e. Lois O’Donahue Centre – QR code link to council website giving information about her important achievements • The whole community needs a better way to be informed about council: o Plans o Events o Ways they can have a voice with decisions that the council makes.

5 Theme 2. Economy Power station has gone, Council did not apply for nuclear waste dump to bring employment. Renewable energy projects are not bringing families to our town. Port Augusta cannot rely solely on the mining and renewable energy sectors progressing. History has shown that this is problematic. In relation to outcome 1, it needs to be realised that both Port Pirie and Whyalla have the same agenda. Therefore the city needs to be able to differentiate itself. This might include accommodation for Contractors. Point 2 will only happen if and when the town is cleaned up, not just in terms of physical appearance, but also in terms of reduced levels on anti-social behaviour in the CBD, especially around Woolworths. The Central Oval Complex is a good example of providing the City with modern and cleaner infrastructure for conferences but our dining and lack of major events on a regional scale is well behind Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Lincoln. To prevent Port Augusta from being exposed to the ‘economic shocks’ as outlined, it needs to become a self-determining community. We can no longer wait for the ‘next big thing’ only to be disappointed time and again in regards to major projects. These should be the bonus for our region, not we wait in hope for, only to be continually disappointed. Council needs to be a leader in this space. Port Augusta needs a strong a supported business sector to be a regional service centre, and tourism destination. The plan does not mention building small business which could be through training, identifying gaps in businesses servicing the city, support of start up businesses (the business incubator model which is presently idle could be re-ignited), recognition of business and event tourism, as just a few suggestions. Grants are also a major source of funding for Councils that could position Council well to support these initiatives. Through these plans, how does Council plan to initiate/facilitate (enable) economic development, particularly of small to medium businesses?

Theme 3. Environmental Council needs to address – • Hard rubbish pick up should be free and more accessible • Dump Shop for hard refuse • Men’s Shed can repair goods for sale or to give to support service • Free hard rubbish pickup could improve tenancy properties • Partner with service clubs and NGO’s to transport items for community who have no transport What programs and investments will take place? Will we reduce our green space and promote arid practices? Will you implement sustainable practices across all operations? What percentage of budget will be allocated to this aspiration? The Arid Lands Gardens and Wadlata are shining lights in our community but unfortunately we are falling well short in the City’s approaches and garden areas. Our foreshores have improved but still fall short when comparing with Pirie and Whyalla. We are well situated to take advantage of our natural assts. Every effort should be made to give visitors a good experience. “First impressions” are very important. The beach front areas need to be improved. Every effort should be made to improve the salt lake area as you come into town. This section appears to be very waste focussed but does not address tackling illegal dumping as an issue, but does mention rubbish on our coastline (5.3.3).

6 Theme 4. Infrastructure There is nothing social about our town we need more events and places to hold activity’s such as painting / craft classes gardening classes ( city building classes the high school students can make park chairs or even have a say in what they would like to have In the town such as out door movie nights. Our physical infrastructure does not meet community needs. Central Oval does in some ways, but the Oval itself has not yet reached it's full potential. The foreshore area, which was once the jewel in our crown is no longer that. To achieve this outcome, Council will need to focus on our decaying marine assets and work with our State and Federal members to secure the necessary funds to fix the wharf and either fix or replace the Westside Jetty. Currently the leisure activities of fishing off the Wharf for example, are prohibited due to material thrown into the gulf by ratbag youths which apparently cannot be removed. Council needs to find a way to fix that. It also needs to focus on providing some kind of jetty that people can swim off. This is great if we have the budget and resources to look after what we already have why build more stuff if we struggle to look after what we have. Maybe reduce what we have but increase the quality. Will there be any culturally targeted infrastructure. People want a jetty. What is the time line for this. I assume in the 10 year plan it should be mentioned? Provide better access to Spencer Gulf for locals and visitors. Jetties, boardwalks and boat ramps. Main concern is the implementing the asset management strategy and plans while they are being developed. How will a clear and informed decision be made as part of an overall cohesive strategy, while the plans are still be drafted?

Theme 5. Governance and Financial There appears to be an improved attempt to reduce the budget deficit, however there needs to be some hard decisions made in order to eliminate the deficit, put some $'s back into the budget to allow for maintaining infrastructure and facilitate access to grants. This section is extremely concerning for many reasons but particularly given in Priority Action 2, the plans reference the economic shocks of recent times and the negative impact on community. To achieve a $3m cost saving in three years, when 10 years had been planned could only be seen as an economic shock. It would mean the closure of facilities, cuts in services and these can only then have negative flow on impacts to ratepayers and the community through reduced economic activity, some far more substantial than others. All reduction in spending and consideration of reducing assets should be very considered, well measured and managed, and in full consultation with the community given these are community assets. This elected member body would be imposing on future generations the cost of infrastructure that cannot be maintained or new infrastructure built. The hit the local economy would take would also be considerable and this will be felt by future generations. It is very short sighted and allows for the current council to make drastic cuts before the next election, leaving the community very vulnerable with no accountability as there is no guarantee elected members will re-nominate or be re-elected. I agree with Council carefully considering its role as an enabler, leader or provider for all new matters – this is a very sensible approach. I also agree that Council should continually look at ways to deliver cost efficiencies, and service delivery improvement.

What needs to be established for Council to be in a “surplus financial position” and how is that weighted against other outcomes in the plans? How does Council plan to reduce the operating deficit in three years by 2022? Are the financial plans available to do this? Will the community be fully engaged as part of this process, over and above the normal budget meetings? How will the impacts of the decisions to make budget cuts be measured against the impacts on community? Will impact assessment reports and risk assessments be publicly available as part of consultation processes?

7 Other Feedback PACC needs to return to the business of councils and dispose of functions and activities outside that mandated within local government. The ratepayers can no longer be the source that props up enterprises that lose money. I want the children I teacher to go to the beach and not pick up glass or needles! I want them to have a say and - have magical parks and amazing outings in the town. More can be done to ensure the natural environment is protected around the back beach and the ponds on the main highway coming in to t town. What could also be considered is a neighbour gardening scheme for work for the dole participants to help improve people’s gardens and and improve the outlook of the community. This plan is good but it can’t be achieved. Please be clear about what you are trying to accomplish for this city and start working together. What you want has to be backed up with solid and consistent actions. What are you going to gain by reducing debt faster? How does this fit into your strategy? What you say you want to do is so far off what you are currently doing. The town is looking old and tired. We are small population stop trying to play big. We are trying to do so much more than other councils. We can turn this. Stop acting defeated, stop blaming, stop waiting for some big development or magic wand and get on with the job. Overall I believe these plans do not feature the community’s voice. They seem one- dimensional, focussed on cutting spending, and generally lack vision. There is nothing offered in terms of projects or initiatives beyond the massive budget cut proposed – there is no vision as to why the community would need to sustain the economic hit, or what the plans for the cuts are. Other key messages were around anti-social behaviour in CBD, the need to do more about attracting tourists and encouraging then to stay and having both simple family and community events, along with attracting more larger regional events to raise our community profile in a more positive manner.

8 Elected Members Feedback In addition to the community consultation sessions held in the Library, at Woolworths, in the Barracks at the Fringe event and at the basketball, Elected Members spoke with members of the public as follows: • Mayor Benbow presented the Strategic Directions & Four Year Action Plan documentation at the Port Augusta Alcohol Management Group Meeting in February

• Deputy Mayor Brown presented to the Senior Citizens (approx. 30), discussed with the family of Mr Surman, Jeanette Noble, Christine Harrison, group of pensioners (8)in Wadlata arranged by Les White, spoke with approx. 18 individuals in the CBD

• Cr Leonard spoke with various individuals in the CBD and through his contact at work

• Cr Naisbitt spoke with staff at Terry White Chemist (approx. 12)

• Cr Marsh spoke with friends and family and received a detailed submission from James Cargill. Overall response to the plan was favourable.

• Cr Singh spoke to the Indian community group (25 members) and also spoke to approx. 9 individual. Comments that people were satisfied with the plans but concerned about images in the documents, that foreshore and natural images are used not showing anything built by Council.

• Cr Shine spoke to a diversity of people in age and interests. Only Geoff Fullerton prepared to record his name. Summary; No one was prepared to put anything in writing or provide names which may be reflective of some untrust between community and Council; difficult to keep people focussed on the content as most wanted to talk about their disappointment with the visual of our community (untidy, rubbish, closed shops, CBD antisocial behaviour) and seeking clarity around the change in the basis of rating; people seeking more quick visual wins even with a tight budget eg clean-ups; message was that the plan didn’t really have a lot of emphasis on maintaining a strong art culture and wanting to see more in this area, concern around Council not realising the importance of the arts to social capital; lot of comment about things shutting down or talk about shutting things down and people don’t want this to occur; connected to many in the community of varying ages who strongly advocate concerns in hearing that the Council want to shut down Wadlata and sell off the Arid Lands; foreshore areas continued to be a message of people wanting more including a café and more could be done to the back beach (near the hospital); people wanting extending of the paths around the main areas; people displeased with Council’s communication with the community; need to do more around attracting tourists and engaging them to stay, having both simple and family community events, along with attracting more larger regional events to raise community profile in a more positive manner.

• Cr Paynter distributed the information at the Church market and to the craft groups. There were good comments about the pictures in the documents. • Cr Johnston discussed the documents with about 20 Volunteers at Red Cross and gave out that many booklets and asked them to fill in the forms and hand back to council. I have also spoken with approx 20 different friends and work colleagues directed, them to website and discussed what the directions and plans were about.

9 Feedback statistics

REPORT FOR: Council

MEETING DATE: 24th March 2020

REPORT FROM: Director Corporate & Community Services

REPORT TITLE: Transfer of Land Acquired Under Section 185 of the Local Government Act

FILE NAME: F19/409 RECORD NO: AR20/11126

COMMUNITY VISION & STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES

6 We Achieve 6.5 We use and manage our financial resources in the best interests of our community, and to ensure financial sustainability and organisational efficiency now and into the future.

PURPOSE

To seek Council endorsement to transfer land acquired under Section 185 of the Local Government Act to adjoining property owners.

RECOMMENDATION

Council:

1. Waives Council’s Disposal of Land policy in relation to the parcels of land acquired under Section 185 of the Local Government Act.

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to enter into land transfer arrangements in relation to assessments 10002, 9936, 2889, 3345 with adjoining land owners for a sale price of $1.

3. Seeks payment of any associated fees in relation to the transfer of this land from the adjoining land owners.

BACKGROUND

At a Council meeting held on 28th February 2018, Council resolved to proceed with action under Section 185 of the Local Government Act 1999 in relation to the following properties where the site value is well below the amount of rates outstanding which will involve issuing Notices pursuant to Section 184 of the Local Government Act 1999 (SA) as set out in point 1 as a preliminary step prior to proceeding with action under Section 185:

Assessment Numbers: 1080, 794, 3345, 1955, 1936, 6684, 2889, 6688, 2776, 9936 & 10002. Section 185—Procedure where council cannot sell land

(1) If after a council has made reasonable attempts to sell land on account of arrears of rates it appears that the council has no reasonable prospect of selling the land within a reasonable time, or if the current valuation of land under this Part is less than the amount of outstanding rates, the council may apply to the Minister who is responsible for the administration of the Crown Lands Act 1929 for an order under this section.

(2) On the receipt of an application by a council under subsection (1), the Minister may, after consultation with the council and being satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, order— (a) in the case of land held from the Crown under a lease, licence or agreement for purchase—that the land be forfeited to the Crown (and the lease, licence or agreement is cancelled); (b) in any other case—that the land be transferred to the Crown or to the council.

(3) An order under subsection (2)— (a) must be in writing and signed by the Minister; and (b) — (i) in the case of land held from the Crown under a lease, licence or agreement for purchase—operates to cancel the lease, licence or agreement; (ii) in any other case—operates as an instrument of transfer passing title to the land to which it relates.

(4) No stamp duty is payable on an order under subsection (2).

(5) If it is not reasonably practicable to obtain a duplicate certificate of title to land that is subject to an order under subsection (2), the Registrar-General may, on application, register the order notwithstanding the non-production of the duplicate, but in that event will cancel the existing certificate of title for the land and issue a new certificate.

(6) If an order is made under this section— (a) the land to which the order relates is freed of any charge against the land that exists in favour of the council; and (b) any outstanding liability to the council in respect of the land is discharged.

DISCUSSION The process of firstly working through requirements of Section 184 of the Local Government Act and subsequently requirements of Section 185 of the Local Government Act was a very slow process with feedback received that Port Augusta City Council is one of very few Councils to undertake this process.

The following assessments have now been transferred to Council ownership following completion of the process and issue of new Certificates of Title.

Assessment Address 10002 15 Matthews Street PORT AUGUSTA WEST 9936 Jervois Street PORT AUGUSTA 2776 Kitchener Road WAMI KATA 6688 Hundred of Copley PORT AUGUSTA WEST 2889 Hundred of Winninowie STIRLING NORTH Assessment Address 6684 La France Terrace PORT AUGUSTA WEST 1936 Lot 223 Augusta Highway PORT AUGUSTA 1955 Lot 188 Augusta Highway PORT AUGUSTA 3345 Dunn Place PORT AUGUSTA 794 Tassie Street PORT AUGUSTA 1080 Joffre Street PORT AUGUSTA TOTAL

Transfer of properties to adjoining land owners:

It was identified prior to the commencement of this process that several of the parcels of land were actually within other properties and needed to be resolved. Where this has occurred, through historical land divisions and building approvals, it is suggested that Council transfer the land to the adjoining property owner for a sale price of $1 with the land owner paying relevant costs to transfer the land. The value of the land is very much diminished due to proximity of these assessments within other property boundaries. There is no opportunity for Council to sell this land to any other party other than the adjoining land owner. This is suggested for the following assessments:

Assessment Address Suggested Outcome 10002 15 Matthews Street PORT Transfer from Council to Comfort AUGUSTA WEST Inn 9936 Jervois Street PORT AUGUSTA Transfer from Council to Bungala Aboriginal Corporation 2889 Hundred of Winninowie Transfer from Council to adjoining STIRLING NORTH land owner (Whenan) 3345 Dunn Place PORT AUGUSTA Transfer from Council – join with the road reserve of Dunn Place

Other Properties Attached to this report are diagrams of the land that has been transferred to Council that is not part of adjoining land. Council may seek to sell these parcels on the open market. However, some of the land may be not be appealing to the resale market due to its location. Where this is the case, the land will remain under Council ownership.

CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS

Not applicable.

RISK MANAGEMENT

1: Financial/Budget/Asset Management Rates of $334,683.46 will be written off as uncollectible. Amounts outstanding from prior years were recognised as doubtful and held within the provision of doubtful debts pending resolution. The impact to revenue income in the current year will be a reduction in rate revenue amounting to the current amount of rates levied on these assessments for the 2019/20 year.

Transfer of the assessments to the adjoining land owners will enable Council to continue to raise rates on the assessments from the point of transfer into the future. 2: Legal/Policy Council followed provisions within Section 185 of the Local Government Act to acquire land. Council engaged legal counsel to undertake this process.

3: Environment/Planning Not applicable.

4: Community 4.1 General Not applicable.

4.2 Aboriginal Community Consultation Not applicable.

ANNE O’REILLY 11/03/2020

Assessment 2776 - Kitchener Road WAMI KATA

Assessment 6688 - Hundred of Copley Port Augusta West

Assessment 6684 - La France Terrace Port Augusta West

Assessment 1936 - Lot 223 Augusta Highway Port Augusta

Assessment 1955 - Lot 188 Augusta Highway Port Augusta

Assessment 794 - Tassie Street Port Augusta

Assessment 1080 - Joffre Street Port Augusta

REPORT FOR: Council

MEETING DATE: 24 March 2020

REPORT FROM: Director City Services

REPORT TITLE: Unsolicited Proposal – Tiver Street

FILE NAME: F20/232 RECORD NO: AR20/11935

COMMUNITY VISION & STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES 1 We Thrive 1.1 Identify and support new opportunities for our city to change and grow through bold and innovative projects including alternative energy and infrastructure. 1.3 Develop partnerships to attract investors in business proposals and new developments that contribute to a diversified and robust economy. 6 We Achieve 6.3 We aim to provide good governance practices and compliance with all legislative requirements in delivery of services. 6.5 We use and manage our financial resources in the best interests of our community, and to ensure financial sustainability and organisational efficiency now and into the future.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council an Unsolicited Proposal that has been received for the acquisition of Council land, and to enable Council to make a decision about how to proceed with the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

Council:

1. Accepts the unsolicited proposal submitted by Mr Hinds.

2. Proceeds with the sale of the land (Lot 6-7 DP 1118 CT 5990/930) by direct negotiation with Mr Hinds.

3. Delegates power to the CEO to complete the sale of land process.

4. The following conditions must be included within the sale of land contract: a. The purchaser is required to construct driveway, footpath and road infrastructure (to Council standards), as part of the overall development, at the developers expense. b. The purchaser is responsible for payment of all Council costs associated with the sale of the land.

BACKGROUND

In late 2019, Mr Hinds first made enquiries about the acquisition of a residential allotment, owned by Council, situated on Tiver Street (Lot 6-7 DP 1118 CT 5990/930). Mr Hinds was provided with information about the Unsolicited Proposal’s process by email in December 2019. 2

Mr Hines attended the Council office again in January 2020 to enquire about how to progress this matter. He was advised to submit a formal proposal in writing, so that it could be progressed in accordance with Council Policy.

DISCUSSION

Mr Hines provided his proposal on 25 February 2020. Mr Hines wishes to purchase a single Council owned allotment on Tiver Street (off Caroona Road). He is also looking to purchase adjoining properties to secure a site large enough (2500m2) for a residential development of 5 to 6 properties. The Council land is required to gain access to private land on adjoining blocks.

Mr Hinds has indicated that no finance arrangements are required for this development and that there is not request for any further support from Council in relation to this development. Mr Hinds has indicated that the development can commence as soon as the land acquisition and sub-division processes are completed. The development would also have local economic benefits through the use of local trades.

Mr Hinds has also successfully completed similar developments in the same area, on McCarthy Street and Matthews Street.

This Unsolicited Proposal relates to the allotment outlined in red below.

Unsolicited Proposal Policy 2.3.14

This proposal meets the requirements for Council’s Unsolicited Proposal Guidelines, 3.4.1 the purchase, lease or development of Council owned or managed land.

This proposal meets the requirements for consideration as an unsolicited proposal under clause 3.8.1.4 a) no competing proposals – correct, not currently for sale. b) community need / Council priority – disposal of surplus assets (debt reduction) c) uniqueness (not in relation to the purchase of land, but is unique in relation to the negotiation with other surrounding property owners). d) value for money – sale with be subject to an independent valuation. e) capacity and capability of proponent – proponent has undertaken similar developments in the same area.

Under this Policy, the Councils Management Group is nominated as the Unsolicited Proposal Steering Committee. The Steering Committee considered this proposal at a meeting on 11 February 2020 and determined that it was appropriate for the proposal to be provided to Council upon receipt of a formal application.

The Steering Committee made the following recommendations in relation to the proposal:

1. That the proposal be presented to Council for consideration and determination.

3 2. An independent valuation be obtained to determine the land value, and included within the report to Council.

3. That the Land be sold with the following conditions: a. that any development must require the developer to construct driveway, footpath and road infrastructure (to Council standards), as part of the overall development, at the developers expense. b. That all Council costs associated with the sale of the land are at the expense of the proponent.

4. If Council approves the direct negotiation for the sale of land, a formal contract for sale will be developed and executed by the Mayor and CEO.

Disposal of Assets Policy 1.1.12

Sale Considerations

The Disposal of Assets Policy requires the consideration of the following list, to determine whether to dispose of Council land: 3.2.1 usefulness of the Land or Asset 3.2.2 the current market value of the Land or Asset 3.2.3 the annual cost of maintenance 3.2.4 any alternative future use of the Land or Asset 3.2.5 any duplication of the Land or Asset or the service provided by the Land or Asset 3.2.6 any impact the disposal of the Land or Asset may have on the community 3.2.7 any cultural or historical significance of the Land or Asset 3.2.8 the positive and negative impacts the disposal of the Land or Asset may have on the operations of the Council 3.2.9 the long term plans and strategic direction of the Council 3.2.10 the remaining useful life, particularly of an Asset 3.2.11 a benefit and risk analysis of the proposed disposal 3.2.12 the results of any community consultation process 3.2.13 any restrictions on the proposed disposal; 3.2.14 the content of any community land management plan 3.2.15 any other relevant policies of the Council

In relation to the list above, the land is currently vacant, and of no use to Council at present, nor can any future use be determined. If Council was to dispose of the land, it would allow a development to take place, which would provide accommodation for the community and contractors, and improve the value of the area.

The disposal of the land would have no impact on the operations of Council, as it is currently a vacant block with no maintenance requirements. However, it may increase the maintenance needs for Tiver Street. The land is not currently classified as community land, and therefore not covered by a Community Land Management Plan.

Sale of Land Process

The Disposal of Assets Policy allows for the Council to dispose of land via direct negotiation, as per clause 3.3.6 below. Given that Council can negotiate an appropriate market rate through the Unsolicited Proposal Process, there is limited gain to be made by listing the land on the open market.

3.3.6 d) direct negotiation - Council will consider the sale of land directly to an adjoining property owner, on a case by case basis. There must be evidence provided as to why the direct sale is more appropriate than going to the open market.

A direct negotiation is appropriate when considering the items in clause 3.3.7 below. There is currently one interested party, who has identified an appropriate future use for the site, which will promote local economic development and growth. The disposal is relatively low value and consistent with statutory obligations.

4 3.3.7 Selection of a suitable disposal method will include consideration of: a) the number of known potential purchasers of the Land b) the original intention for the use of the Land c) the current and possible preferred future use of the Land d) the opportunity to promote local economic growth and development e) delegation limits, taking into consideration accountability, responsibility, operation efficiency and urgency of the disposal f) the total estimated value of the disposal g) compliance with statutory and other obligations.

Land Valuation

3.3.9 Unless the Council resolves otherwise, one independent valuation must be obtained to establish the reserve price for the Land, no more than 6 months prior to the proposed disposal.

3.3.10 The Council will seek to dispose of Land at or above current market rate/value by whichever method is likely to provide the Council with a maximum return.

An independent valuation has been obtained to determine an appropriate sale price. The current valuation from the State Valuer General sets the land value at $56,000. An independent Real Estate Agent was also approached and provided a valuation of between $45,000 and $50,000.

Options for Council

• Decline unsolicited proposal – no further action

Council takes no further action in relation to the unsolicited proposal, and declines the proposal submitted by Mr Hinds.

OR/

• Decline unsolicited proposal – sell land by alternate means

Council: 1. Declines the proposal submitted by Mr Hinds. 2. Proceeds with the sale of the land (Lot 6-7 DP 1118 CT 5990/930) by public auction. 3. Delegates power to the CEO to complete the sale of land process.

OR/

• Accept unsolicited proposal

Council: 2. Accepts the unsolicited proposal submitted by Mr Hinds. 3. Proceeds with the sale of the land (Lot 6-7 DP 1118 CT 5990/930) by direct negotiation with Mr Hinds. 4. Delegates power to the CEO to complete the sale of land process. 5. The following conditions must be included within the sale of land contract: a. The purchaser is required to construct driveway, footpath and road infrastructure (to Council standards), as part of the overall development, at the developers expense. b. The purchaser is responsible for payment of all Council costs associated with the sale of the land.

5 CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS

The Unsolicited Proposal Application has not been attached to this report, as it contains personal information in relation to the Proponent. All the relevant details of the proposal have been included within the discussion section of this report.

RISK MANAGEMENT

1: Financial/Budget/Asset Management

If this development is proceeds as outlined, it will create an additional 5-6 properties, and Council will gain the benefit of additional rate income.

The sale proceeds would be used for debt reduction purposes, in accordance with the Disposal of Assets Policy.

2: Legal/Policy

In accordance with section 49 of the Local Government Act, Council must ensure that the disposal of land and assets in undertaken in a fair, transparent and accountable manner. Council must also record reasons for utilising a specific disposal method and where it uses a disposal method other than a tendering process.

This report outlines the relevant processes and considerations under the following Council policies: Unsolicited Proposal Policy 2.3.14 Disposal of Assets Policy 1.1.12

3: Environment/Planning

The proponent has been advised that any development on the site will be subject to the necessary development approvals, including referral to the Coastal Protection Board, as a result of the location of the land.

4: Community 4.1 General This proposal is being considered by Council outside of confidential provisions to ensure transparency in relation to this potential transaction.

4.2 Aboriginal Community Consultation As above.

Melissa Kretschmer 16/03/2020

REPORT FOR: Council

MEETING DATE: 24 March 2020

REPORT FROM: Director City Services

REPORT TITLE: SA Water Pipeline Artwork – Budget Variation

FILE NAME: F18/43 RECORD NO: AR20/1663

COMMUNITY VISION & STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES 3 We Connect 3.2 Walk and work together in unity with our Aboriginal communities.

5 We Celebrate 5.2 Work with the diverse Aboriginal communities living in and visiting our City to celebrate their contributions and their relationships with land and sea. 5.3 Celebrate together through a lively program of events, arts and activities.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to advise Council that an agreement is being negotiated with SA Water to provide public art on a portion of the SA Water Pipeline within Port Augusta, and request funding to support this initiative.

RECOMMENDATION

Council:

1. Endorses Council accepting the $10,000 grant, and participating in partnership with SA Water on the SA Water Pipeline Artwork project.

2. Approves the allocation of Council funding of up to $10,000 to cover the cost of traffic management and site security at the Southern Entrance Highway site, and to provide additional materials to increase the scope of the project.

3. Approves a budget variation of $10,000 from City Management (Other City Management Projects) to Yarta Purtli Cultural Centre (Artist Reimbursements).

BACKGROUND

Elected Members have previously enquired as to whether it would be possible for the SA Water Pipeline within Port Augusta to be painted with artwork, as has occurred in other locations, including Port Lincoln.

DISCUSSION

Council’s Aboriginal Arts and Cultural Facilitator made contact with other Councils and SA Water in 2019 in relation to the previous projects that had been undertaken. Other projects have resulted from funding available within the SA Water Reconciliation Plan. Options for a similar project within Port Augusta were investigated including meeting with Local Aboriginal Artists and on site meetings with SA Water representatives in October 2019. 2 SA Water looked into suitable locations within the Port Augusta area, including the southern entrance pipeline, and pipeline sections in Port Augusta West. In selecting a suitable portion of pipeline, the location, speed limit, suitable parking and pedestrian access were all considered. SA Water provided Council with a proposal to create an artwork of approximately 5-10 metres in length, on a section of pipeline below Rotary Park on Caroona Road.

Council and the Aboriginal Community would prefer to have the artwork in a more visible location. As such, Council has undertaken further negotiations with SA Water in relation to the pipeline at the Cities southern entrance. In order to secure a more prominent site for the art work, Council has agreed to liaise with DPTI, and arrange for appropriate traffic management and site security. Additional funding will be required from Council to allow the project to proceed at this site. Additional funds for material will also enable the artwork to be done over a greater length of pipeline, again enhancing the impact of the artwork.

Council’s Aboriginal Arts and Cultural Facilitator will coordinate this project and liaise with local artists, with the project to be funded with a $10,000 grant from SA Water. SA Water are seeking to have this project completed in time for Reconciliation Week 2020 (27 May – 3 June 2020). The $10,000 grant will allow for up to 10 meters of pipeline to be painted. Additional Council funds for materials will also enable the artwork to be done over a greater length of pipeline, again enhancing the impact of the artwork.

A funding agreement is currently being finalised with SA Water to allow the project to proceed.

Options for Council’s consideration

• Accept the SA Water Grant

Council:

1. Endorses Council accepting the $10,000 grant, and participating in partnership with SA Water on the SA Water Pipeline Artwork project.

2. Declines to provide any addition financial support, noting that this will require the project to be delivered at the Caroona Road site.

OR/

• Accept the SA Water Grant and provide additional funding

Council:

1. Endorses Council accepting the $10,000 grant, and participating in partnership with SA Water on the SA Water Pipeline Artwork project.

3. Approves a budget variation of $10,000 from City Management (Other City Management Projects) to Yarta Purtli Cultural Centre (Artist Reimbursements).

OR/

• Decline the SA Water Grant

Council:

1. Declines the $10,000 grant from SA Water for the Pipeline Artwork project.

2. Notes that the project will not likely be delivered within Port Augusta. 3

CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS Not applicable.

RISK MANAGEMENT

1: Financial/Budget/Asset Management

SA Water is providing a grant of $10,000 for the engagement of local aboriginal artists, and will coordinate the construction and installation of interpretive signage.

It is possible for Council to approve a budget variation of $10,000 from City Management (Other City Management Projects) to Yarta Purtli Cultural Centre (Artist Reinbursements) for the SA Water Pipeline Artwork Project.

2: Legal/Policy Not applicable

3: Environment/Planning SA Water will coordinate planning approvals for the interpretive signage.

4: Community 4.1 General Public Artwork is of benefit to the community, providing enhanced amenity.

4.2 Aboriginal Community Consultation This artwork is part of the SA Water Reconciliation Action Plan.

Melissa Kretschmer 16/03/2020

SA Water Proposed Location - Caroona Road. Completed Project at Port Lincoln.

Council’s proposed location at the Southern Highway entrance.

REPORT FOR: Council

MEETING DATE: 24 March 2020

REPORT FROM: Director City Services

REPORT TITLE: Eastside Mill Jetty Timbers Repurposing – Budget Variation

FILE NAME: F19/736 RECORD NO: AR20/11949

COMMUNITY VISION & STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES 3 We Connect 3.3 Provide infrastructure and resources that promote a healthy environment and improve social development. 4 We Care 4.3 Value, protect and enhance the quality of our natural and built environment. 4.5 Our cultural and built heritage is recognised, conserved and promoted as a key contributor to our identity.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to obtain funding for the completion of the Port Augusta Eastside Mill Jetty Timbers Repurposing Project.

RECOMMENDATION

Council approves a budget variation of $15,000 from City Management (Other City Management Projects) to Yarta Purtli Cultural Centre (Artist Reinbursements) for the Eastside Mill Jetty Timbers Repurposing Project.

BACKGROUND

Council resolved on 28 March 2018 to commission a tender process for the demolition of the Eastside Mill Jetty, with approval for the relocation and storage of jetty timbers to enable re-purposing of the timber. A Jetty Timber Reference Group was formed in 2019 to gather ideas of how the jetty timbers could be re-purposed and then consulted with the community via a survey.

On 28 January 2020, Council resolved: 1. The Eastside Mill Jetty Timbers are used as a backdrop for location naming in Council’s open spaces. 2. The Eastside Mill Jetty Timbers are used as a structure to support historical signage detailling the timeline of the history of the Old Mill Jetty. 3. Following the completion of the above projects, any remaining timber be donated to the Men’s Shed, so that its use can be maximised within the Port Augusta Community. 4. A further report be submitted to Council to allocate appropriate funding, once detailled project costings are available.

DISCUSSION

The Survey for Timber Repurposing resulted in the top two options being the Jetty Timber to be used as a backdrop for naming of space in Council’s open spaces and as the timeline of the history of the jetty on the Old Mill Jetty Platform Eastside Foreshore. 2

In order to progress this project, a budget allocation needs to be made. Council staff have liaised with Local contractors in relation to the two preferred options from the survey, to provide pricing for the projects. The quote for the naming of public spaces is $8,950 (excluding GST). The quote for the Historical Signage is estimated at $6,000 (excluding GST).

Options for Council Consideration

• Council approves a budget variation of $15,000 from City Management (Other City Management Projects) to Yarta Purtli Cultural Centre (Artist Reinbursements) for the Eastside Mill Jetty Timbers Repurposing Project.

OR/

• Council allocates a budget of $15,000 in the 2020/2021 annual budget for the Eastside Mill Jetty Timbers Repurposing Project.

CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS Not applicable.

RISK MANAGEMENT

1: Financial/Budget/Asset Management There is no budget allocation for the Jetty Timber repurposing project. Quotes for these works have been obtained, and a budget allocation of $15,000 is required to complete the project. It is possible for Council to approve a budget variation of $15,000 from City Management (Other City Management Projects) to Yarta Purtli Cultural Centre (Artist Reinbursements) for the Eastside Mill Jetty Timbers Repurposing Project.

2: Legal/Policy Not applicable.

3: Environment/Planning The installation of the timber will be subject to appropriate building and planning requirements.

4: Community 4.1 General The community has been engaged with a survey in relation to the future use of the Jetty Timbers.

4.2 Aboriginal Community Consultation As above.

MELISSA KRETSCHMER 16/03/2020